Popham closing due wind turbines?
Thread Starter
Popham closing due wind turbines?
With Popham being VFR, I don't see them having much effect. Don't like them though. A couple of years ago I travelled from Szczecin to Berlin through what used to be East Germany and the landscape alongside the autobahn is totally scarred with windfarms literally every couple of miles.
Edit: Something wrong here; my post should be number 3 posted at 1340 on 22 May not 0457!
Edit: Something wrong here; my post should be number 3 posted at 1340 on 22 May not 0457!
Last edited by chevvron; 22nd May 2013 at 03:59.
Popham closing due wind turbines?
Received this news in my Flyer Newsletter - and have filed an objection.
Anyone know anything about this? Apparently objections have to be in by Friday.
Keep Hampshire Green
'later, Sam.
Anyone know anything about this? Apparently objections have to be in by Friday.
Keep Hampshire Green
'later, Sam.
With nothing better to do during my lunch hour(well, nothing more interesting, to be precise!), I've transferred the EDF Development Area onto Google Maps:
Last edited by India Four Two; 22nd May 2013 at 09:34. Reason: Updated picture with distance label
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will need to be careful what you write.... because we do not want to be seen as Nimbys or "boys crying wolf".
Unfortunately, for both the aviation and the wind energy community, there is very little hard and fast data
At Strathaven, we operate safely and successfully with Whitelee, Europe's second largest onshore windfarm (160-plus turbines, each higher than the Blackpool Tower) starting at 4.4km from the end of the main runway.
We strongly suspect we notice turbulence from them on climb-out in certain conditions - interestingly at 400-700ft agl, so higher than the tallest turbine.
We adhere to CAA recommendations (CAP 764) - not that they have a lot of detail - and challenge almost any development within 3km of the airfield and often have serious concerns about developments within 5km of the airfield (based on our experience with Whitelee).
I think, at the last count, there were more than 70 proposals for wind developments within 5 miles of Strathaven town!
So we are probably some of the most experienced pilots in the UK when it comes to flying in the neighbourhood of wind turbines.
If anyone has a development proposed near their airfield, please feel free to get in touch and I will send you copies of some of our submissions.
If it is more than 5km from your airfield, I am afraid that your objections - unless to do with radar - will come to naught since any developer worth their salt will be able to point at Strathaven's experience.
Unfortunately, for both the aviation and the wind energy community, there is very little hard and fast data
At Strathaven, we operate safely and successfully with Whitelee, Europe's second largest onshore windfarm (160-plus turbines, each higher than the Blackpool Tower) starting at 4.4km from the end of the main runway.
We strongly suspect we notice turbulence from them on climb-out in certain conditions - interestingly at 400-700ft agl, so higher than the tallest turbine.
We adhere to CAA recommendations (CAP 764) - not that they have a lot of detail - and challenge almost any development within 3km of the airfield and often have serious concerns about developments within 5km of the airfield (based on our experience with Whitelee).
I think, at the last count, there were more than 70 proposals for wind developments within 5 miles of Strathaven town!
So we are probably some of the most experienced pilots in the UK when it comes to flying in the neighbourhood of wind turbines.
If anyone has a development proposed near their airfield, please feel free to get in touch and I will send you copies of some of our submissions.
If it is more than 5km from your airfield, I am afraid that your objections - unless to do with radar - will come to naught since any developer worth their salt will be able to point at Strathaven's experience.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should EAST MIDLANDS AIRPORT be closed as the wind turbines are within the airport boundary?
Thing I can not work out is the red warning light on wind turbines close to airports. Being on top of the mast, they do not indicate the top of the obstruction.
Thing I can not work out is the red warning light on wind turbines close to airports. Being on top of the mast, they do not indicate the top of the obstruction.
I objected on the grounds:
Cheers, Sam.
- Eyesore - should be placed offshore (without endangering other habitats)
- Detrimental to local habitats
- Case for their positive environmental credentials is flaky at best
Cheers, Sam.
I dont think the wind farms will directly cause the airfield to close.
From what I can understand, if the wind farm goes ahead the owner of the airfield will sell up and move. Its this that will cause the airfield to close.
From what I can understand, if the wind farm goes ahead the owner of the airfield will sell up and move. Its this that will cause the airfield to close.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
turbroprop,
East Midlands is a good example - of why there should NOT be wind tubines next to airports.
First, note the turbulence caution in Pooleys! (also due to hangars)
Second, airport not used by microlights and is used less and less by light aircraft. It does not matter if it is the threat of turbulence or the actual turbulence, fewer Popham type aircraft use the place. I may also be down to cost, management etc. The fact is it is an international airport.
Third. EMA has only built some of the turbines they have consent for. Why. The ones they have are a PITA!
Fourth. EMA are gathering lots of data for the CAA as a condition of having the turbines. Some of the results are interesting, but since they have cost EMA a shed load of cash, they are commercially sensistive. If a wind developer (who the onus of proof should lie with in aviation safety) wants them, they'll have to pay.
But the biggest is:
The turbines are under the control of their ATC.
Rules with the CAA, ATC etc are that they can - for instance - only be switched on with ATC's permission. Apparently start-up is when the max turbulence is created.
This makes EMA unique.
And I can't see us - or any other airfield operator - wanting, or being able, to control someone else's windfarm if they wish to build right next to the airfield.
