Proposed wind farm impacts Cobden ALA future
Way off topic, but under the tail of that plane is the viewing area for the GGB. One of the most popular tourist sites in the Hew Hess Hay, squillions of people every year go there.
There is only one "piddly" toilet block to service the site, and the queues are often 50 long to get into the ladies. The nearest other loo is 3km away. Good planning, not.
There is only one "piddly" toilet block to service the site, and the queues are often 50 long to get into the ladies. The nearest other loo is 3km away. Good planning, not.
I did a quick search - it appears all were collisions either with the turbine towers or with associated wind measuring towers.
WindAction | Wind Energy and Aviation Safety, Fatalities
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33...INAL%20Feb.pdf
the CAP states:
so anecdotal reports and with a wide variety of views about the significance.
That document was published in 2006 and is still the only thing the CAA put out about wind turbines (and the UK has a lot of them in a much smaller area than here). Since then the CAA has not updated it. If they were receiving actual incident reports of dangerous wake turbulence, surely they would update it with better recommendations?
I am not seeing why having the same rotor dimension as a 747 winspan means it would generate the same wake turbulence.
Wake turbulence will vary with amount of lift produced and aspect ratio.
The 747 wing generates lift of the order of 450,000 kg. That is way, way beyond what a turbine pumping out a measly 3MW would be generating.
A 747 wing has a considerably lower aspect ratio and higher wing loading than a turbine's blades.
This aircraft has a longer wingspan than a 747 - would you say it would generate the same wake turbulence as a 747?...
WindAction | Wind Energy and Aviation Safety, Fatalities
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33...INAL%20Feb.pdf
the CAP states:
so anecdotal reports and with a wide variety of views about the significance.
That document was published in 2006 and is still the only thing the CAA put out about wind turbines (and the UK has a lot of them in a much smaller area than here). Since then the CAA has not updated it. If they were receiving actual incident reports of dangerous wake turbulence, surely they would update it with better recommendations?
I am not seeing why having the same rotor dimension as a 747 winspan means it would generate the same wake turbulence.
Wake turbulence will vary with amount of lift produced and aspect ratio.
The 747 wing generates lift of the order of 450,000 kg. That is way, way beyond what a turbine pumping out a measly 3MW would be generating.
A 747 wing has a considerably lower aspect ratio and higher wing loading than a turbine's blades.
This aircraft has a longer wingspan than a 747 - would you say it would generate the same wake turbulence as a 747?...
Of interest from the link you supplied we have this fatality of a 21,000 hour pilot:
"...Track data for the accident flight indicated that the airplane was flying between 300 and 600 feet above ground level (agl) when it encountered a wind farm with several 400-foot-tall wind turbines. The data showed that the airplane made a 90-degree course change, which was followed by a figure-8 turn at varying altitudes between 800 and 1,500 feet agl..."
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...ry&IType=LA%20.
.
Of interest from the link you supplied we have this fatality of a 21,000 hour pilot:
"...Track data for the accident flight indicated that the airplane was flying between 300 and 600 feet above ground level (agl) when it encountered a wind farm with several 400-foot-tall wind turbines. The data showed that the airplane made a 90-degree course change, which was followed by a figure-8 turn at varying altitudes between 800 and 1,500 feet agl..."
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...ry&IType=LA%20.
.
"...Track data for the accident flight indicated that the airplane was flying between 300 and 600 feet above ground level (agl) when it encountered a wind farm with several 400-foot-tall wind turbines. The data showed that the airplane made a 90-degree course change, which was followed by a figure-8 turn at varying altitudes between 800 and 1,500 feet agl..."
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...ry&IType=LA%20.
.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The pilot's continued visual flight into an area of known instrument meteorological conditions in an airplane not equipped for instrument flight, and his failure to maintain control of the airplane while maneuvering at low altitude.
The pilot's continued visual flight into an area of known instrument meteorological conditions in an airplane not equipped for instrument flight, and his failure to maintain control of the airplane while maneuvering at low altitude.
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.
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.
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.
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
.
