‘Pilots warn of a disaster as wind farms flourish

LIGHT aircraft pilots have warned it is “just a matter of time” before wind farms cause a “disastrous” accident in Scotland.

By Paula Murray, EXCLUSIVE’

(Details of FOIs from Christine Metcalfe can be viewed below the article including this Very Important  Response to CAA. and this Very Important Re. Freedom of Information Act request.)

Read the original article

‘Small planes along with helicopters, gliders, microlights and other hobbyists make up the biggest user group of the UK airspace in terms of low level flying and contribute some £3billion to the economy supporting close to 40,000 jobs. Member organisations admit the fast-growing renewables sector has created some “fairly significant” issues which they have fought hard to resolve. Their main concerns relate to downwind turbulence from the turbine blades plus problems with visibility especially in poor conditions. The fast pace of development mean maps and charts are often well behind of the size of existing farms and new developments with anenometer masts springing up to scout potential development sites.

Last month this newspaper revealed RAF pilots had reported a catalogue of near misses with wind farms and are making over 1,000 manual corrections to their charts every month to try and keep up with the changes.

However, general aviation industry is also struggling with the pace of development. Last night the Light Aircraft Association (LAA) warned there was potential for a mid-air disaster.

LAA inspector Neil Geddes, of Bridge of Weir, Renfrewshire, said “Certainly there is a risk. “You only really understand how cluttered parts of Scotland are with wind turbines when you are flying a light aircraft – you won’t really get the picture tens of thousands of feet high on board a passenger plane. “They cause downwind turbulence which can be an issue but at least we can spot them and take evasive action. “It is the anenometer masts put up to measure wind speed and such like that are the real problem. They are practically impossible to see because they are so tall and slim. If you don’t know there is one on your flight path – and lets face it, it takes maps a year to catch up and by then there will be more of them – there is little you can do. “In certain weather and light conditions they will be impossible to detect. It’s only a matter of time before we have a disastrous accident in our hands.”

Microlight aircraft instructor Colin MacKinnon, who operates Scotland’s oldest airfield in Strathaven, Lanarkshire, near to Whitelee wind farm which is among the largest in Europe, said new developments had the potential to put people out of business unless they were willing to put up a fight. He added: “For about four years, I spent at least one day a week to respond to wind development planning applications and despite promises of community benefits we never received a penny of any funds, which is a bit frustrating. “If Whitelee decided to expand eastward and was given the planning permission to do so we’d be out of business. “While millions of pounds have been spent to investigate the impact and guarantee the safety of commercial aviation such as relocating radars to avoid problems with readings, very little has been done for the general aviation sector which is us. “One of the issues is turbulence. There is no research done as to how close to a turbine it will be safe to fly. We do not have the resource to fund such studies unlike the wind industry which has millions. “So we err in the side of caution. None of us is brave or stupid enough to be a test pilot to see how close to a turbine you can fly before your plane is ripped to shreds. “I think we are among the most experienced in the world when it comes to flying safely in the vicinity of turbines with Whitelee so near to us.”

Over the past five years there have been around 10,000 applications to construct approximately 24,000 turbines across the UK. With prime locations already in use developers are looking at alternative sites, many of which are closer to population and activity centres. A UK Government report to general aviation from earlier this year admitted some airfields had their operations threatened by wind turbine developments. The LAA also admitted some energy companies were eyeing “inappropriate” spots for their structures. CEO Stephen Slater said: “I would say that more than 90 per cent of the turbines run no aviation issues. “The general aviation sector is the main user of low level air space. It’s not just light aircrafts we are talking about but also helicopters, gliders, microlights, parachuters and so on. “But we do have certain factors that have to be considered. There is the risk of potential collision especially in poor, deteriorating conditions when turbines or masts near an airfield may limit the pilot’s options of approach and we know of the radar issues with turbines interfering with readings. “We are also aware of the concerns over turbulence with anecdotal evidence from pilots.” “But I would say that over the years we have developed a good working relationship with the wind energy industry to mitigate any problems that may occur.”

