Wind farms 2
 

This is what happen last Friday.

Gullen Range modification bid ?a hopeless mess? resident tells Commission | Crookwell Gazette

Hope the link works.
On another note it was said that should not worry you if you don't fly below 500 feet. When you consider that these a replaces on top of ridge lines and at crookwell for example you will be a circuit hight and level with them.

Cheers

Via the yr right link...

"...In Mr Jim Hudson's submission he writes that the Crookwell Aerodrome will no longer be considered for use for aerial firefighting by the NSW Rural Fire Service. The aircraft used in this role is an 802 Fire Bomber.

There is also a twin engine support aircraft in addition to the 802 and they are four Category B aircraft.

He added, the Crookwell aerodrome is therefore exclude from consideration and any necessary fire fighting efforts must be originated from Bathurst, Cowra or Goulburn.

The Crookwell Aerodromes importance and significance was such that at the time the then Mayor, Brian McGuiness and Deputy Mayor James Carr, when determining the legally authorised purchase and establishment of the facility enacted the condition that it be held in perpetuity for the residents and landowners of the Crookwell district.

The aerodrome cannot be sold or therefore closed. This decision precedes the development of the wind farm and such decision cannot be altered.” Mr Hudson contended..."









.

It sounds like the planning & development process has been a real mess. This being NSW (finest politicians that money can buy), it's not entirely surprising.

But it's not entirely clear to me why the wind farm is a problem to aviation. I get that it is only a couple of miles from Crookwell airfield (hard to tell exactly from my WAC), but why can aircraft not join & depart the circuit safely? Do the turbines extend more than 500' above the ridge lines?

A few points to consider.

If you build a shed in your back yard and place it 1/2 meter to close to the fence line you will have to pull it down and replace it in the right position.

Next if the court says your can't do something we'll your not alowed to do that.

Next if your a wind farm we'll the above two don't matter. You can do what you won't too.

So now if they win and don't have to pull these things down a pressidence has been set for all of us. This is now bigger than just wind frams.

Cheers

I am sure you can still use the circuit at Crookwell safely however the combined height of the turbines and the ridge they sit on can place them well above VFR height in the adjacent valleys. Although I don't know if this is the case at Crookwell, it certainly is with the wind farms east of Adelaide.

Given the photographs on the previous thread showing turbulence extending several kilometers from the wind turbines I would suggest that if you fly into the lee of these things on a windy day you could be in for a very interesting ride indeed.

Below, east of Adelaide

http://postimg.org/image/h1kuyt5lt/http://s25.postimg.org/uloz9s46n/DSCN2025.jpg
http://postimg.org/image/h1kuyt5lt/http://postimg.org/image/h1kuyt5lt/
http://www.pprune.org/but why can ai...e ridge lines?

I've seen f 1-11 and c130 fly blow the ridge line at crookwell in **** weather Ifr bet they won't now

Now this is were it also gets interesting. The turbines are located in direct contravention of the casa reqs. Section 9 and 9A. The implications if you read between the lines. For get what's happening in NSW with ICAC this is going to be bigger.

I won't hold my breath waiting ...

The implications of what's happened in crookwell with what's been done is shocking. We will see what happens

It's no big deal really. I saw Mission Impossible III a few nights ago where Tom Cruise was in the back and they flew a Huey through the spinning blades succesfully. An F1-11 goes much faster so they would be ok.

With Crookwell being around 1000m unless there was a pretty good headwind you wouldn't be working an 802 from there unless it was 2/3 of a load.

Or had a 67F engine, Super Cecil.

We'll 802 been used out of crookwell for years.

yr right wrote:


"I've seen f 1-11 and c130 fly blow the ridge line at crookwell in **** weather Ifr bet they won't now" (sic.)


