Insch Airstrip needs your help
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insch Airstrip needs your help
Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) are planning a large scale overhead power line across Aberdeenshire. Their preferred route corridor crosses directly overhead Insch airfield and its established 3km safeguarding zone. (see map)
At this stage we need help from the aviation community to encourage SSE to avoid Insch airfield and the safeguarding zone in its entirety.
The details are are available at https://www.ssepd.co.uk/Blackhillock...Reinforcement/ we ask you to complete and submit comments using the 'Contact us here' on the right hand side of the webpage. They have advised us that numbers are important to maximise our impact. Please help us in this endeavour before the deadline of the 8th January 2016.
The airfield was established in 1985 and has an active GA community involved with all ends of the general aviation spectrum. We have close links with the local community and actively encourage their involvement. The airfield is used as a satellite Registered Training Facility for Cabro Aviation. It is also used as a diversion airfield for general aviation based at the coastal airfields in Aberdeenshire who find themselves fogbound. The excellent facilities make it a regular stopover for touring aircraft visiting Scotland.
Over the decades Insch has developed and improved its infrastructure, the latest being a new hangar extension this year and further improvements are envisaged. The impact of the power line would seriously affect the safety and viability of the airfield.
At this stage we need help from the aviation community to encourage SSE to avoid Insch airfield and the safeguarding zone in its entirety.
The details are are available at https://www.ssepd.co.uk/Blackhillock...Reinforcement/ we ask you to complete and submit comments using the 'Contact us here' on the right hand side of the webpage. They have advised us that numbers are important to maximise our impact. Please help us in this endeavour before the deadline of the 8th January 2016.
The airfield was established in 1985 and has an active GA community involved with all ends of the general aviation spectrum. We have close links with the local community and actively encourage their involvement. The airfield is used as a satellite Registered Training Facility for Cabro Aviation. It is also used as a diversion airfield for general aviation based at the coastal airfields in Aberdeenshire who find themselves fogbound. The excellent facilities make it a regular stopover for touring aircraft visiting Scotland.
Over the decades Insch has developed and improved its infrastructure, the latest being a new hangar extension this year and further improvements are envisaged. The impact of the power line would seriously affect the safety and viability of the airfield.
Thanks for putting this up gasax.
This is most worrying news ; I'm mentioning it around all my contacts - the more comments we get in fast the better. That such 'a little jewel of an airfield' - to quote my partner - should be under threat like this is absurd.
There are plenty alternate routieings available for that line; I suspect someone has not done their homework properly, given the 3 km zone and the fact of Insch's existence for over 30 years now. Let's hope that common sense is used to sort this out sensibly -with pressure applied!
The proposed routeing also affects some of the better soaring opportunities for sailplanes at Easterton airfield in Moray. A lesser but still significant issue
This is most worrying news ; I'm mentioning it around all my contacts - the more comments we get in fast the better. That such 'a little jewel of an airfield' - to quote my partner - should be under threat like this is absurd.
There are plenty alternate routieings available for that line; I suspect someone has not done their homework properly, given the 3 km zone and the fact of Insch's existence for over 30 years now. Let's hope that common sense is used to sort this out sensibly -with pressure applied!
The proposed routeing also affects some of the better soaring opportunities for sailplanes at Easterton airfield in Moray. A lesser but still significant issue
I've also put it round all my contacts. As many of you at Insch will be LAA members, I assume you've contacted John Brady, who has been very effective in other situations.
PS Knockbain was also threatened by SSE. You could contact the owner for details of the suggested deal there.
PS Knockbain was also threatened by SSE. You could contact the owner for details of the suggested deal there.
Last edited by Maoraigh1; 7th Nov 2015 at 21:31. Reason: Add
Ah - apologies, should have explained in more detail.
What I meant was that the routeing at Insch had the potential to shut the airfield altogether.
