Effect of new wind farms on Low level flying
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Glasgow
Age: 32
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Effect of new wind farms on Low level flying
Hi,
I previously posted on here regarding my dissertation: looking at how wind farms are effecting aviation. I'm just looking for a bit more info from the Military side. I've got a lot of data back so far which seems to show wind farms are having an effect on the way in which G/A and some military operations are now run. I'm looking for a bit more information on how the erection of the farms and turbines has affected low level flying practises, if at all? Feel free to email me at : [email protected]
My online anoynmous survey can also be found online at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...JhUUE6MQ#gid=0
Thanks.
I previously posted on here regarding my dissertation: looking at how wind farms are effecting aviation. I'm just looking for a bit more info from the Military side. I've got a lot of data back so far which seems to show wind farms are having an effect on the way in which G/A and some military operations are now run. I'm looking for a bit more information on how the erection of the farms and turbines has affected low level flying practises, if at all? Feel free to email me at : [email protected]
My online anoynmous survey can also be found online at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...JhUUE6MQ#gid=0
Thanks.
Flyboy
The wind farms themselves aren't too annoying to be honest. They used to be handy for orienting you to your surroundings but now there's so many of them that they can't really be relied upon!
The worst thing is the bloody anemometer masts that spring up to research new sites. I'm not sure it'd be possible to accidentally fly into a 3-500' tall windmill but the skinny little whip aerials that they erect all over the place are damn near invisible. Even if they're marked on the map they often don't materialise until you're right on top of them.
BV
(Turning into a grumpy old man!)
The worst thing is the bloody anemometer masts that spring up to research new sites. I'm not sure it'd be possible to accidentally fly into a 3-500' tall windmill but the skinny little whip aerials that they erect all over the place are damn near invisible. Even if they're marked on the map they often don't materialise until you're right on top of them.
BV
(Turning into a grumpy old man!)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I concur with the comment about anemometer masts. They're often un-marked on the LFC, not NOTAM'd, and are nearly impossible to see until you're about a mile or so away (7-8 seconds).
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The windfarms are very annoying, especially when ATC keep giving you avoiding action against them when you are at 15,000 ft. Surely they can see the radar return is in exactly the same place as it has always been since the farm was erected, but they claim there could be a helicopter or something hiding in the clutter....http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/.../eusa_wall.gif
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
60024,
I completely agree however, the problem is that although you are fairly certain that you are looking at clutter, it is a pink body in the aircraft you are controlling and if the contact pops up within your vicinity, you are going to issue an avoiding action if providing a DS. The radar returns from wind farms are not permanent.
Bob Viking brings up the real issue. The erecting of these masts without proper markings is ridiculous.
I completely agree however, the problem is that although you are fairly certain that you are looking at clutter, it is a pink body in the aircraft you are controlling and if the contact pops up within your vicinity, you are going to issue an avoiding action if providing a DS. The radar returns from wind farms are not permanent.
Bob Viking brings up the real issue. The erecting of these masts without proper markings is ridiculous.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Effect of new wind farms on Low level flying
Have to agree with everyone here so far. The anemometer masts are an accident waiting to happen. Even in daylight when you know where to look, they are difficult to spot. At night in poor weather, you just need to stay get above them if you can.
All of the above assumes that these obstructions are are charted, and not all of them are. They seem to come and go on a daily basis. Sometimes you're looking for a mast that has been removed and not looking for one that has magically appeared.
Flying at low level is now really quite risky. In my opinion.
All of the above assumes that these obstructions are are charted, and not all of them are. They seem to come and go on a daily basis. Sometimes you're looking for a mast that has been removed and not looking for one that has magically appeared.
Flying at low level is now really quite risky. In my opinion.
I live near the junction of the M1/M6 and A14 - no not Watford Gap Services!! There are very many wind farms and ongoing projects for both single and multiple turbines, the largest being two projects of six and five but in adjoining fields. I find them intrusive and visually so from a great distance. It also irritates me greatly when the blades are still after all that money - mostly our money - has been poured into their construction.
The most recent project, which was exceptionally well documented by the applicant's agent, contained various comments about the MOD not being able to comment on safety issues at the application stage and various other public'government bodies also being reluctant to offer an opinion.
I got on my high horse at this point and my principal written objection was that without an aviation safety case the project should not be approved and if it was and there was an accident, I reserved the right to institute legal proceedings against named individuals for negligence and corporate proceedings against the developers and their agents. I then submitted a detailed assessment of the risks, as I saw them, to various bits of civil and military aviation which operated in the area. This assessment identified the risks and the consequences and I subsequently reinforced my objection following the recent accident in London.
I doubt anybody will take notice.
