Solar farms and forced landings.

[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?

[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?

[Andrewgr2]

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.

[BFSGrad]

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.

[ShyTorque]

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?

[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.

[jumpseater]

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!

[what next]

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.

[SWBKCB]

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.

[visibility3miles]

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.

[Equivocal]

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!

[ShyTorque]

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!

[megan]

solar panels are made of glass and a solar farm is likely to be producing a considerable voltageAnd that's not to mention the substantial metal structure on which the panels are mounted.

[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.

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 ?

[ATC Watcher]

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 :E) https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/09/17/frances-second-largest-pv-plant-comes-online/

[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.

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.

[Sue Vêtements]

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

[Maoraigh1]

"Sure it was Eshott? I fly from there and don't know where you mean."
Google Earth.

[ATC Watcher]

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.

[Marly Lite]

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.