LBA and Windfarms

[qcode]

I have seen on the internet that LBA have been opposing the erection of some windfarms outside cas to the north of the airfield due to safety issues. Can anyone show any reasons why thes cannot be erected as there are loads of windfarms to the west of the airport and some more near skipton.

[holyflurkingschmitt]

According to local news Leeds have said it affects there radar coverage and could effect flight safety, if it does then they shouldn't be erected.

HFS

[stillin1]

Ask LBA......................................

[YYZ]

There is high ground to the north along the glide slope, this could also be a reason, should they be placed there?

YYZ

[Pierre Argh]

The windfarm turbines appear on radar, breaking through the filters that remove normally static ground clutter... the fact they are constant contacts reduces the strength of a radar return from an aircraft in the "shadow area" behind the turbines... weak return, less likely to see conflicting traffic, increased risk of collision. Hence the planning objection? It is believed to help if the windfarm is not located in line-of-sight of radar the aerial.

[Lost_luggage34]

Interesting paper on Wind Turbines and their effects on Radar here ;


Wind Turbines & Radar (http://www.bwea.com/aviation/Wind-Turbines-and-Radar-Operational-Experience-and-Mitigation-Measures.pdf)


(May have been posted here before, by someone else or even me).

[qcode]

from what I have read they are 360 feet agl, no a/c ifr or vfr should be that low. if they are vfr then they would break the low flying rule, and ifr would not be descended anywhere near to them. the radar returns would show up the same as the wind farm west of the airfield which poses no threat. i have seen the radar which lba use and there are more threats due to unidentified moving returns both within and outside cas that should be addressed. if there is a static object in place showing a primary return and you know what it is then no problem just avoid. any doubts then really avoid. from what i have read the farms will be built and lba will have wasted money trying to stop them. pity they couldn't have used the money for something else.

[ILS 119.5]

I agree they do not pose any problem. If I was flying in and staying within CAS then no problem. If I was outside CAS under a RAS which is the minimum I could accept then no problem, as I would not be descended any lower than the lowest level for the RAS to be provided. If I was VFR then it is my problem nothing to do with ATC or the airport. So in the end no problem at all.

[Pierre Argh]

qcode

Although the clutter from the windfarm itself is problematic the radar return problem comes not from the permanent echoes that the turbines generate (there are filters that can minimise or their effect), but rather from the weakened returns in the "shadow" beyond these echoes. A farm of up to 20 turbines would, it is believed, absorb significant amount of radar energy, with the consequence that radar fidelity beyond the turbines out to the edge of cover would be compromised... In much the same way an aircraft passing between another aircraft and the radar aerial will stop the outgoing pulse from reaching the further aircraft, but the time when both aircraft and aerial are aligned is minimal. Not the case with a permanent echo... hence the concern?

The CAA and Flight Precision Ltd (the principle "Flight Checkers" in the UK) are conducting trials to see how much effect this actually has. It is a relatively newly recognised problem... hence the existing windfarm which may already have been in place.

All ATSUs are required by Law to have a Safety Management System that is to examine any such proposal or change, and act if there is a possibility of accident or incident. Agreeing to the positioning of further windfarms without question would probably, therefore, be neglectful?

[Red Four]

It is a commonly held belief that if there is already one wind-farm in an area, it is therefore OK to stuff a load more in that area. However, as well as the problems already mentioned, the problems from multipath interferences caused by signals reflected from rotors on the same farm, as well as on neighbouring farms, often give rise to the impression of a moving (albeit fleeting) target on ATC radars, that would present itself as indistinguishable from 'pop-up' traffic.

When another farm is added in the same area, the possibilities of such unpredictable multipath returns can increase dramatically, causing a real problem for ATC radars for what might hitherto have been a manageable problem. Before you know it what was once a nice clean picture has been degraded significantly into a mess of spurious ephemeral and semi-permanent returns, which can be indistinguishable from aircraft.

Despite all the funding into studies to overcome these problems, to my knowledge nothing has yet been guaranteed to remove all of the problems; until such time a a technical solution is developed then ATC units should continue to remain extremely cautious of any proposed development.

Wind farm developers (with multi-million pound budgets) are required to consult if within 25km of an airport with radar. However, just because there has been consultation, does not mean that the very powerful, Government backed, wind power industry actually takes any notice of legitimate safety concerns of airports/ATC units.

You are unfortunate if your airport is either:
1) in a hilly area,
2) a coastal area,
3) an area away from MOD radar units (whose veto usually knocks a wind farm proposal on the head in the way that a civil airport ought to be able to)
as your airport will tend to receive a higher proportion of proposals. I have heard that each county council has been given quotas that they have to acheive towards providing a certain percentage of renewable energy, and that this has to be sited in their county, no matter how unsuitable that county may be for wind farm stationing.

This means that some airports are receiving many more such windfarm proposals than other airports, and having to make the resources available for assessing such proposals. (It was with good reason that the CAA dispensed with airport safeguarding and that airports now have to bear this cost on their own!)

4

[Cuddles]

MATS 1:-

in particular a radar service should be limited:

when operating within 10 miles of ...

permanent echoes.

You'll not get a RAS anywhere near them, at least not a full one.

[NorthSouth]

a radar service should be limited:when operating within 10 miles of...permanent echoesIf controllers followed that advice there'd be virtually nowhere in the country with a full RAS.

NS

[ILS 119.5]

do not forget MATS PT 1 is only advisory it is not the law

[Pierre Argh]

Notwithstanding comments above about "radar shadow"... Near my airfield there are several windfarms, and three show on our radar. One of these is located about 1-2 nms N of a private landing strip... and the returns from the turbines break through the MTI circuitry (i.e they show all the time)... snag is, when I'm vectoring traffic near these returns (not always possible to avoid) under RAS I have to be alert for a pop-up return from an aircraft departing this strip, which I may not spot immediately. SOP is to limit the service (which nicely covers the legalities?) but, frankly, this does little to prevent the increased possibility of incident.

PS... we object to EVERY new proposal (are you surprised?)