Old Duffer
The most recent project, which was exceptionally well documented by the applicant's agent, contained various comments about the MOD not being able to comment on safety issues at the application stage and various other public'government bodies also being reluctant to offer an opinion.
I got on my high horse at this point and my principal written objection was that without an aviation safety case the project should not be approved and if it was and there was an accident, I reserved the right to institute legal proceedings against named individuals for negligence and corporate proceedings against the developers and their agents. I then submitted a detailed assessment of the risks, as I saw them, to various bits of civil and military aviation which operated in the area. This assessment identified the risks and the consequences and I subsequently reinforced my objection following the recent accident in London.
I doubt anybody will take notice.
Old Duffer
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not able to comment on safety issues at the application stage? I can only presume that the MoD take that particular tack on grounds of cost. I am a safety engineer by profession, and looking at conceptual designs at an early stage is a major part of my job. By the time you have got a firm design, it will cost a great deal of money to change it. Far better and cheaper to look at things at the "fag packet" stage...major issues may already be apparent and will cost peanuts to put right.
On reflection, the MoD wouldn't worry too much about that aspect...the money to put a flawed design right wouldn't come out of their pockets, would it?
On reflection, the MoD wouldn't worry too much about that aspect...the money to put a flawed design right wouldn't come out of their pockets, would it?
Regretfully these 'skinny little whip aerials' are not considered an Air Navigation Obstruction unless they exceed 300ft agl, but if they're not close to a windfarm, I believe they should be marked in some way. Strobe lights as per Crystal Palace would provide day/night visibility.
Used to live in the South East Scottish Borders, loads of low flying there.
Locals used to howl about it.
When the windfarms started to spring up, the selfsame locals used the argument against the instalations,they would be danger to the low flying aircraft
Locals used to howl about it.
When the windfarms started to spring up, the selfsame locals used the argument against the instalations,they would be danger to the low flying aircraft
Honister Zip wire
On a similar note, I see Honister Slate mine are appealing on the decision not to grant permission for the proposed Zip wire.
BBC News - Sir Chris Bonington resigns over zip wire rejection
If this were to be built, what would the effect be on low flying in this area?
BBC News - Sir Chris Bonington resigns over zip wire rejection
If this were to be built, what would the effect be on low flying in this area?
Last edited by Rovertime; 22nd Feb 2013 at 16:33.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
have the marine wind farms had any noticeable effect? Everyone seems to talk about the land sited ones, but the marine ones hardly get a mention.
For instance, do the Cumbria / Lancashire ones potentially hinder operations?
For instance, do the Cumbria / Lancashire ones potentially hinder operations?
I think I have the answer to the problem of sporadic anemometers on thin little aerials. The helo boys cracked the problem of steel cables years ago:
Mount a larger version horizonally on the nose and, not only will you protect your airframe, you'll also remove the hazard to aviation.
Mount a larger version horizonally on the nose and, not only will you protect your airframe, you'll also remove the hazard to aviation.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 25th Feb 2013 at 15:35. Reason: Delete over-sized picture
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Across the Channel they are a huge annoyance and an increasing risk to flight safety even apart from fake radar echoes.
Thinking about low cloud, low vis and SAR jobs, flying around under 500´is becoming increasingly dangerous, at night it´s a big no-go.
Sometimes even 700´ are not enough to avoid those huge rotor blades.
Quite a few of those parks are not in the charts because they spring up so quickly that no amendment can keep up with them.
And now add the odd operator that does build them to a height of 1 foot below the minimum height for publication in the charts and things get really interesting.
Also there might even be wind parks near airfields.
Of course that has nothing to do with the fact that some former station COs are holding functions in the communities that get funding for those projects...
Tom
Thinking about low cloud, low vis and SAR jobs, flying around under 500´is becoming increasingly dangerous, at night it´s a big no-go.
Sometimes even 700´ are not enough to avoid those huge rotor blades.
Quite a few of those parks are not in the charts because they spring up so quickly that no amendment can keep up with them.
And now add the odd operator that does build them to a height of 1 foot below the minimum height for publication in the charts and things get really interesting.
Also there might even be wind parks near airfields.
Of course that has nothing to do with the fact that some former station COs are holding functions in the communities that get funding for those projects...
Tom
Late last year, DG MAA was tasked with seeking legislation to control the erection, lighting and charting of low flying obstacles below the current cut-off of 300' (primarily as a result of the anemometer mast issue but applicable to other structures as well). I don't know how far he has got with it, but it is clearly accepted as an issue by the 'head shed' in military aviation safety. I presume that his line of attack is to get CAA buy-in and then press the government for an amendment to the ANO. We'll see...
Last edited by Easy Street; 22nd Feb 2013 at 19:37.
