Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Accidents and Close Calls
Reload this Page >

Solar farms and forced landings.

Wikiposts
Search
Accidents and Close Calls Discussion on accidents, close calls, and other unplanned aviation events, so we can learn from them, and be better pilots ourselves.

Solar farms and forced landings.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 4th Nov 2023, 13:39
  #1 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 422 Likes on 222 Posts
Solar farms and forced landings.

Having seen the steady increase in the number of large solar farms, has any aviation authority considered the safety implications of an aircraft landing in one?
ShyTorque is online now  
Old 4th Nov 2023, 14:41
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Central UK
Posts: 1,636
Received 136 Likes on 65 Posts
Aren't the safety implication of such a foolish move not obvious enough to pilots themselves? Even the dimmest know not to try to land on cities, forests, factories, car parks etc, isn't this exactly the same?
Surely we don't need to be told that by the CAA?
meleagertoo is online now  
Old 4th Nov 2023, 14:53
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Only occasionally above FL50
Age: 71
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by meleagertoo
Aren't the safety implication of such a foolish move not obvious enough to pilots themselves? Even the dimmest know not to try to land on cities, forests, factories, car parks etc, isn't this exactly the same?
Surely we don't need to be told that by the CAA?
But one could consider how sensible it is to build solar farms on the disused ends of active runways as has been done at Turweston for example.
Andrewgr2 is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2023, 15:15
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 20 Likes on 13 Posts
Who’s got time to be sensible when the planet MUST be saved!

Recent Fedex 757 gear up landing at Chattanooga ended up adjacent to a solar farm located about 400 ft to the west of the main runway.

Dominion Energy just started construction of an 835 acre solar farm on the property of Dulles Airport to be located off the departure end of runway 30.

As to the comment of why a pilot would be foolish enough to land in a solar farm, on occasion aircraft end up in locations not consistent with the pilot’s preference.
BFSGrad is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2023, 15:34
  #5 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 422 Likes on 222 Posts
Originally Posted by meleagertoo
Aren't the safety implication of such a foolish move not obvious enough to pilots themselves? Even the dimmest know not to try to land on cities, forests, factories, car parks etc, isn't this exactly the same?
Surely we don't need to be told that by the CAA?
You can see in the dark?
ShyTorque is online now  
Old 4th Nov 2023, 19:23
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Moray,Scotland,U.K.
Posts: 1,778
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Eshott has solar panels at the end of a disused runway. I mistook that runway for the one in use. Thought the panels were the smoother part of the runway mentioned. Has to do a late go-around.
First visit, low December sun, no DI and wobbling compass. Last flight in Jodel DR1050, first visit to Eshott.
Maoraigh1 is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2023, 19:36
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: the dark side
Posts: 1,112
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
Having seen the steady increase in the number of large solar farms, has any aviation authority considered the safety implications of an aircraft landing in one?
I doubt it.

At a location you and I are familiar with there was a proposal to install some on site, outside the operating fence line. As they would have been compliant with obstacle clearance height, that was sufficient. As far as I’m aware no consideration was given to them being frangible. As that was ‘on’ an active airfield and thought acceptable, I suspect we’d be lucky to even get an advice notice suggesting not landing in one!
jumpseater is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2023, 20:12
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
You can see in the dark?
AFAIK there has not been a forced landing, day or night, in a solar farm yet. Personally, for myself, I would prefer the solar farm over a suburb, quarry or forest any time.
what next is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2023, 20:29
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 8,578
Received 94 Likes on 64 Posts
Originally Posted by Maoraigh1
Eshott has solar panels at the end of a disused runway. I mistook that runway for the one in use. Thought the panels were the smoother part of the runway mentioned. Has to do a late go-around.
First visit, low December sun, no DI and wobbling compass. Last flight in Jodel DR1050, first visit to Eshott.
Sure it was Eshott? I fly from there and don't know where you mean.
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 4th Nov 2023, 20:58
  #10 (permalink)  
See and avoid
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 690
Received 37 Likes on 21 Posts
The US legal system presumes that the pilot is responsible for the safe operation of their aircraft rather than putting the burden on the owner of the land which the pilots fly over because the land owners and residents have zero opportunity to get out of the way in case of an aviation accident.

It’s similar to a car plowing into pedestrians on a sidewalk. The pedestrians have a right to be there. The car driver doesn't.

If you think your landing zone isn’t big enough, buy the property on either end of the runway.