The effect on Easterton would seem to be to possibly eliminate a very good soaring spot, something to push to prevent, but it should not actually kill flying at the field, as far as I understand it. I stand to be corrected on that, of course. I think it worthwhile for interested folk to make comment in support of both areas - possibly by doing this we may make SE realise that the flying community impact is larger than they thought.
What I meant was that the routeing at Insch had the potential to shut the airfield altogether.
The effect on Easterton would seem to be to possibly eliminate a very good soaring spot, something to push to prevent, but it should not actually kill flying at the field, as far as I understand it. I stand to be corrected on that, of course. I think it worthwhile for interested folk to make comment in support of both areas - possibly by doing this we may make SE realise that the flying community impact is larger than they thought.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...possibly by doing this we may make SE realise that the flying community impact is larger than they thought.
The implications of a power line very close to a gliding airfield would not only have implications for soaring points, but also for safe return to the field. Not having the ability to go around, or ensure remaining above power lines has serious implications for viability on any given day and ongoing viability if annual flying days and revenue are reduced.
Last edited by Loggerheads; 8th Nov 2015 at 20:58.
True, loggerhead. I thought the planned lines were more of a problem for the soaring area to the South, and you are right, it adds risks for returns, which may put a whole, good, soaring zone out of use.
There are already power lines quite near Easterton to the South, close enough to constrain, or at least require care, for tug operations because of trailing tow ropes.
It should be possible for SSE to position lines to minimise the risks to flying, I'd hope, once they see the impacts clearly and if there is enough pressure applied. Standing together on this is vital.
There are already power lines quite near Easterton to the South, close enough to constrain, or at least require care, for tug operations because of trailing tow ropes.
It should be possible for SSE to position lines to minimise the risks to flying, I'd hope, once they see the impacts clearly and if there is enough pressure applied. Standing together on this is vital.
Farthing Corner airstrip in Kent (unlicenced) used to have 25 kva power lines across the strip at about the midpoint but they were buried some years ago. If National Grid can do this for one airfield, surely they can do it for others.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
May I offer a word of caution.
But first, the preferred corridor goes right over the airfield, so yes, you should make some comments. This is, of course, the reason for the consultation and the preferred corridor map.
Now the caution:
You talk about a 3km radius safeguarding zone. At Strathaven, we had a professional safeguarding chart drawn up - see the bottom left of the four pictures at Wind Energy Development - to CAA guidelines. The traditional criteria for a runway our length - about the same as Insch - is 2km radius, rather than 3km.
(You will see that, when it comes to wind farm development, we have derived a calculation which means our safeguarding zone for wind turbines is a good bit larger, depending on their size).
You might also notice that a high-tension pylon line passes about 2.5km to our west. This has been here for many decades, while Strathaven was used for gliding and for microlights. We have never reported any problems with it. As a result, the company building a new power line will be able to point to Strathaven as a similar operation and say: "they have never reported a problem".
So the caution is: don't be the boy crying wolf. Sit down with these folk and the council planners, and your MSP (since it is a major infrastructure project) make your case in a sensible manner. Point to other airfields and their experiences.
Do not say it will make your airfield unsafe (because if they build, then you will have to close, since you are unsafe. Or you were fibbing!) Instead say it will put constraints on operations, and those constraints may have an impact on viability.
If they refuse to listen, then we start bombarding. But - unless I have read wrong - this is still the time of discussion in smoke-filled rooms!
Feel free to contact me for any more information.
May I offer a word of caution.
But first, the preferred corridor goes right over the airfield, so yes, you should make some comments. This is, of course, the reason for the consultation and the preferred corridor map.
Now the caution:
You talk about a 3km radius safeguarding zone. At Strathaven, we had a professional safeguarding chart drawn up - see the bottom left of the four pictures at Wind Energy Development - to CAA guidelines. The traditional criteria for a runway our length - about the same as Insch - is 2km radius, rather than 3km.
(You will see that, when it comes to wind farm development, we have derived a calculation which means our safeguarding zone for wind turbines is a good bit larger, depending on their size).