Those pix are of fog, and fog doesn't generally form in strong winds - the mixing ratio isopleths are not in the right proportion. So, the pic is of a gentle breeze, the wind rotors are turning slowly, and leaving a small disturbance behind, which lifts the fog up a bit. It drifts along with the rest of the fog, and stays like that for a few hundred meters before the fog peters out. It ain't turbulence.
The rotors EXTRACT energy from the air, so the airflow behind the rotor should be slower than the rest of the free airflow.
The rotors EXTRACT energy from the air, so the airflow behind the rotor should be slower than the rest of the free airflow.
The wind were blowing 25 Knots above that fog.
.
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.
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.
WX was OVC 600' with vis below the base under VMC .
Sure sounds bold to me.
He may have had 21000 hours but that was not the action of a timid pilot.
Add to that how many current instrument rated pilots do not have much in the way of current hand flying IF skills? How many engage auto pilot as soon as possible? (either due SOPs or because they prefer to?)
I do not believe you will find a C140 with an autopilot. Lucky if the venturi driven AI even functions. He just bought the plane that morning.
How much recent time in light aircraft did he have? How much in a 140? A 140 is a sweet little aeroplane but a lower performer even than a 150.
I have recently flown in light aircraft with a couple of current LHS airline pilots and had to take over when they got out of shape, thousands of hours doesn't mean bullet proof or current on type. Especially not in marginal conditions.
Claiming the accident was obviously due turbulence when he was in the clag (the base 600' and he was tracked between 800 and 1500' when he lost control) in an aircraft not equipped to fly in the clag really seems a long stretch. The wind speed was recorded as 6kts. The turbines would be barely turning. How much turbulence would you be expecting?
I don't care how many tens of thousands hours you have - fly a C140 into the clag at low level and you are pushing your luck. If it had been high voltage towers or radio transmission towers that he was avoiding instead of turbines the exact same accident description would not raise an eyebrow. But because it was a wind turbine it suddenly must be turbulence and loss of control in IMC seems unlikely? Really?
...
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”.
[/COLOR]
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”.
[/COLOR]
Which is fine, we all have our pet peeves and biases but if that is the case here, there is not much point discussing this as you have already made up your mind for reasons other than analysis of the evidence.
He obtained 3 seperate forecasts prior to departure each indicating IFR conditions and still launched in a vintage aircraft he only bought that day.
WX was OVC 600' with vis below the base under VMC .
Sure sounds bold to me.
He may have had 21000 hours but that was not the action of a timid pilot.
Add to that how many current instrument rated pilots do not have much in the way of current hand flying IF skills? How many engage auto pilot as soon as possible? (either due SOPs or because they prefer to?)
I do not believe you will find a C140 with an autopilot. Lucky if the venturi driven AI even functions. He just bought the plane that morning.
How much recent time in light aircraft did he have? How much in a 140? A 140 is a sweet little aeroplane but a lower performer even than a 150.
I have recently flown in light aircraft with a couple of current LHS airline pilots and had to take over when they got out of shape, thousands of hours doesn't mean bullet proof or current on type. Especially not in marginal conditions.
Claiming the accident was obviously due turbulence when he was in the clag (the base 600' and he was tracked between 800 and 1500' when he lost control) in an aircraft not equipped to fly in the clag really seems a long stretch. The wind speed was recorded as 6kts. The turbines would be barely turning. How much turbulence would you be expecting?
I don't care how many tens of thousands hours you have - fly a C140 into the clag at low level and you are pushing your luck. If it had been high voltage towers or radio transmission towers that he was avoiding instead of turbines the exact same accident description would not raise an eyebrow. But because it was a wind turbine it suddenly must be turbulence and loss of control in IMC seems unlikely? Really?
You obviously have a set against wind turbines which is fine, everyone is entitled to an opinion. That makes me suspect though you will chose to post and argue anything that paints them in a bad light rather than look at the evidence in a dispassionate way.
Which is fine, we all have our pet peeves and biases but if that is the case here, there is not much point discussing this as you have already made up your mind for reasons other than analysis of the evidence.
