WIND ENERGY & AVIATION INTERESTSA STUDY FORA STUDY FOR

WIND TURBINES

The Old

WIND TURBINE FARMS

The New

AIM

To provide expert information on all aspects of the effect of wind turbines on aviation in Australia.

OUTPUTS

• Provide a clear, readable, single source of information on all aspects of the effect of wind turbines on aviation in Australia,

• identify the range of interactions between wind energy and aviation interests and the organisations involved in these processes,

• examine solutions used overseas, and • outline possible approaches (procedural and

technological) that could effectively address the issues which are likely to arise from such interactions.

PRIMARY GOAL

To facilitate the development of wind farms and encourage the acceptance of wind farms from local communities by helping to reduce the visual impact of obstacle lighting, whilst ensuring that the interests of civil and military aviation are appropriately recognised.

BACKGROUND

• CASA’s apparent views:– Wind turbines may have an adverse impact on the

aviation domain,– marking or lighting principal hazard reduction means,– failure to follow CASA recommendations transfers

liability. • CASA position has created concern amongst wind farm

developers.• Complaints have been lodged with CASA’s Industry

Complaints Commissioner.• CASA has initiated a review.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION – ICAO (1)

• Recommendations in Annex 14.

• Focus on aerodromes and obstructions within Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS).

• For objects outside the OLS, recommends: -– appropriate authorities be notified,

� objects 150m or more be regarded as obstacles,– unless a special aeronautical study indicates that

they do not constitute a hazard to aeroplanes.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION – ICAO (2)

Until quite recently wind turbines have been treated as any other obstacle.

However, ICAO recently issued a new Section 6.4 to Annex 14 specifically dealing with the marking and lighting of wind turbines.

This amendment came into effect in March 2009 and became applicable in November 2009.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION – ICAO (3)

In summary, ICAO has recommended that: -

• A wind turbine shall be marked and/or lighted if it is determined to be an obstacle.

• The rotor blades, nacelle and upper 2/3 of the supp orting mast of wind turbines should be painted white, unless otherwise indicated by an aeronautical study.

• When lighting is deemed necessary, medium intensity lights should be used.• In the case of a wind farm, lights should be instal led as follows: -

– the perimeter of the wind farm should be identified ,– the spacing of lights should be in accordance with the recommendations of

any other widely spaced obstacles, unless an assess ment determines otherwise,

– flashing lights, when used, should flash simultaneo usly, and– the tallest wind turbines should be identified rega rdless.

• Obstacle lights should be installed on the nacelle in such a manner as to provide an unobstructed view for aircraft approachi ng from any direction.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION – ICAO (4)

In principle, the above specific requirements for wind turbines vary little from that already existing within Annex 14 for other obstacles. It is noted, however, that only medium intensity obstacle lights have been recommended.

It should also be noted that a provision exists for an aeronautical study as to the need, or otherwise, for marking and/or lighting. This is a consistent provision within most national regulatory requirements.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION – UK (1)

• UK Policy in CAP 764 “CAA Policy and Guidelines on Wind Turbines”.– Covers onshore and offshore wind turbines.

• UK CAA position is summarised as: -– Obstacle lighting is not a substitute for knowledge of the

presence of such structures but is a significant and important aid to their visual acquisition and hence avoidance;

– obstacles located close to licensed aerodromes are required to be lit;

– structures away from the immediate vicinity of an aerodrome, which have a height of 150m or more above ground level (AGL) are required to be fitted with obstacle lights;

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION – UK (2)

• UK summary - continued: -– in general terms, structures less than 150m high, which are

outside the immediate vicinity of an aerodrome, are not routinely lit, unless the argument holds fast that “by virtue of its nature or location such structures could be considered a significant navigational hazard”;

– if a claim for lighting was clearly outside credible limits, the CAA, in isolation, would be unlikely to make a case for aviation warning lighting;

– where a wind turbine development lies (or would lay) outside anyaerodrome safeguarding limits and the turbine height was less than 150m, the aviation industry, including the CAA, is not in aposition to demand that turbines are lit.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION – EUROPE (1)

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS 1

1Excluding technical safeguarding – radar & military aspects.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION - USA

• FAA guidance is in FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1K, “Obstruction Marking and Lighting”.

• FAA normally requires objects 200ft (61m) or higher to be marked and/or lighted,

– but not so if an aeronautical study indicates no impairment on aviation safety,

– but may require higher standards if the contrary is shown.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION – CANADA (1)

• The Transport Canada obstruction markings and lighting standardsare detailed in the Civil Aviation Regulations General Operating and Flight Rules, CAR 621.19.

– Wind turbines are not specifically mentioned.

• Any object adjudged as hazardous to aviation safety because of its height and location, may be required to be marked and lit. This includes, in particular: -

– any obstruction penetrating an airport OLS;– any obstruction greater than 90m (300 ft) AGL within 2nm of the imaginary

centre-line of a recognized VFR route, including but not limited to a valley, a railroad, a transmission line, a pipeline, a river or a highway;

– any permanent catenary wire crossing where any portion of the wires or supporting structures exceeds 90m (300 ft) AGL;

– any obstructions greater than 150m (500 ft) AGL; and

– any other obstruction to air navigation that is assessed as a likely hazard to aviation safety.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION – CANADA (2)

• Transport Canada summary – continued: -– An aeronautical evaluation may be performed in

respect of any of the afore-mentioned obstructions.– No marking or no lighting may be approved, if: -

� the object may be so located with respect to other objects or terrain, removed from the general flow of air traffic, or may beso conspicuous by its shape, size, or colour that marking or lighting would serve no useful purpose.