Meanwhile campaigners opposing wind farms have drawn information from abroad to highlight issues to aviation. Christine Metcalfe, of Loch Avich, Argyll, has requested confirmation under Freedom of Information legislation from Civil Aviation Authority that turbines and turbulence from them do not impact emergency landings at airports such as Prestwick in Ayrshire and Glasgow after receiving evidence from Australia, USA and Europe on safety issues. She raised concerns Whitelee was constructed without appropriate safeguards in place and now wants to know what sort of radar and safety impact studies were carried out prior the vast development went up. Ms Metcalfe also wants to know why there has been no studies into the effect turbulence from wind farms has on planes when the organisation itself said in 2012 there was an “urgent need” for an assessment. CAA has issued guidance to aerodrome operators saying a “large number of turbines in an area” will have a cumulative effect that is “of far more significant concerns” but it is yet to respond to the FoI request in more detail. The anti-wind farm campaigner said: “I have learned that during the early 90s the management of the CAA were very supportive of the campaign involving resistance wind turbines as they had real and valid concerns even then. It is a great pity that times appear to have changed somewhat – almost certainly due to governmental pressures. “Without the overall checks and balances in place for this technology, if such pressures were applied they are being proven to be misguided at best and at worst contributing to dangerous decisions being made.”

The renewables sector does recommend that aviation stakeholders are always consulted early in the wind farm planning application process and collaborates with aviation authorities and government to find solutions to radar interference or flight obstruction caused by wind energy developments. They also organise regular workshops and surgeries to bring both sides together to work on any issues that arise.’

End.

Letters were written to the Scottish Government on 2nd June 2015 under Freedom of Information rules and the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority)on the 8th  June, requesting answers to the following questions involving radar technology and wind turbines:

1. As wind turbines near airports are a risk to multiple lives, please provide examples of any radar mitigation software which has been proven to work.
2. Should there be any currently in existence and use, does the vendor of the software involved guarantee that no lives will be at risk by the reliance placed upon it?
3. Should the answer to both questions be that no such technology exists, may I have a written undertaking that when it comes to risk to multiple lives, decisions will be precautionary in that should such a technology be adopted, the software will have to be guaranteed by the vendor that no lives will be put at risk.”

These replies were received:

FOI-15-01068-Final response (2)

CAA 20150707 ReplyLetter

This was followed with a Very Important  Response to CAA. on 21st August 2015.

A further request with specific questions was sent to the CAA on 1st October 2015.

 Re. Freedom of Information Act request F0002371..  Neither have yet received replies.

A  Letter to the MOD was sent on 8th June 2015.

Dear Sir,

I have received a reply from the Health & Safety Executive directing me to the M.O.D. for a reply to the questions below as they deny having responsibility for such matters.   I am hoping that the M.O.D will not claim that industrial wind turbines are not a risk at ‘kill assessment’ because they can be spotted by aircraft – as this really begs the question. Clearly being ‘spotted’ depends on a number of factors – not least bad weather/foggy conditions.

1. As wind turbines near airports are a risk to multiple lives, please provide examples of any radar mitigation software which has been proven to work.
2. Should there be any currently in existence and use, does the vendor of the software involved guarantee that no lives will be at risk by the reliance placed upon it?
3. Should the answer to both questions be that no such technology exists, may I have a written undertaking  that when it comes to risk to multiple lives, decisions will be precautionary in that should such a technology be adopted,  the software will have to be guaranteed by the vendor that no lives will be put at risk?     

From M.O.D. 20150703-FOI-Metcalfe-Wind Turbines-FINAL to which a reply  is in hand.

 DECC received a letter on 17/9/15 asking:

Dear Sirs,

1. Please may I have answers to the following questions under Freedom of Information regulations.
2. How many studies have been funded or co-funded by DECC (or previously by the DTI) into the affect of wind  turbines on radar?
3. May I please have copies of any such studies?
4. Have they produced any solutions?
5. How much have they cost?
6. How many of the solutions are now incorporated into radar at airports  thereby allowing the safe operation with wind turbines nearby?

FOI 2015-19836 and a reply is in hand.

As Lindsey Ward says,  “If you haven’t got a wind farm approved yet tell the developer that you are going to monitor the wind farm for excessive noise and EAM if they get approval. We are also looking at monitoring for LFN.”

