Australia - Student VFR Entry to ADL CTR
 

Student VFR Entry to ADL CTR I am a solicitor for a community group in a planning appeal against a windfarm. Their Ambidgi expert, Ian Jennings, has given evidence that an alternate route from Parafield to Murray Bridge is available which tracks over the top of ADL and that the student at straight and level flight or first NAV level can transit the area by issuing a general broadcast call without pre-clearance. It sounds bizarre to me but I have not witness to put up against it.

I don't have ERSA in front of me. But the Notes for Adelaide have always said (in a round about way) that ATC are very reluctant to issue a clearance coastal or over the top unless you can transit above 6000'. So I'd say good luck getting a clearance (which you must get, a general broadcast would be frowned upon) for a student to conduct "Straight and Level" lessons on your way to YMBD.

Why don't they want helicopters to fly over the windfarm??

The downwash might be handy to help the power output...

Everyone knows windfarms put the chooks off the lay, give you terrible chronic illnesses and kill endangered species. Not only that, but they're particularly hard to see when you're low flying because a forest of bloody huge fans on sticks can blend in with the surrounding countryside, no really.

Citations needed.

717 Tech - Thank you for the on-topic response which accords with my information. My client is looking for someone who knows these things to be a witness. Any pointers for example to an ATC personnel who might be willing to do that at fairly short notice/timeframe?

Honest question, Suastiastu - it appears you are planning to use an argument based on the idea that windfarms are a hazard to air navigation. Do you really believe that can be the case?

yeah, easy choice, have an engine failure and land in between highrise building pedestrians and traffic, or on a relatively windy open field with just a few bloody big fans to easily dodge..

Its not a mater of what I believe - its a matter of what teh expert evidence says - The evidence before the Court is that it will have a significant impact on air safety between May and October for VFR pilots and students when the tunnel for VFR movement between Parafield and Murray Bridge over the Mt Lofty Ranges will be significantly constrained by the usual cloud height and additional obstacle height of 540 ft.

What open field? You mean treed mountain ranges and gullies with 103 540ft turbines on sticks on top of the Mt Lofty Ranges?

Wrong assumption. Its a development application so its not about "wind farms in general" its about a specific windfarm development proposal.

I'd wager you'd find the Adelaide ATC boys 6 nights out of 7 parked in front of the bar at the morphett arms hotel.

You're welcome.

Pity they don't place these windfarms outside lawyers' offices to take advantage of all the hot air :)

Let me get this right...you're advocating against investment in renewable infrastructure in a world which is being raped and pillaged towards destruction, and you're argument depends on GA transit between Murray Bridge and Parafield?

Why do you believe GA aircraft need to transit between Murray Bridge and Parafield for training flights? They don't. There's any number of other options available. Hell, aircraft at Murray Bridge don't even need to access Parafield or Adelaide controlled airspace at all - CASA allows the entire training syllabus up to CPL to be completed using simulated CTA.

A student pilot at Murray Bridge has no requirement to ever access Parafield or Adelaide controlled airspace for the entirety of their training, and vice versa. If you're argument is hinging on the need for aircraft to fly between those two destinations for training purposes then prepare to get demolished in court.

It would help me to understand the ramifications if I knew where the proposed wind farm is to be located.

The only times I have flown in and out of Parafield I have used the VFR lanes to Warren and South Para Reservoirs. Your reference to a "tunnel" Parafield-Murray Bridge is a little confusing unless you are perhaps referring to the VFR lane over the city to the south-east leading out to the Hope Valley lane which is all within Adelaide CTR.

If you are quoting the "expert evidence" regarding clearances for students correctly, it sounds very unlikely to be credible to me. Perhaps a school CFI from Parafield would have sufficient interest to assist?

Kaz

Expert evidence was given by a person who has held pilots licenses since 1979 and Professional Pilotingqualifications since 1986. He was a member of the CASA Flight Training Panelwhich developed policy on behalf of CASA from 2008 through 2011. He was a ChiefFlight Instructor from 1999 through 2012 and delegate of the Minister forAviation under the Civil Aviation Act from 2000 through 2014. Hewas a CASA approved flight testing officer from 1999 through 2014. Approvalsheld included multi-engine aircraft, under both VFR and IFR, initial issue andrenewals for Commercial Pilots and instrument ratings.


Sorry "tunnel" was my word for the area under the cloud and above the windfarm when transiting Palmer over the ranges.

No need to be rude, mate. if you think its a joke no need to contribute. who said I believe anything? That's the expert evidence. I'm sure if people can do the flight training syllabus in a simulator they have no need to come to a flight school at Parafield.The fact is they do use the area as a VFR Nav training route (that evidence was agreed) and there are some people that believe that actual flying is better training than simulation.

Thanks! :ok:

Let's hope that they never build a windfarm on the VFR route to YPPF from the North East.
Particularly, on that hill in front that you fly over after passing Warren reservoir (WRR) and Damwall (DMW).

