Agenda item 2: Summary of responses

The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation

Agenda item 2: Summary of responses

Presented by: Michel BORELY EUROCONTROL

Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop - EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010

2

Structure of this presentation

1. Presentation of the Guidelines V1.0

2. The consultation process

3. Way ahead


3

Content of the Guidelines

• Guidelines recognise the importance of both wind energy and air transport industries.

• Both have challenging objectives. The aim of the guidelines is to accommodate both.

• Guidelines remind the reader that ANSPs are legally responsible for the safe and expeditious movement of air traffic in their designated airspace.

• Guidelines are a technical document and do not advise on financial or legal aspects.


4

Content of the Guidelines

• The Guidelines do not provide detailed operational guidance.

• The Guidelines are not mandatory.• The Guidelines are adaptable.• Guidelines are limited to ATC surveillance.


5

Structure of the Guidelines

• The 3 components of the guidelines:

1. A process.

2. An assessment methodology.

3. A set of mitigation options.• Promote the early and continuous discussion

between wind energy developer and ANSP.


6

The process

Wind energy project

description

Engineering impact on

Surveillance?

Significant operational

impact?

Possible mitigations?

Yes

No

Project re-design

Yes

No

Legend

ANSP

Wind energy

No

Project not tolerable for Surveilance

Project tolerable for Surveillance

ANSP / Wind energy

Surveillance sensor

descriptions

Surveillance engineering modification

Operational modification

Yes

Operational description

Yes

Yes

Wind energy developer inputs

ANSP inputs

ANSP inputs


7

The Methodology

• V1.0 Retains the 4-zone approach with clarifications:• Zone 1: safeguarding area.• Zone 2:

• is not a no-go area.• But it requires a specific impact assessment –

the scope and detail of which are to be agreed.

• Zone 3: simple and generic impact assessment is possible.

• Zone 4: free area.• Zones 2, 3 and 4 are not annular bands.


8

PSR Zones

Zone Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4

Description 0 - 500 m500 m - 15 km

and in radar line of sight

Further than 15 km but within maximum

instrumented range and in radar line of

sight

Anywhere within maximum

instrumented range but not in radar line of sight or outside the maximum

instrumented range

Assessment Requirements

SafeguardingSpecific

assessmentSimple

assessmentNo assessment


9

SSR Zones

Zone Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 4

Description 0 - 500 m500 m - 16 km but within

maximum instrumented range and in radar line of sight

Further than 16 km or not in radar line of sight

Assessment Requirements

Safeguarding Specific assessment No assessment


10

Radar line of sight

• Radar line of sight calculation:• The Guidelines do not recommend any tool.• The Guidelines do not list available tools.

• However, a list of tools will be made available on the EUROCONTROL website.

• The tool must be agreed between wind energy and ANSP:• Selected in accordance with the type of assessment,

the required level of resolution and local conditions.• Must be familiar to the ANSP.


11

Mitigation Options

• The Mitigation Options section has been improved:• More comprehensive listing,• Presentation improved.

• Mitigation options should be selected to:• Maintain air traffic safety.• Be cost-effective.• Result in a net saving in terms of CO2.


12

Mitigation options (Process)

• Apply the process described in the guidelines• Provide surveillance input information• Provide operational input information• Initiate discussion on new projects


13

Mitigation options (PSR)

• Mitigations applicable to non cooperative surveillance (PSR):• Blank PSR transmission in an azimuth sector• Suppress PSR radar returns in range-azimuth sector• Improve PSR anti wind turbine clutter capabilities• Strengthen primary track initiation conditions• Adapt PSR overload prevention facilities• Upgrade PSR processing capabilities• Upgrade PSR output interface capabilities• In-fill PSR• In-fill MSPSR (when developed)


14

Mitigation options (SSR)

• Mitigations applicable to cooperative surveillance (SSR):• Blank SSR transmission in an azimuth sector• In-fill SSR• In-fill WAM• In-fill ADS-B• Improve SSR anti-reflection capabilities


15

Mitigation options (ATC Ops.)

• Mitigations applicable to ATC operations:• Move ATC route• Change airspace classification or apply Mandatory

Transponder Zone (MTZ)


16

Mitigation options (wind energy project cont.)

• Mitigations applicable to wind energy project:• Move wind turbine out of radar line of sight• Move wind turbine out of critical areas• Change wind farm layout• Reduce number of wind turbines in radar line of sight• Reduce wind turbine EM reflectivity


17

The consultation process

• Started 25th June 2009• Six-month period up to 29th January 2010• February-March 2010 processing of comments by

the Wind Turbine Task Force• Dedicated sub-group (10-11th February 2010)• Plenary WTTF meeting (25th February 2010)

• Informal consultation with EWEA on a new draft.• 29th April 2010 Presentation of the results of the

consultation process.


18

The consultation feedback• 174 comments received from 12 organisations:

• Wind energy industry• EWEA - 24

• Radar industry• Thales Air Systems (Fr) - 29

• Consultant• TNO (NL) - 5• Navcom (Germany) - 17• Pager Power (UK) - 56 • EADS (Germany) - 1• KUL (Belgium) - 1

• ANSP/CAA• Belgocontrol - 10• Infratil (UK airports) - 10• AOA (UK airport association) - 10• UK CAA - 1• UK MoD - 10


19

Results of comment processing

• Of the 174 comments:• 88 accepted or partially accepted (50.6%)• 66 noted (37.9%)• 20 rejected (11.5%)

• A detailed summary of responses will be published.