WX was OVC 600' with vis below the base under VMC .
Sure sounds bold to me.
He may have had 21000 hours but that was not the action of a timid pilot.
Add to that how many current instrument rated pilots do not have much in the way of current hand flying IF skills? How many engage auto pilot as soon as possible? (either due SOPs or because they prefer to?)
I do not believe you will find a C140 with an autopilot. Lucky if the venturi driven AI even functions. He just bought the plane that morning.
How much recent time in light aircraft did he have? How much in a 140? A 140 is a sweet little aeroplane but a lower performer even than a 150.
I have recently flown in light aircraft with a couple of current LHS airline pilots and had to take over when they got out of shape, thousands of hours doesn't mean bullet proof or current on type. Especially not in marginal conditions.
Claiming the accident was obviously due turbulence when he was in the clag (the base 600' and he was tracked between 800 and 1500' when he lost control) in an aircraft not equipped to fly in the clag really seems a long stretch. The wind speed was recorded as 6kts. The turbines would be barely turning. How much turbulence would you be expecting?
I don't care how many tens of thousands hours you have - fly a C140 into the clag at low level and you are pushing your luck. If it had been high voltage towers or radio transmission towers that he was avoiding instead of turbines the exact same accident description would not raise an eyebrow. But because it was a wind turbine it suddenly must be turbulence and loss of control in IMC seems unlikely? Really?
You obviously have a set against wind turbines which is fine, everyone is entitled to an opinion. That makes me suspect though you will chose to post and argue anything that paints them in a bad light rather than look at the evidence in a dispassionate way.
Which is fine, we all have our pet peeves and biases but if that is the case here, there is not much point discussing this as you have already made up your mind for reasons other than analysis of the evidence.
https://www.wunderground.com/history...ic=&reqdb.wmo=
.
You're just proving jonkster's point. The pilot flew VFR in IMC and lost control. The rest is just you trying to stretch the facts to fit your preconceptions.
Last edited by le Pingouin; 8th Dec 2017 at 11:56.
Read the report https://www.aopa.org/asf/ntsb/narrat...20080222X00232
The aircraft was not fitted with an AI or DI.
It did have a venturi powered T&B.
Forecast was a 70% chance icing at 2000' amsl.
Terrain along the track was around 2000' amsl.
He was unfamiliar with the aircraft having just purchased it that morning (and which for what it is worth had done 2.6 hours since last annual and that had expired ).
He had received 3 weather briefings that morning, all indicating IFR conditions along his route. He departed anyway in an aircraft he had just purchased, that had barely flown in 12 months, that had no AI or DI, had a venturi powered T&B, in forecast icing conditions with vis below VMC in mist and rain, a cloud base forecast to be 600' AGL, for a long, multistage cross country flight to make a family get together later that day.
He ended up in cloud and soon after impacted the ground.
Poor bastard but I don't care how many hours he had - that to me is really bad judgement and was an accident all set up to happen.
Do you really believe the most likely cause of that accident is unexpected turbulence from a wind farm? Sorry smells like a textbook loss of control in IMC accident to me.
The aircraft was not fitted with an AI or DI.
It did have a venturi powered T&B.
Forecast was a 70% chance icing at 2000' amsl.
Terrain along the track was around 2000' amsl.
He was unfamiliar with the aircraft having just purchased it that morning (and which for what it is worth had done 2.6 hours since last annual and that had expired ).
He had received 3 weather briefings that morning, all indicating IFR conditions along his route. He departed anyway in an aircraft he had just purchased, that had barely flown in 12 months, that had no AI or DI, had a venturi powered T&B, in forecast icing conditions with vis below VMC in mist and rain, a cloud base forecast to be 600' AGL, for a long, multistage cross country flight to make a family get together later that day.
He ended up in cloud and soon after impacted the ground.
Poor bastard but I don't care how many hours he had - that to me is really bad judgement and was an accident all set up to happen.
Do you really believe the most likely cause of that accident is unexpected turbulence from a wind farm? Sorry smells like a textbook loss of control in IMC accident to me.