"General broadcast call without pre-clearance" sounds like complete garbage to me.
I would imagine at most times of a weekday you would have 3 chances of getting a clearance. None, Buckley's and bugger all. Is it pretty quiet there on the weekends?

103 turbines seems a pretty big project, and they usually string them out along the high ground. What are the dimensions?

Mustn't be any orange bellied parrots extant in SA.

As much as I admire the idea of using the argument "risk to navigation"...and as much as I hate the meme used to promote these monstrosities, I think the case will draw a very long bow that will, inevitably, be doomed to failure.

Tilting at windmills...would you not be better served by arguing the premise behind the need for all this development is a croc..argue the legislation enabling the RET is unconstitutional?

Sorry, but I don't know where Plamer is.

How much is the "expert" being paid? I presume he is freelance now?

Kaz

Looking at the VTC for Adelaide, it doesn't look like the expert is talking about transiting overhead ADL at all, but rather following the VFR lanes east from Parafield, then once clear of the 2500' CTA step, tracking south east over Palmer to Murray Bridge. Once outside the 2500' step you'd be in uncontrolled airspace at 4500' or below and can proceed on a broadcast basis (you can do that below the 2500' step as well of course). So all the expert seems to be saying is that there is a popular training route in uncontrolled airspace that transits the proposed wind farm site. Nothing controversial there.

Edit: Sorry, is the expert trying to say there is an alternative route to the one I described above? There is nothing that transits overhead ADL that doesn't require a clearance. On the other hand, depending on the size of the wind farm, I'd suggest the alternative route is just the same as the primary one but you go around the wind farm.

The town of Palmer is under the 4,500' step and a long way from the 2,500' step. If a wind farm in that area can't be overflown or flown around due cloud, I wonder whether it's adequately safe for VFR, wind farm or not.

But can we get one thing straight, Suastiastu? Where, precisely, is the wind farm in question proposed to be built? I'm getting the faint whiff of the safety of air navigation being used by NIMBYs as their 'heartfelt' objection to the proposal. But I may be being unkind.

But can we get one thing straight, Suastiastu? Where, precisely, is the wind farm in question proposed to be built? I'm getting the faint whiff of the safety of air navigation being used by NIMBYs as their 'heartfelt' objection to the proposal. But I may be being unkind.[/QUOTE]

Well nailed, Lead Balloon.

540 ft ground to turbine blade tip. It abuts Keynton Windfarm so it makes for a a bit of a continuous thing.

Its on the eastern range from the level of Cambrai to South of Palmer (the latitude of Mt Beevor).
NIMBY's can use any item in the development plan criteria, that's why people have objection rights in respect of development in their area. Its particularly important for those with their own airstrips or who conduct arial agricultural activities or recreational pilots.
The evidence we presented says its less safe VFR with a windfarm in that it becomes impassible without medium to high risk. The scope for VFR transit gets 540ft less headroom or groundroom and in October to May that's a problem with the normal cloudbase.

My bad. Two experts, us and them. Our man says no alternate route for ab initio level straight nav on the VFR route without economic fallout for flight schools.
Their bloke responded with "they can get Adelaide CTR clearance and go through there or go the danger zone on a general broadcast call." To be honest, it was a bit unclear in response. Some people don't communicate clearly on topic and need straight and level communication training.

Is it quiet on weekends? Its Adelaide.

So your man admits there is an alternate route that's safe. It's not a safety issue at all but an economic one that has zero impact on the NIMBYs. If conditions aren't suitable for VFR flight along a chosen route you fly elsewhere or stay on the ground, I think you'll have to try again.

I think the crux of this is that to the 'reasonable' person on the street, a wind farm sounds like it might be a hazard to air navigation.

In reality though, I firmly believe (with a good background in low-level ops to back me up), they are some of the least hazardous structures you could name - big, obvious, easily avoided.

If you're flying VFR, you will be able to see a wind farm. In marginal conditions, you'll still be able to see a wind farm, much more so than you would a set of high tension power lines.

This is definitely a NIMBY argument, and you probably wouldn't be doing your job if you didn't try to squeeze as much out of it as you can, Suasiastu, but it's really a bull**** premise.

In marginal VFR it may actually be a helpful navigation aid.

I remember in NSW years ago they put in a windfarm near Crookwell, what used to be a great waypoint for checking student's DR nav skills, became too easy as you could see the windfarm from great distances away and they would just aim at it defeating the whole point :(

I've never seen them painted other than white, so on a murky day, that should work well.

Suastiastu

If you look at the Adelaide Visual Terminal Chart, you will see some purple dots connecting Port Noarlunga to Strathalbyn. About 4 nautical miles east of Port Noarlunga there is a red box with the following text in red: CAUTION. MARKED UNLIT POWER LINES 500FT AGL.

If it's good enough for power lines...