Whiteless windfarm TMZ!!

Nigel Hitchman · Post by **Nigel Hitchman** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:05 pm

Looking at Irv's new restrictions page I find this.
AIC mauve 87/2009

""A temporary Transponder Mandatory Zone (TMZ) will be established from 15 September until 6 December 2009, over the Whitelee
Windfarm, south of Glasgow, to mitigate its effect on the NATS Lowther Hill Radar. Experience has proved that windfarms generate
unwanted returns on primary radar and degrade the performance of Secondary Surveillance Radar. The temporary TMZ has therefore been
put in place to ensure the wind turbines have no effect on the safety of air traffic in the area. The TMZ will be withdrawn once NATS’ new air
traffic control centre at Prestwick comes on-line in December 2009 with a feed from the new radar station at Kincardine in Fife. This will
provide improved coverage of the airspace around the area.""

While this does not effect me at all, I am more interested in the principle of how/why this TMZ was established.

The first point is surely that if the windfarm degrades the performance of the radar and it is necessary to have radar feed from another site to resolve this, then the windfarm should not have been allowed to be built until the new radar station was online!!
Whoever was the final approver of the planning for this windfarm and allowed it to be built before radar cover was in place was obvious negligent in terms of public safety and perhaps needs to find another job.

This should not be allowed to happen again, TMZs cannot be used as bandaids to cover someones lack of planning or mistakes, or to allow big business to have their way and start when they want, before the radar is ready.

Secondly if the windfarm degrades the performance of SSR, then whats the point of a TMZ, which relys on SSR!!! OK it might help resolve some of the unwanted primary radar returns, but cant they do that with other filters or something, presumably the returns either dont move or do the same thing in the same place all the time.

The main point is that TMZs should be considered only as a last resort, be the subject of lots of consultation with very good reasoning over a long period and be proven to be absolutely necessary with no other possible solutions. Ideally there should be a cost to them as this is the only thing some people understand, £x per cubic meter, to go into some General Aviation trust fund to be used to fund GA safety initiatives .

TMZs absolutely should not be allowed to be used as a quick fix instead of doing the right thing that costs money.

Sandy Hutton LAA372 · Post by **Sandy Hutton LAA372** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 5:40 pm

There are windfarms springing up all over that part Nigel and it's Scottish Government policy that they be built. If the windfarm in particular is the one to the south of Strathaven airfield then I think there are going to be over 200 of them operational, sited on quite high terrain and therefore they are likely to show readily on a Radar Return. Perhaps the idea is to see if they can be tuned out or filtered to give a clean screen over transponder returns.

Just a guess.

Bob F · Post by **Bob F** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 6:51 pm

Talking of wind turbines, how about this one. There are plans to build 21 turbines, each standing about 125m (137 yds) high, between the Manchester Ship Canal and the M56 at Frodsham, Cheshire. Frodsham is about 5 miles across the River Mersey from Liverpool Airport & is only about 2 miles from Helsby which is a VRP for the airport.

The project has been proposed by Peel Holdings plc - who also happen own Liverpool Airport!

iancallier · Post by **iancallier** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:17 pm

Well, somebody doesn't seem to understand how Transponders work!

Wind farms do not squawk - so why the need!
Somebody important ought to ASK WHY it is being implemented

iancallier · Post by **iancallier** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:23 pm

Just outside the London zone at Reading there is a single wind turbine, very low height - it is marked on half-million as 'Wind Farm'.
Being aged & cynical I just wonder if the NATS thought they could sneek this TMZ proposal through with little opposition - and follow up throughout the country.

Sandy Hutton LAA372 · Post by **Sandy Hutton LAA372** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:15 am

iancallier wrote:Well, somebody doesn't seem to understand how Transponders work!

Wind farms do not squawk - so why the need!
Somebody important ought to ASK WHY it is being implemented

You mean they won't show up as returns on the Radar? Maybe you should be asking yourself how Radar works first of all

iancallier · Post by **iancallier** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:10 pm

Having spent 40 years working on radar and often solving the problems. I do have some idea. Wind Farms do not transpond!
Nigel's original post is/should be highly relevent to us all and yet i see little interest here.

JohnMead · Post by **JohnMead** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:38 pm

iancallier wrote:Having spent 40 years working on radar and often solving the problems. I do have some idea. Wind Farms do not transpond!

But they could be reflectors of SSR signals .

John Brady · Post by **John Brady** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:52 pm

I think the point of a temporary TMZ is because primary radars are disrupted by wind turbines because the blades produce returns with velocity so processors which remove stationary objects from the picture allow these through. So there is an area of stationary objects with various and varying velocity which tends to blank any primary returns from aircraft in that area and probably beyond it (as seen from the radar head). Thus a TMZ ensures that aircraft in that zone can still be seen and provided with an ATC service (or perhaps ATC can see aircraft in that area and still give a proper service to other aircraft that do need a service).