Protesters in the north are warning windfarm operators that some schemes could be shut down for breaching noise limits.

Highland activists are preparing to follow the lead of counterparts in England and Ireland who have collated extensive data they say proves that planning conditions have been flouted at a number of windfarms.
Campaigners in the north believe similar gauging of the industry in Scotland could open the floodgates for legal action against offending operators.
Sound estimates are usually carried out by developers as part of the groundwork for planning applications to give an indication of anticipated noise levels.
But there is currently no obligation to carry out monitoring once a scheme is built — at which stage councils merely respond to individual complaints about noise.
Residents living near a turbine development in Cambridgeshire have compiled what is thought to be the most comprehensive sound history of any UK windfarm.
Monitoring has taken place over two-and-a-half years, using industry-standard recording equipment to reveal what they claim have been regular breaches at the Cottonfarm scheme at Gravely.
Highland campaigners have seen the equipment operate and now plan to instal similar devices in the north. Bev Gray, 71, who worked in renewable energy before retiring, stopped holidaying in Scotland due to the spread of windfarms.
As an adviser to a residents’ group, he claims his local wind scheme – Cotton farm – is “one of the noisiest in the world”, based on data he gleaned by installing a £16,000 machine to measure the decibel output.
Residents there now want the equipment installed at every windfarm, at the owners’ expense, as part of planning conditions.
Mr Gray said: “Developer data is never tested because it’s always taken as being accurate.
“From a month’s worth of monitoring they take a minute’s worth of the lowest noise level to produce a figure.
“It’s part of the smoke and mirrors of an illusion that allows them to build windfarms close to homes.”
The Cotton farm scheme was taken over by a City of London investment group.
Spokesman Tom Rayner said: “Greencoat UK Wind has worked with the local environmental health officer to monitor noise levels and will continue to do so as required.”
Mr Gray said his data had been taken on board by the local authorities in south Cambridgeshire and would allow people to use “accurate information” as a basis for legal action.
“We’re gradually bringing the wind industry to account,” he said.
“At the moment they can do what the hell they like. Nobody can prove them wrong because the authorities aren’t monitoring things.”
Prominent Highland anti-windfarm campaigner Lyndsey Ward, from Beauly near Inverness, has visited Cambridge and Ireland to witness communities’ monitoring of various schemes. She said the move was prompted by plans tabled by ABO Wind for a turbine scheme at Allt Carach, south- west of Beauly.
She said: “The potential devastation on our lives from ABO Wind’s proposed 25-turbine development has forced us to research the noise issue in more depth.
“Our home would have the prevailing wind in direct line from the turbines. This is not just for us, but for others across Scotland.
“Sleep deprivation can lead to more serious illnesses. Why there’s no legislation to compel developers to constantly monitor their operations beggars belief.”
Tom Harrison, project manager with Inverness-based ABO Wind UK, said: “Allt Carach is still under investigation, therefore its planning submission is uncertain. We would always comply with any noise legislation or planning condition set by the relevant planning authority.
“Should a community have concerns over noise, after consultation with that relevant community, a decision as to whether noise monitoring equipment is required would be considered.”
—
On the plus side: Complaints ‘will be investigated’ and projects get ‘rigorous’ checks
Highland Council said last night it would investigate any complaints about noise levels at turbine developments.
An industry body insisted all projects were subjected to “rigorous” examination at the planning stage. A spokesman for the local authority said: “We seek to ensure that noise levels at a particular house nearby any turbine does not exceed minimum levels.
“Where there is a complaint this is investigated and, if necessary, a resolution sought to any breach of planning condition.”
Joss Blamire, of trade body Scottish Renewables, said: “All wind energy projects in Scotland go through a rigorous planning process that assesses the noise impacts of developments. Only those with acceptable impacts will be consented.”
Huntingdon District Council in Cambridgeshire plans to measure noise levels at Cottonfarm Windfarm after receiving a flood of complaints from residents in surrounding villages. The decision was prompted by evidence recorded by equipment installed by residents.
Locals argue the 413ft tall turbines were built too close to homes.
The sound of the turbines has been likened to that of an aircraft or helicopter in flight.

/Users/malcolmkirk/Desktop/P & J 3.jpg

Also see on Windwatch