You might also notice that a high-tension pylon line passes about 2.5km to our west. This has been here for many decades, while Strathaven was used for gliding and for microlights. We have never reported any problems with it. As a result, the company building a new power line will be able to point to Strathaven as a similar operation and say: "they have never reported a problem".
So the caution is: don't be the boy crying wolf. Sit down with these folk and the council planners, and your MSP (since it is a major infrastructure project) make your case in a sensible manner. Point to other airfields and their experiences.
Do not say it will make your airfield unsafe (because if they build, then you will have to close, since you are unsafe. Or you were fibbing!) Instead say it will put constraints on operations, and those constraints may have an impact on viability.
If they refuse to listen, then we start bombarding. But - unless I have read wrong - this is still the time of discussion in smoke-filled rooms!
Feel free to contact me for any more information.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I received a very nice e mail today from them quoting amongst other things
X ray is correct. They appear to want to discuss, with the parties concerned.
A meeting is to be arranged via KW (NAME EDITED) during December for the project team to visit the site and discuss the concerns raised.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SW Scotland
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the recommended obstacle-free zone was recently increased from 2 to 3 km radius for our kind of small airfields.
In any negotiations, it may be worth asking the developer to mitigate impact by making the new line more conspicuous (balls on top wire) and by lowering and painting pylons, as one sees in France.
The argument that if airfield "S" can cope with a transmission line (or other obstruction) near it then it's OK for all airfields to be similarly encumbered is often used by developers, but it is specious. The A75 euro-route has a level-crossing for dairy cattle near Dumfries, but that doesn't make a good case for adding such obstacles at intervals all the way from Istanbul to Belfast...
In any negotiations, it may be worth asking the developer to mitigate impact by making the new line more conspicuous (balls on top wire) and by lowering and painting pylons, as one sees in France.
The argument that if airfield "S" can cope with a transmission line (or other obstruction) near it then it's OK for all airfields to be similarly encumbered is often used by developers, but it is specious. The A75 euro-route has a level-crossing for dairy cattle near Dumfries, but that doesn't make a good case for adding such obstacles at intervals all the way from Istanbul to Belfast...
Last edited by N-Jacko; 11th Nov 2015 at 08:45.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N-Jacko,
As far as I am aware, and I write this so as we can all learn:
CAP 738 (last update 2006) Safeguarding of Aerodromes, states:
(for a code 1 or 2 runway, ie the length of Strathaven or Insch)
*************
5.4.2 Where a main runway is less than 1800 m in length, the inner horizontal surface is
circular and is centred on the mid-point of the runway. The radius is 4000 m except in
the case of non-instrument runways where the code number is 1 or 2. For these
runways the radii are 2000 m and 2500 m respectively.
****************
So the traditional safeguarding zone for our airfields is 2km radius.
However, the later CAP 764 on wind energy (but not traditional obstacles such as blocks of flats, or mobile phone masts) states:
1.2 Aerodromes. Whilst not definitive, it should be anticipated that any wind turbine
development within the following criteria1 might have an impact upon civil
aerodrome- related operations:
........
e) Within 4 km of a non-radar equipped unlicensed aerodrome with a runway of
more than 800 m;
f) Within 3 km of a non-radar equipped unlicensed aerodrome with a runway of
less than 800 m.
1.3 The figures above are for initial guidance purposes only and do not represent
definitive ranges beyond which all wind turbine developments will be approved or
within which they will always be objected to. These ranges are intended as a prompt
for further discussion between developers and aviation stakeholders in the absence
of any other published criteria.
1.4 Many modern gliders have a glide ratio of at least 50:1 and the most modern gliders
can exceed that, with further progress expected in future. Developments of wind
turbines within 10 km of a gliding site will present additional considerations beyond
those associated with powered aircraft. Therefore, notwithstanding the CAA
recommended distances quoted above, the British Gliding Association (BGA)
requests that relevant gliding sites and the BGA are consulted where proposed
developments are within 10 km of any charted glider launch site.