As I understand it once a new radar comes on line soon this issue will be overcome so a temporary measure seems reasonable to me and is consistent with CAA arguements that planning applications for windfarms must take account of the needs of aviation.

John

iancallier · Post by **iancallier** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:19 pm

I am confused.
A TMZ applies to all aircraft , not just those requiring a service. So surely effectivly stops my non radio- baby Piper flying through the area.
Or is this TMZ only for aircraft requiring an ATC service?

Perhaps I am asking this question in the wrong place.
And personally to you, John, I really do understand & appreciate the work you have put in to modify the various NATS proposals so far made.

rogcal · Post by **rogcal** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:59 am

This posting has been troubling me since I first read it because as someone who lives less than a kilometre from the proposed Scottish Power wind farm at Sempringham Fen in Lincolnshire, the implications of imposing a temporary TMZ such as the one at Whitelee in Scotland, are worrying to say the least.

Although the application for the windfarm was withdrawn by Scottish Power last month, only days before it was due to be considered by the planning committee, on the basis that the objections from the MOD would result in the application being turned down by the committee, they (Scottish Power) stated quite clearly that they would resubmit the application in 2010 when a fix had been found to overcome the objections of the MOD.

The MOD's objections were based on the fact that the primary radar at Cottesmore and Cranwell would be affected by the wind turbines but more seriously the PAR at Cottesmore would also be affected.

If this Government (and possibly the next) are so determined to meet their targets for sustainable energy production that they were prepared to circumvent local democracy and changed the planning laws accordingly to favour large wind farm developments (over 50mw in total), is it not possible that they could look at changing legislation to create TMZs wherever an objection from the MOD (or NATS) would delay the development of a wind farm.

In the case of the proposed development next to me, the imposition of a TMZ would seriously affect my flying, as I would find it extremely difficult to install a TPX in my VP1 due to there being no power supply.

In any event, the ability of the radar installations at Cottesmore and Cranwell to get any kind of return from TPX equipped aircraft operating from my strip would be seriously limited, as the radar returns wouldn't be effectly displayed on their screens until I had reached an altitude of a couple of hundred feet and those of you that are familiar with this area will know that fast jets and training aircraft are frequently to be found between 200 and 500 feet which corresponds with the max height of the proposed wind turbines.

The imposition of such TMZs would severly curtail my operations and that of two other strip owners in the area and if this scenario were to be acted out across the country, I can see many others being similairly affected.

Personally I'd be happy to have a biomass or wood/straw burning power station as a neighbour for a variety of reasons but those developments don't stand out on the skyline like wind turbines and as a consequence the Governments plan to show the public just how well they are doing at tackling global warming, wouldn't have the same impact!

Of course, if Scottish Power were happy to supply me with a transponder equipped aircraft and a fixed land line connected directly to Cottesmore ATC, I'd happily except the imposition of a TMZ over my strip.

If the Government does decide that TMZs are a quick fix to resolve MOD/NATS objections, just remember how easily they changed the planning law to favour large wind farm developments and how they would pay little heed to the outcry from the small minority affected by a few dozen TMZs.

I also suspect any consultation period would be short and a mockery of how a consultation should be conducted!

merlin · Post by **merlin** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:44 pm

Apart from questions re whether the new radars are being paid for by the wind turbine people and why it seems the cart is before the horse.

I am slightly concerned that CAT is operating at wind turbine blade heights.

Nigel Hitchman · Post by **Nigel Hitchman** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:57 pm

John Brady wrote:

"As I understand it once a new radar comes on line soon this issue will be overcome so a temporary measure seems reasonable to me and is consistent with CAA arguements that planning applications for windfarms must take account of the needs of aviation"

John,
while with the current situation that has been allowed to develop here, maybe this is a reasonable temporary measure.
Someone obviously made a mistake and the problem needs to be resolved.
But, we need to make sure they dont make the mistake again and a temporary TMZ must not be used as a solution for poor/negligant planning again. The CAA/MOD must be consulted before any windfarm planning approval and no wind farms be allowed to be built in areas where they may cause a problem with radars. if a problem is possible, then the solution (such as another radar head) must be in place before the windfarm construction is started. No more temporary TMZs!

Gary Carr · Post by **Gary Carr** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:28 pm

Sandy Hutton LAA372 wrote:There are windfarms springing up all over that part Nigel

Just a guess.

for what its worth!
The sad part of this... for the land owner.. is we have no say about these windfarms!.. I was even getting the scotish Hydro coming through my property and was told that if i continued with the matter of refusing acces they can place a compulsary order on the land..they call this a leyway! ..its not what i call it..

Perhaps i am a bit of the subject but anger took over!

Gary