Small airports get closed and sold all the time because their real estate is worth more as a housing development than as an airfield.
visibility3miles is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2023, 22:28
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Home
Posts: 117
Received 28 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by jumpseater
As they would have been compliant with obstacle clearance height, that was sufficient. As far as I’m aware no consideration was given to them being frangible.
This whole question highlights the difference between meeting the minimum standards and assuring safety to a reasonable/acceptable degree. Just as being below the obstacle limitation surfaces means it meets the standards to put something on the ground, if it is outside the runway strip there's no standard that requires it to be mounted on frangible mounts. However, there are standards about safety management which require an assessment of whatever it may be from the perspective of aviation safety. If solar farms, or anything else, is installed within the area controlled by the aerodrome without an assessment and necessary mitigations taken, then the aerodrome is not meeting its obligations under international conventions....and the regulatory agencies are not meeting theirs.

Or as a very wise man explained to me very early on in my career, there's doing something that meets the standards, and then there's doing something that's safe. The two are sometimes worlds apart!
Equivocal is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2023, 00:41
  #12 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 422 Likes on 222 Posts
Originally Posted by what next
AFAIK there has not been a forced landing, day or night, in a solar farm yet. Personally, for myself, I would prefer the solar farm over a suburb, quarry or forest any time.
I’d prefer not to land in any of them. Each of them have their own particular hazard; solar panels are made of glass and a solar farm is likely to be producing a considerable voltage. Obviously the latter wouldn’t be so much of a problem in the dark!
ShyTorque is online now  
Old 5th Nov 2023, 01:36
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 5,947
Received 394 Likes on 209 Posts
solar panels are made of glass and a solar farm is likely to be producing a considerable voltage
And that's not to mention the substantial metal structure on which the panels are mounted.
megan is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2023, 09:00
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,495
Received 106 Likes on 64 Posts
I don't think this is going to fly, pardon the pun. The planet desperately needs non-carbon energy sources and solar farms are going to be built in fields It is better to have a field full of solar panels than beef cattle, from a climate point of view.

Ss far as not being able to see solar panels in the dark, I would imagine that there would be a good chance of noticing a field full of solar panels in ambient low light, whereas the 11kV electricity lines - the 3 wire ones on telegraph poles that go across fields - would be much harder to see and more of a hazard for night landings I would think ?
Uplinker is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2023, 09:53
  #15 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The future

Well , i think we are going to live with solar panels filling empty spaces in airports in the future .
Lots of them starting in France anf Germany . The worse I have seen so far is Marville ( former Canadian airbase for those here old enough to remember it )I landed there 2 years ago ( it is PPR and you can understand why ) https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/09/...-comes-online/
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2023, 14:27
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 20 Likes on 13 Posts
First time a landing overrun or RTO ends ends up in a solar farm, some useful reflection will occur (Is there a pun there?). Imagine a passenger evacuation or ARFF access for an airliner in the middle of a solar farm.

As for the forced landing off-airport in a solar farm, that would be very low on my list of acceptable forced landing sites. Any moderately level agricultural or forested area would be preferable. Even water would be preferable.
BFSGrad is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2023, 17:20
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 477
Received 312 Likes on 146 Posts
This is just the weirdest thread. It's like people commentating on it think that next to an airport there's only Solar Farms or huge expanses of level open countryside

...or if not open countryside , then a few obstacles, but all inflatable or with the ability to fold flat to the ground like the palm trees on Tracy Island


Sue Vêtements is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2023, 20:20
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Moray,Scotland,U.K.
Posts: 1,778
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
"Sure it was Eshott? I fly from there and don't know where you mean."
Google Earth.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
EshottSolar.jpg (331.4 KB, 82 views)
Maoraigh1 is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2023, 16:48
  #19 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BFSGrad
First time a landing overrun or RTO ends ends up in a solar farm, some useful reflection will occur (Is there a pun there?). Imagine a passenger evacuation or ARFF access for an airliner in the middle of a solar farm.
.
The answer of the authorities will give is that an airport is basically not designed for overruns. Think Madeira , Bali, or SFO for instance. Is a pile of rocks at the end better than solar panels ?
For those old enough to remember the Swissair DC8 in Athens.in 1979 , the crew was even arrested and sentenced to 5 years in jail for an overrun.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2023, 18:29
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oop North
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 23 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Uplinker
I don't think this is going to fly, pardon the pun. The planet desperately needs non-carbon energy sources and solar farms are going to be built in fields It is better to have a field full of solar panels than beef cattle, from a climate point of view.
Except that the Beef, once locally produced, now has to be imported. But of course, the increase in carbon output required to do so goes onto another country’s budget. Hey presto, one step closer to carbon neutral. What a scam.
Marly Lite is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.