20

The families of comments• 14 different categories of comments were identified:

1. Cosmetic2. Cumulative impact3. Document status4. Document 0155. Equations6. Financial aspects7. Line of sight8. Mitigations9. Operations10.Process11.Safety12.Specific assessment vs. detailed/complex13.Vocabulary14.Zone definition


21

Cumulative impact

• Comment:• Wind energy projects are often windfarms rather

than single wind turbine projects.• Assessment is based on single wind turbine

assessment.

• Addition of explanations on how to assess cumulative impact of multiple wind turbines.


22

Document status

• Comment:• Guidelines are not a mandatory document

however they include « shall » statements.

• Explanation of the objectives of EUROCONTROL guidelines within the EUROCONTROL Regulatory and Advisory Framework (ERAF).

• Explanation of why « shall » may be included in non mandatory documents.


23

Document 015

• Comment:• Relationship with ICAO EUR Document 015 is

unclear.

• ERAF foresees that EUROCONTROL Guidelines may supplement/clarify ICAO regional document.

• Relationships with Doc 015 explicitly stated.


24

Document 015 (Cont.)

• Doc 015 is based on one surface (i.e. 2 zones)


25

Document 015 (Cont.)

• If application is outside the BRA: no problem.• If application infringes the BRA: engineering

authority will conduct appropriate analysis based on theory, experience and existing conditions.

But


26

Equations

• Comment:• Alternative equations were proposed.

• Simplification when possible.• Change of equation: rarely possible because the

work and the agreement of the WTTF was based on these equations.

• In the future, if new equations are proved to be more accurate they could be included.


27

Financial aspects

• Comment:• Clarify who should pay for mitigations

• These guidelines are a technical document and do not address financial aspects.

• Early discussions should help to minimise costs and to agree on the financial aspects.

• Cost/efficiency is one of the recommended criteria for mitigation selection.


28

Radar line of sight calculation (RLOS)

• Comment:• Which RLOS tool should be used?

• Difficult to maintain an accurate and exhaustive list of tools in a document (will be posted on the EUROCONTROL website).

• Tool should be agreed, tool should be familiar to the ANSP so that he knows its limitations and drawbacks.

• Tool selection and parameterisation should depend on the level of accuracy needed.

• Guidelines require ANSP to inform which RLOS tool is in use.


29

Mitigations

• Comment:• Are there priorities for the selection? Are there any

other possible mitigations? Can a PSR be replaced by SSR?

• No priorities, but selection criteria are now defined:

Maintain safety Cost/efficiency Net CO2 saving• Additional mitigations have been included.• SSR should not be assumed as a mitigation for PSR.


30

Operations

• Comment:• Focus the assessment on those areas where

there may be operational impact.

• Combined technical and operational assessment• Within the specific assessment, focus shall be put on

where the technical impact may lead to an operational issue.

• Iterative approach rather than a waterfall approach.


31

Operations

• Comment:• Provide criteria and methodology to support an

operational assessment.

• One size does not fits all.• Traffic configurations are different.• Operational environments are different.• …

• It is recognised as an area where the document could be developed further.


32

Process

• Comment:• Improved interface with Surveillance Service

Providers.

• Single Point Of Contact:• Generic email address recommended.• Be aware that multiple Surveillance Service Providers

may operate in the same country (e.g. civil and military).

• Process input information:• Requirements to provide the necessary information to

support the assessment process.


33

Safety

Comment: Aviation safety must not be affected.

• Safety is a paramount objective of the aviation industry.

• ANSP are legally responsible for the safe and expeditious movement of air traffic in their designated airspace.


34

Specific assessment vs. detailed/complex assessment

Comment:• Repeated reference to detailed or complex

assessment is discouraging and could establish go/no-go mentality.

• Specific assessment introduced:• Not based on generic criteria.• Scope and level of detail are to be agreed.• Not a no-go zone.


35

Zone definition

• Comment:• The structure and nature of the Zones could be

confusing.

• Zones are exclusive and are neither order of steps nor annular bands.

• Clarification of the zone limits (radar maximum range, radar line of sight).

• WTTF may agree new zone limits on the basis of new evidence or trial results.


36

Zone definition

• Examples are now included.

Zone 4

Zone 3

Zone 2 15 km

103 km

Visibility calculated at 320 m above radar ground level


37

Way ahead

• WTTF will propose to continue under an updated mandate :• Maintain the guidelines taking into account

feedback, new studies and experiments,• Address other surveillance technologies (WAM,

ADS-B, …),• Wider representation:

• wind energy, radar manufacturers, etc.• Meeting once a year.


38

Michel BORELY

Secretary of the EUROCONTROL Wind Turbine Task Force

EUROCONTROL

Rue de la Fusée 96

B-1130 Bruxelles

Phone +32 (0)2 729 11 61

Fax +32 (0)2 729 90 86

[email protected]

www.eurocontrol.int/surveillance

http://www.eurocontrol.int/surveillance/public/subsite_homepage/homepage.html

http://www.eurocontrol.int/surveillance/public/subsite_homepage/homepage.html

Documents

Agenda item 2: Summary of responses