Strathaven Airfield's (successful) objections to two 45m turbines near the airfield, which includes redacted emails with EMA's top chap, are here:
Online Standard Details
The relevant bit is in our final submission, but the whole thing - including the applicant's "expert" who never made a site visit "Strathaven Aerodrome Impact Assessment" - all makes interesting reading, I think.
East Midlands is a good example - of why there should NOT be wind tubines next to airports.
First, note the turbulence caution in Pooleys! (also due to hangars)
Second, airport not used by microlights and is used less and less by light aircraft. It does not matter if it is the threat of turbulence or the actual turbulence, fewer Popham type aircraft use the place. I may also be down to cost, management etc. The fact is it is an international airport.
Third. EMA has only built some of the turbines they have consent for. Why. The ones they have are a PITA!
Fourth. EMA are gathering lots of data for the CAA as a condition of having the turbines. Some of the results are interesting, but since they have cost EMA a shed load of cash, they are commercially sensistive. If a wind developer (who the onus of proof should lie with in aviation safety) wants them, they'll have to pay.
But the biggest is:
The turbines are under the control of their ATC.
Rules with the CAA, ATC etc are that they can - for instance - only be switched on with ATC's permission. Apparently start-up is when the max turbulence is created.
This makes EMA unique.
And I can't see us - or any other airfield operator - wanting, or being able, to control someone else's windfarm if they wish to build right next to the airfield.
Strathaven Airfield's (successful) objections to two 45m turbines near the airfield, which includes redacted emails with EMA's top chap, are here:
Online Standard Details
The relevant bit is in our final submission, but the whole thing - including the applicant's "expert" who never made a site visit "Strathaven Aerodrome Impact Assessment" - all makes interesting reading, I think.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weird:
On the planning web sites, no consultation response yet from NATS, CAA or Popham.
Usually NATS and the CAA, and airports like Glasgow, Edinburgh and Prestwick, send in a "holding" letter within days, saying comment will follow.
On the planning web sites, no consultation response yet from NATS, CAA or Popham.
Usually NATS and the CAA, and airports like Glasgow, Edinburgh and Prestwick, send in a "holding" letter within days, saying comment will follow.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neither on shore nor off shore wind makes any sense economically and the environmental credentials are flaky at best. On shore is less likely to generate power than off shore and off shore is much more expensive to build than on shore. The energy return from a wind turbine versus the energy cost to build it isn't great either.
Base load from nuclear and some tactical provision from wind, tide and solar is the only way it could work.
Base load from nuclear and some tactical provision from wind, tide and solar is the only way it could work.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's interesting to note that even wind turbines are not built next to wind turbines because they say that the turbulence may cause damage.
That is why they space their turbines about 6 rotor diameters apart.
The logical spacing would be with just 20ft clearance between rotor tips, but the wind turbine industry have researched the issue very thoroughly, and know all about the turbulence issues.
That is why they space their turbines about 6 rotor diameters apart.
The logical spacing would be with just 20ft clearance between rotor tips, but the wind turbine industry have researched the issue very thoroughly, and know all about the turbulence issues.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many years ago I flew, in a SAR helicopter,to an offshore wind farm control tower to pickup an injured man from the tower.
The weather was inclement to say the least and the blades of the surrounding turbines were feathered to reduce the risk of damage to the turbines due to the high wind speeds.
Approaching the farm from downwind into wind there was extreme turbulence coming from the blades as they wind milled. I had to fly through the farm to get to the control tower, which, on this particular setup, was positioned centre of the farm. My personal opinion would be that the turbulence from the blades would be increased with the generation of lift, i.e. power generation. As with all wings the vortices generated migrate away from the tips in all directions downwind thus developing a larger turbulence zone with weakening intensity the further downwind from the devices you are.
These things can be nasty to fly around at low level and, from my experience both from what I've written above and from operating low level SAR operations next to land based farms, the utmost care needs to be exercised when conducting flying operations, especially downwind. I believe that it is now standard practice to offset control towers away from the centre of the farm on offshore installations.
Having flown in and out of Popham on several occasions over the past 25 years in various things both fixed and rotary I shudder to think what the impact of a farm at such close proximity and upwind of the westerly runway would do to microlights and light aircraft.
Good luck.
The weather was inclement to say the least and the blades of the surrounding turbines were feathered to reduce the risk of damage to the turbines due to the high wind speeds.
Approaching the farm from downwind into wind there was extreme turbulence coming from the blades as they wind milled. I had to fly through the farm to get to the control tower, which, on this particular setup, was positioned centre of the farm. My personal opinion would be that the turbulence from the blades would be increased with the generation of lift, i.e. power generation. As with all wings the vortices generated migrate away from the tips in all directions downwind thus developing a larger turbulence zone with weakening intensity the further downwind from the devices you are.
These things can be nasty to fly around at low level and, from my experience both from what I've written above and from operating low level SAR operations next to land based farms, the utmost care needs to be exercised when conducting flying operations, especially downwind. I believe that it is now standard practice to offset control towers away from the centre of the farm on offshore installations.
Having flown in and out of Popham on several occasions over the past 25 years in various things both fixed and rotary I shudder to think what the impact of a farm at such close proximity and upwind of the westerly runway would do to microlights and light aircraft.
Good luck.
