Safety, CRM, QA & Emergency Response Planning A wide ranging forum for issues facing Aviation Professionals and Academics

Wind Farms & Aviation Safety

Old 4th Feb 2008, 13:58
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: RAF Lincolnshire
Age: 19
Posts: 104
Front Page News in The Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3300737.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3300814.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3300736.ece

Fairly accurate as well, apart from the graphic showing Faeros and Saxa Vord as radar installations! Also the great Type 102 gets a mention but not its in service date or what is going to replace the 3rd servicable Type 93 at Staxton Wold.

Last edited by AonP; 4th Feb 2008 at 14:01. Reason: More articles found
AonP is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2008, 14:20
  #22 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,054
3rd servicable Type 93
I must be getting old, I actually thought that said servicable Type 93....
ORAC is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2008, 22:43
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,775
AonP:
Fairly accurate as well
Yeah right. I particularly liked
They create a “mushiness” on the screen
NS
NorthSouth is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2008, 15:32
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 148
Good article in the Times. This problem is not being helped by the complete lack of consistency by MoD, and the fact they seem to think they can ride roughshod over everybody.
danieloakworth is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2008, 16:26
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,775
DO:
they seem to think they can ride roughshod over everybody
That's cos they CAN!
NS
NorthSouth is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2008, 20:41
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 148
They can't. And the raft of public enquiries they've managed to get caught up in is going to hurt them. Starting in Northumberland where they are trying to block a, previously approved, windfarm, that they'd mis-plotted by 60 miles.
danieloakworth is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2008, 16:02
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,775
Jury is still out on whether any of these inquiries will hurt them. It's a brave planning inspector who decides the MoD has to accept some operational penalty in the interest of energy policy.
NS
NorthSouth is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2008, 19:36
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 148
True, but the question is whether there is actually a real operational impact.
danieloakworth is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2008, 21:23
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,775
$64,000!
Ns
NorthSouth is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2008, 07:43
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 4,426
Wonder how they cope in Leipzig...

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=727842
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2008, 08:17
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
"In a report published on 10March, the UK-based Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) reveals that electricity from offshore wind farms, currently the most viable renewable source, will cost at least twice as much as that from conventional sources.

The independent study, commissioned from international energy consultants PBPower, puts all energy sources on a level playing field by comparing the costs of generating electricity from new plants using a range of different technologies and energy sources.
The cheapest electricity will come from gas turbines and nuclear stations, costing just 2.3p/kWh, compared with 3.7p/kWh for onshore wind and 5.5p/kWh for offshore wind farms."

Not being a Greenie I notice that peak demand for electricity is usually when it is really cold or really hot and that is usually when we have a big High sitting over the UK. Also when wind speeds are often non existent! New Nuclear power at the touch of a switch is the way to go.
aviate1138 is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2008, 11:24
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Lots of new evidence from NATS, MoD and NIAL here:
http://www.persona.uk.com/tynedale/Aviation.htm

MoD are now introducing issues resulting from disruption of Threat Radar training systems.
BillS is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2008, 14:17
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SVD
Age: 39
Posts: 23
Don't make a big deal on your precious radar, it won't stop the government hitting it's renewable obligations. NATS and the MOD will always object where they feel they need to. Radar is really not a big issue for the consultants that design them. The visual aspect is the killer, but even chopped up raptors will drop a wind farm dead far easier. The masses don't care for radar returns, only their easy-appreciated views.

One of said consultants, not yet had a windfarm dropped on radar grounds (3+ yrs).

PS. If you don't want one, go and rent a few great crested newts the day before the site gets an ecology survey.
concordski is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2008, 07:47
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: in the north country fair
Age: 44
Posts: 170
Thumbs up

"No conflict between radar and wind turbines"

A couple of weeks ago the Royal Danish Air Force conducted some tests in cooperation with Royal Air Force. The purpose was to test whether the offshore wind turbines at Horns Rev would cause any unwanted effects in relation to the TPS-77 radars to be used by the Royal Danish Air Force.

Different aircraft, including British Hawks flew various patterns to unveil any false signals or other undesirable effects caused by the turbines.

All preliminary analysis of the test results indicate that the turbines do not cause any problems in relation to the radar coverage.

Link to the news article by Royal Danish Air Force: (Danish only)
Ingen konflikt mellem radar og møller

RD
RotorDompteur is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2008, 09:07
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 79
At what height is it mandatory to have some sort of anti-collision light fitted?
Marco is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2008, 11:48
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,775
60m offshore, 150m onshore.
NS
NorthSouth is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2008, 08:20
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Suffolk, England
Age: 51
Posts: 20
Wind Farms and Aviation (Various)

A few comments that may be of use:

I work for a company called Pager Power that assists wind farm developers that have radar issues. www.pagerpower.co.uk

CAA Guidance - There is CAA, MOD and wind industry guidance (somewhat dated) which gives a useful overview http://www.bwea.com/pdf/Wind-Energy-...guidelines.pdf. There is also a more recent CAA policy and guidance document on windfarms CAP764 http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Cap764.pdf

Operational Impact - On a more practical note I received the following ATC message whilst receiving a RIS (Radar Information Service) in Cumbria "Possible slow moving traffic, unknown altitude, x miles ahead - could be a wind farm". We kept our eyes peeled and flew on.

SSR - There appears to be no real impact on SSR although SSR radar are normally safeguarded for wind turbines to 5km or more in the United Kingdom.

Overseas - There are more than 40 large wind turbines within 10km of Kastrup airport in Copenhagen and there is a similar number of turbines in the industrial area of Amsterdam, to the north of Schipol. The UK generally takes a more cautious approach to wind turbine radar safeguarding than other countries.

Lighting - Almost all onshore turbines in Britain are unlit. Where they are lit there are two medium intensity red lights mounted on top of the nacelle.
WindFarmer is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2012, 16:48
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Scotland
Posts: 16
Hi everyone,

I am about to begin my dissertation on this topic. My degree is Environmental geography and I am interested in looking at the need for renewable energy but at the price that its paying to aviation, focusing on wind turbines. If anyone is interested in discussing this further and filling out my question air I'd be really greatful! So let me know what you think and give me an email.

Thankyou

Michael
Mike91 is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2012, 16:08
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Behind a dusty desk, and in some really hot, dusty, wet and cold places subject to who is paying the bill. But mostly Gods own land.
Posts: 262
Mike91, if you still need more information PM me.
Miles Gustaph is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2012, 16:32
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,775
Mike91:
the price that its paying to aviation
is in my view massive - many many millions of pounds buying new radars which provide capability way in excess of the ones they replace, and many many millions of pounds funding "mitigation" which frequently isn't necessary and is massively overpriced by air navigation service providers who maximise their monopoly position.

But I suspect that's not what you meant...

NS
NorthSouth is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.