No risk of an F-111 flying into anything, these days. :(

Squawk7700: :D

Probably my comment, for the benefit of Yr Right the 500 ft refers to AGL, ie the aircraft will not fly lower then 500 ft above ground level, hence if the terrain is 3000 ft then it stands to reason said aircraft shall not descend below 3,500 ft MSL lest the pilot shall smite his aircraft into the planet be it either in a ridge or a valley ....

For your benefit Avgas the airfield At crookwell is at the bottom of the ridge. There fore as you enter the circuit you will be in the turbines slip stream with the airfield below you and the tops of the turbines above you. Not all of Australia is flat !!!!!

Anyone here currently flying out of Crookwell who would like to comment? Looks like they are about 3 kilometers away on Google Earth.

Yr right, did you see this?

So have you phoned this guy up and offered your professional support as a concerned pilot?

Seems like a cause worth fighting if you are well enough versed in the subject matter. I am not, but it seems you are somewhat well informed, so do not let this poor bloke battle it himself. Stick it to them :ok:

For your benefit yr I flew out of Cowra for over 10 years, and I am quite familiar with the terrain between Cowra and Moruya. You would then be aware that the direct route would take you close enough to Crookwell, however I am interested in your theory of wind speed driving the turbines, such that the speed and turbulence behind would be any greater than the rotor turbulence created by the Wind and ridge alone without the interference of the turbines .... Do tell!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_wave

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=019Ro3E_mhA&app=desktop
All the other rubbish written about the danger of windfarms in the proximity of airfields, have a look at that lot.
Henry got that many to contend with? :8

Pleased to see that this topic has been reborn. That's some interesting stuff you've posted there Yr Right! From what you've written and the F111 observation you're clearly from Crookwell or if not probably grew up there. Lucky you. It's a top part of the country. Actually Jabba I did some googling on the net and learnt that Jim Hudson is actually Jim Hutson who is a highly experienced and well respected pilot /LAME in Ag and other circles. Apparently has been flying over 50 years or so. Yr Right would definitely have to know him so he would definitely benefit as you suggest. Sounds like RFS will be taking their ops elsewhere though which is a pity.
Sticky

RFS Operations
 

If these are removed from Crookwell, having also serious flight time in the region, there will be increased:

• Costs;
• Time to response;
• Risks to pilots and aircraft

Remember, Crookwell is some 1000FT AGL above Goulburn and there are very limited other strips in the area for these RFS operations, which would meet a reasonable safety case.

Further, I believe the issues are:

1. Has casa properly protected us from the wind turbines?;
2. Do the wind turbines affect aviation?;
3. What is the proper distance from an airport;
4. What protection is being made for the future?;
5. Is casa being consulted by approving organisations for proper effects on aviation?;
6. Are the proposers using proper and correct information from aviation savvy people?;
7. Has CAAct 9A been breached by casa in respect of approvals of wind turbine farms??
8. How does the movement [without approval] by 385metres in the Crookwell area, affect the actual approval and aviation? and
9. Was this confirmed [post final approval] OR
10. Does the constructing company and the approving organisation breach CAAct 9A?

Only thinking.

UITA

Yes jabba I know and speak to Jim somewhat on a regular basis.
The reason why there are not more turbines around the crookwell aerodrome is because of the work he and others done to prevent them. As I recall these where the first in Australia to be stopped

Bit of a head scratcher why the thread were shut down ? :confused:

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...windfarms.html

If an aviation facility has problems with green idiocy affecting their operations you'd think all avenues of defence would be looked at including the very reason for the wind generator facility existance.

If the very premis of the wind facilitys reason for being can not be justified then there is no facility.












.

I guess the thread was starting to lose its way. Given the rebirth maybe I should change my name to Laserous?

Yr Right, just being curious here but,,,, on another note and taking into account your vast experience in giving evidence how would you approach this issue if someone, due to EFAT or as part of a forced landing or any other reason hit one of these things and you were called as an expert witness? For a start from an aviators standpoint who would be liable? Or would you look at the construction regs etc. taking into account the Crookwell example. Thanks.
Stiky

I think we better get rid of all those coal mines ....

