Originally Posted by
jonkster
That report concludes
He was scud running in a vintage Cessna 140 that he had purchased that very day. It was not IFR equipped (I doubt many C140s would be). Sweet little aeroplane but not much in the performance or equipment stakes. Full fuel and one average size bloke and you would be pushing MTOW.
The conditions at the crash site were listed as "Instrument" with a cloud base between 400-600' AGL and under that vis 1.5 to 2.5 miles in mist (assuming statue miles so varying between ~2500-4000m). Wind speed 6 kts.
The towers were 400' AGL. It sure sounds like he was trying to avoid hitting the towers by climbing and lost visual reference - the base was 400-600' and he was tracked doing a lazy eight at between 800 and 1500'. Sounds like a classic loss of control in IMC.
Poor bastard. No matter how many hours he had, he was in deep pooh. Really sad but how many times has this happened - VFR aircraft entering cloud and soon after hitting the ground at high speed?
Which is my point - put 500' towers really near an airfield and you make the site more hazardous in poor vis/bad wx. I still am not convinced turbulence is the major issue (providing you stay a few hundred metres away) but like I said - happy to be shown wrong. Surely if it is an issue it we would have some concrete evidence by now? Most of the aviation studies on it date from more than 10 years ago and even then are vague.
The real issue (and where all the "empirical" evidence points - ie actual aircraft loss) seems to be the collision risk.
Twenty one thousand hours !
A 21,000 hours airline and helicopter pilot and you think it compares to a new chum 200 hour scud runner. Yer don't get to 21,000 hours by being a bold pilot.
In 21,000 hours that pilot would have been well exposed to all sorts of wx. One thing he probably had no experience of is turbulence down wind of wind turbines.
Re the accident report comments: As there has been next to no real world research done on the subject the accident investigators have no real wind turbine turbulence research to include as a possibility in any accident report.
This lack of research is reflected in the UK experience:
"...Small planes along with helicopters, gliders, microlights and other hobbyists make up the biggest user group of the UK airspace in terms of low level flying and contribute some £3billion to the economy supporting close to 40,000 jobs.
Member organisations admit the fast-growing renewables sector has created some “fairly significant” issues which they have fought hard to resolve.
Their main concerns relate to downwind turbulence from the turbine blades plus problems with visibility especially in poor conditions..."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/60...farms-flourish
Of interest:
As Warren Buffet said in 2014, ….“…we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them”. Wind Energy is the biggest crony capitalism scam in our lifetime. ...Look at wind turbines for what they are: “Subsidy meters”.
http://www.windaction.org/posts/4759...y#.Wined9R_WfB
.