**********************
So, unless on charts as a gliding site, we have a 3km radius for sub-800m runways.
But, this is only a starting point, and for wind turbines.
ps.
At Strathaven, we have an alternative wind measure, which has twice been proven at appeal.
We take the 2km zone, and then we take a 20 rotor diameter circle around a proposed turbine to allow for its turbulence. If the two zones overlap, we object. In other words, if the turbulence will infringe the basic 2km zone.
For turbines up to 50m rotor diameter, this gives the same as the 3km basic wind zone in CAP 764. 2km plus 20 x 50 = 3km.
But since we have turbines within five miles of us with 80m rotor diameters, you can our concerns over even a 3km zone!
As far as I am aware, and I write this so as we can all learn:
CAP 738 (last update 2006) Safeguarding of Aerodromes, states:
(for a code 1 or 2 runway, ie the length of Strathaven or Insch)
*************
5.4.2 Where a main runway is less than 1800 m in length, the inner horizontal surface is
circular and is centred on the mid-point of the runway. The radius is 4000 m except in
the case of non-instrument runways where the code number is 1 or 2. For these
runways the radii are 2000 m and 2500 m respectively.
****************
So the traditional safeguarding zone for our airfields is 2km radius.
However, the later CAP 764 on wind energy (but not traditional obstacles such as blocks of flats, or mobile phone masts) states:
1.2 Aerodromes. Whilst not definitive, it should be anticipated that any wind turbine
development within the following criteria1 might have an impact upon civil
aerodrome- related operations:
........
e) Within 4 km of a non-radar equipped unlicensed aerodrome with a runway of
more than 800 m;
f) Within 3 km of a non-radar equipped unlicensed aerodrome with a runway of
less than 800 m.
1.3 The figures above are for initial guidance purposes only and do not represent
definitive ranges beyond which all wind turbine developments will be approved or
within which they will always be objected to. These ranges are intended as a prompt
for further discussion between developers and aviation stakeholders in the absence
of any other published criteria.
1.4 Many modern gliders have a glide ratio of at least 50:1 and the most modern gliders
can exceed that, with further progress expected in future. Developments of wind
turbines within 10 km of a gliding site will present additional considerations beyond
those associated with powered aircraft. Therefore, notwithstanding the CAA
recommended distances quoted above, the British Gliding Association (BGA)
requests that relevant gliding sites and the BGA are consulted where proposed
developments are within 10 km of any charted glider launch site.
**********************
So, unless on charts as a gliding site, we have a 3km radius for sub-800m runways.
But, this is only a starting point, and for wind turbines.
ps.
At Strathaven, we have an alternative wind measure, which has twice been proven at appeal.
We take the 2km zone, and then we take a 20 rotor diameter circle around a proposed turbine to allow for its turbulence. If the two zones overlap, we object. In other words, if the turbulence will infringe the basic 2km zone.
For turbines up to 50m rotor diameter, this gives the same as the 3km basic wind zone in CAP 764. 2km plus 20 x 50 = 3km.
But since we have turbines within five miles of us with 80m rotor diameters, you can our concerns over even a 3km zone!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Aberdeen, NE Scotland
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insch
The surprising thing about the SSE consultation document was that there was no mention whatsoever about there being an airfield in any of the preferred corridors.
Not even in Table 5.1, which lists the various impact assessments, is there a mention of any airfields. Improbable as it seems, SSE have failed to pick up the fact that Insch exists, even though it is shown on their own map of the preferred corridor!
Interesting to see what comes out of the December site visit.
Not even in Table 5.1, which lists the various impact assessments, is there a mention of any airfields. Improbable as it seems, SSE have failed to pick up the fact that Insch exists, even though it is shown on their own map of the preferred corridor!
Interesting to see what comes out of the December site visit.