I guess it depends if your one of the 14 minding your own business. And if you have the miss fortune to have had an incident we'll let's say we'll
It's to late for you. But I'm sure there be lots of people around to support your family in the insuring court cases.

Cool, despite our differences….glad to see you are helping out :ok:

I am here to assure you that if I were approaching any airfield, I would make it my business to be very aware of the possibilities of any obstacles I may encounter on said approach, including but not limited to wind farms, Power lines,
Trains (Temora & Cootamundra) mountains etc etc .... As to the business model of said wind farms I have no particular preference .....

Hmmm... 3000 eh..:hmm: i think you need to put some more thought to that Avgas172. Just for a start, what is the death rate for the mines that supply the wind turbine materials ? e.g. rare earths, etc. I think we mine more coal then the poms in Oz... 3000!... work place health and safety would be having a fit.

Also, a link to your quote would be nice. I've done the old copy and paste a sentence to google trick and no credible site luck yet.











.

read it and weep bingles ....
Clearly your google finger is broken.

While i'm here...

The Rottnest island wind generator were given as a pro wind power example in the previous thread. I've been having a look-see...

In reply to guest complaints, Chakra Resorts Manager at Rottnest Lodge writes...

"...Due to the Rottnest Island Authorities goal of sustainability, we rely on power from the wind generator located towards Geordie Bay. Unfortunately this does not allow for air conditioning in the rooms..."

Rottnest Lodge (Rottnest Island): See 177 Reviews and 69 Photos - TripAdvisor

:D:D:D....:hmm:

I've just started to look through some of the financials of the island admin. Looks to have cost about 3.2million to establish the wind geny facility. Comments about the wind geny annually saving some diesel. NO comments about the generator annually saving money..:hmm:

...and those diesel generator maintenance costs. Would the highly fluctuating wind power supply have anything to do with it ? :rolleyes:












.

"THE death of two miners at a NSW coalmine takes the number of mining-related deaths in Australia since July to nine, more than four times the total for the previous financial year."

April 2014 Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian











.

You've got gall A172: who knows where referencing balanced argument, devoid of links to nutter websites could lead?

Aircon on Rottnest? You'd be in the serious princess category to need that.

The comment I got from the local rangers was that the 1/3 of the total load supplied by the turbine made desalination of potable water feasible, reducing the drain on the water table in the face of increasingly dry seasons. I see that's also reflected in the Rottnest Authority info.

A quick point.
1 turbine dose NOT make a wind farm. There was a fella on Abc RN this morning that made some really good points. I would suggest that you should listen to that on the net

Agreed there, though, the Rottnest wind geny was introduced to the discussion as an example of a 'good' system operating near an airfield - its not. It also shows many of the reasons just why wind 'power' does not make economic sense.



I've had a quick look-see and caint see nothing. A direct link or some keyword search terms would be handy. Chaps name perhaps ?








.

It's called.
Coal to remain biggest fuel source into the future. On RN page. By Robert Bryce I didn't hear it all but what I did hear made sense to me

Link to 2RN progamme
 

Here is the link yr-right:

Coal to remain biggest fuel source into the future: US expert - RN Breakfast - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

I tend to agree that coal as a generation source isn't going to be usurped any time soon, however the alternative power sources are helping to REDUCE the dependence on fossil fuels and associated pollution ... just a balanced view.
However if I should ever smite my 172 into any one of these power sources so be it. :E

So just back to the aviation side of the house in the event that I was unlucky or foolish enough to collide with one of these due to positioning of the structure in the vicinity of an airfield. I wonder if there are any within the wider circuit OCTA world? Will there be any expert evidence from you YR Right re this? I'm just curious to learn what you would provide if you were asked given your exposure to the legal system in such areas. I think sharing this would benefit all.
Thanks
Stiky