.
Read the report https://www.aopa.org/asf/ntsb/narrat...20080222X00232
The aircraft was not fitted with an AI or DI.
It did have a venturi powered T&B.
Forecast was a 70% chance icing at 2000' amsl.
Terrain along the track was around 2000' amsl.
He was unfamiliar with the aircraft having just purchased it that morning (and which for what it is worth had done 2.6 hours since last annual and that had expired ).
He had received 3 weather briefings that morning, all indicating IFR conditions along his route. He departed anyway in an aircraft he had just purchased, that had barely flown in 12 months, that had no AI or DI, had a venturi powered T&B, in forecast icing conditions with vis below VMC in mist and rain, a cloud base forecast to be 600' AGL, for a long, multistage cross country flight to make a family get together later that day.
He ended up in cloud and soon after impacted the ground.
Poor bastard but I don't care how many hours he had - that to me is really bad judgement and was an accident all set up to happen.
Do you really believe the most likely cause of that accident is unexpected turbulence from a wind farm? Sorry smells like a textbook loss of control in IMC accident to me.
The aircraft was not fitted with an AI or DI.
It did have a venturi powered T&B.
Forecast was a 70% chance icing at 2000' amsl.
Terrain along the track was around 2000' amsl.
He was unfamiliar with the aircraft having just purchased it that morning (and which for what it is worth had done 2.6 hours since last annual and that had expired ).
He had received 3 weather briefings that morning, all indicating IFR conditions along his route. He departed anyway in an aircraft he had just purchased, that had barely flown in 12 months, that had no AI or DI, had a venturi powered T&B, in forecast icing conditions with vis below VMC in mist and rain, a cloud base forecast to be 600' AGL, for a long, multistage cross country flight to make a family get together later that day.
He ended up in cloud and soon after impacted the ground.
Poor bastard but I don't care how many hours he had - that to me is really bad judgement and was an accident all set up to happen.
Do you really believe the most likely cause of that accident is unexpected turbulence from a wind farm? Sorry smells like a textbook loss of control in IMC accident to me.
What we have seen demonstrated from the fog clearance photos posted earlier in this thread is the way wind tower turbulence splays out and affects the air above and below the actual tower rotor disc area i.e., cleared the fog. The effects are also mentioned in the research done in relation to the 'fog photos'. I would put that as evidenced by the fog photos that there is a high possibility of the wind turbine rotor turbulence 'lifting' the cloud base down wind of the turbine. Thus allowing a pilot to do figure 8 orbits whilst reprogramming a GPS. I would suggest that if a pilot were forced onto a basic T+B they would be more likely to fly away on a direct heading after doing the initial visual wind tower clearing 90º turn rather then doing figure 8's on the T+B.
The problem with the down wind of wind tower reference is the report places the accident roughly upwind of the nearest towers. Except, (using the GPS lat/long provided) there is a further larger number of wind turbines just roughly north and west of the accident site.
.
Meanwhile, Germany persists...
"...To illustrate how far along the road to disaster Germany’s once impeccably stable grid has come, the online hessenschau.de here reports that for the second time in a just few days the central city of Wiesbaden has seen its power black out. It writes:
On Saturday evening in parts of Wiesbaden the power went out for 2 hours. It is the second power outage within just a few days.
Over the past years the German state of Hesse has been plagued by power outages, Hessen public television reported... as it pondered why Hesse has become so prone to blackouts. HR cites the Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Grid Agency), which says there are over 172,000 power outages annually, which is some 470 daily, and that last winter multiple power plants had to be switched simultaneously because “the German grid was on the brink of collapse.”...
Germany?s National Power Grid Mess?Country Seeing Whopping 172,000 Power Outages Annually!
.
If you lot can't debunk what i post, just say so..
I doubt you know much on the subject so i don't expect much...
Further reading of the wind industry research literature shows a high wind tower turbine failure rate for turbines located in the centre of tower groups (Wind farms). The reason given is the turbulence from upwind towers. Also, if two towers are aligned with the wind they can increase the turbulence loading on a third tower downwind.
.
I doubt you know much on the subject so i don't expect much...Further reading of the wind industry research literature shows a high wind tower turbine failure rate for turbines located in the centre of tower groups (Wind farms). The reason given is the turbulence from upwind towers. Also, if two towers are aligned with the wind they can increase the turbulence loading on a third tower downwind.
.
If you lot can't debunk what i post, just say so.. I doubt you know much on the subject so i don't expect much...
Further reading of the wind industry research literature shows a high wind tower turbine failure rate for turbines located in the centre of tower groups (Wind farms). The reason given is the turbulence from upwind towers. Also, if two towers are aligned with the wind they can increase the turbulence loading on a third tower downwind.
.
I doubt you know much on the subject so i don't expect much...Further reading of the wind industry research literature shows a high wind tower turbine failure rate for turbines located in the centre of tower groups (Wind farms). The reason given is the turbulence from upwind towers. Also, if two towers are aligned with the wind they can increase the turbulence loading on a third tower downwind.
.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again the Pprune resident nutter @Flying Binghi has cited a whacko website run but someone who wears tinfoil hats as a reputable source.
The reputable websites say the opposite, people can Google it for themselves.
Data show that Germany's grid is one of the world's most reliable
@Flying Binghi you are both deluded and a shallow fraud.
The reputable websites say the opposite, people can Google it for themselves.
Data show that Germany's grid is one of the world's most reliable
@Flying Binghi you are both deluded and a shallow fraud.
Re the Horns Rev 1 photos we get this comment from research referencing the photos:
"...Analysis of the images and of the meteorological conditions at the time revealed that the atmosphere was convective and that the wakes were captured by the re-condensation of fog. This process was triggered by the lifting and cooling of warm super-saturated air from the lower part of the rotor area by the swirling motion of the air in the wakes themselves. The wind speed was low, only marginally above the cut-in speed of the wind turbines..."
So that were Horns Rev 1. What about the Horns Rev 2 fog photos which i were commenting on. The research claims wind speeds were up to 13 metres a second. Which is a bit over 25 knots. Read it for yourself: http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/3/317/pdf-vor
Cloudee, i have already linked to that research paper in this thread. If you believe the research to be factual or not is up to you..
.
Wind farm
The proposed 12 turbines at Cobden are arranged to the north and north west of the only runway 36/18 (sealed and lit), the closest, nearly due north in company with three others, is 1.4 nm. These monstrous structures are at near enough 800ft (600ft AGL) into the circuit area. No one in their right mind would have them so close to the only public airport between Colac and Warrnambool if there was the slightest consideration of a community and taxpayer funded airport facility. CASA typically couldn’t barely care less because though planned for Code 1 registration Cobden won’t get that before the Planning Minister decides. If these turbines go ahead that will finish the airport for the fire-fighting service, night flying and more than likely the air ambulance also. Flying school use? Send your students there? How bad this might prove to be in the circuit area with a nor-wester blowing 30 kt we don’t know; but I’ll bet it won’t be benign. Take off and turn onto crosswind you will undoubtedly run the gauntlet at less than 1 nm distance below the towers. With liability issues the Council might have to close the airport.
Some comment here about the desirability of wind farms in general. What is apparent whether you like them or not is the near total lack of procedures to safeguard the property rights of the surrounding land owners, mostly farmers. Victoria’s rules say no problem if you are more than 1 km. Is there any law preventing tower site manipulation which could devalue nearby properties? Seems to me that big land grab money temptations might be the big sleeper in this debate in an evolving industry building ever larger turbines.
Some comment here about the desirability of wind farms in general. What is apparent whether you like them or not is the near total lack of procedures to safeguard the property rights of the surrounding land owners, mostly farmers. Victoria’s rules say no problem if you are more than 1 km. Is there any law preventing tower site manipulation which could devalue nearby properties? Seems to me that big land grab money temptations might be the big sleeper in this debate in an evolving industry building ever larger turbines.