� Normally, outside commercial lighting is not considered sufficient basis to omit required marking or lighting.

� The absence of marking and/or lighting will not impair aviation safety.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION – NZ (1)

• The CAA NZ requirements relating to the lighting of obstacles are within CAR Part 77 – “Objects and Activities Affecting Navigable Airspace”.– Requires the Director: -

� to be notified of objects and activities which can affect Navigable Airspace; and

� to carry out an aeronautical study and make a determination as to whether: -

– marking or lighting is required; or

– the aviation industry needs to be given prior notification of the activity.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION – NZ (2)

• Structures 120m or higher are adjudged as a hazard;• structures between 60m & 120m are to be assessed;

and• there is provision for a decision that marking and lighting

may be omitted when an aeronautical study shows the obstacle not to be of operational significance.

• Current rules do not cover the marking or lighting of wind turbines specifically,– but it is understood that draft rules are being considered which

will require, inter alia, wind farms with turbines over 60m high to have obstacle lighting.

AUSTRALIAN SITUATION (1)

• Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR), Part 9, Subpart 95, provides for the marking or removal of hazardous objects within the OLS of any aerodrome.

• Civil Aviation Safety Regulation 1998 (CASR) Subpart 139.E covers the specific definitions of hazardous objects and requires: -– aerodrome operators to monitor the surrounding airspace for any

object that might infringe the OLS and to notify CASA;– any person who proposes to construct any structure which will

be 110m or more AGL to inform CASA; and– CASA may determine whether the proposed structure(s) will be

a hazardous object because of its location, height or lack of marking or lighting.

AUSTRALIAN SITUATION (2)

• Detailed requirements for obstacle restriction and limitation appear in the CASA Manual of Standards 139 – Aerodromes.

• In support of the above regulations, CASA issued two Advisory Circulars; viz: -– AC 139-08(0) “Reporting of Tall Structures” April 2005, and

– AC 139-18(0) “Obstacle Marking and Lighting of Wind Farms”December 2005.

• The latter AC was subsequently withdrawn, believed to be due to: -– complaints from the wind farm industry concerning the apparent

intransigent position taken by CASA in respect of the need for lighting of wind farms,� regardless of the assessed risk to aviation operations,

– and the questionable legal status as to CASA’s powers to insist on marking and / or lighting of obstacles outside the immediate area of an aerodrome.

AUSTRALIAN SITUATION (3)

• CASA initiated an internal review process to look at how wind farms located near aerodromes are assessed and regulated.– Reference Project AS 06/07, initiated circa July 2009.

• It is understood that the principal aims of the afore-mentioned CASA Project is to undertake an appropriate safety study into the risk to aviation posed by, inter alia, wind turbines and for the outcome of that study to be used as a basis for developing a new set of guidelines.

• To date, HART Aviation has not been able to source any outcomes or proposals from this study.

• It is believed, but not substantiated, that this study may lead to proposed regulatory changes to provide CASA with greater powers to legislate for the marking and lighting of obstacles outside the boundaries of aerodromes and specifically for en route operations.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONMARKING & ILLUMINATING POLICY SUMMARY

POTENTIAL RISKS TO AVIATION OPERATIONS (1)

The risks from wind turbines fall into two categories: -1. blanking of radar and other

communication facilities, and2. a physical hazard which creates the

potential risk of an aircraft collision.

POTENTIAL RISKS TO AVIATION OPERATIONS (2)

• Primary Radar.• Secondary Surveillance Radar.• Aeronautical Navigation Aids.• Air Traffic Services.• Physical Obstruction.

MITIGATING MEASURES - CURRENT

• Primary Radar.• Secondary Surveillance Radar.• Aeronautical Navigation Aids.• Air Traffic Services.• Physical Obstruction.

– Obstacle lights.– Marking.– Identification on maps.– Restricted Zones.– Danger Zones.

MITIGATING MEASURES - CURRENT

Blade Tip Markings

MITIGATING MEASURES - CURRENT

Typical Depiction of Wind Turbine Farm on US Chart.

MITIGATING MEASURES - CURRENT

Warning Lights on Top of Wind Turbine Nacelle.

MITIGATING MEASURES – FUTURE ( 1)

• Operational Mitigation: -– e.g., re-routing of aircraft.

• Equipment Mitigation: -– e.g., radar masking, in-fill radar, terrain masking, advanced

tracking technology, SSR only, mandatory transponders, radar beam tilting, radar absorbent material.

• Safeguarding Maps: -– defining areas where turbine farm developments would be

undesirable.

• Aircraft Detection Systems: -– e.g., obstacle collision detection avoidance systems.

MITIGATING MEASURES – FUTURE (2)

Possible Icons for Depicting Single and Multiple Wi nd Turbines.

Improved Identification on Aeronautical Charts.

AERONAUTICAL CHARTS AIRSERVICES AIS (1)

• WORLD AERONAUTICAL CHARTS (WAC)– If advised of presence of wind turbines / wind turbine

farms: -� NOTAM,� AIP Supplement,� WAC amended,

– four year amendment cycle.

– No special wind turbine icon,� standard obstacle icon used,� and descriptive words.

AERONAUTICAL CHARTS AIRSERVICES AIS (2)

• C0452/09 NOTAMR C1071/08 Q) YMMM/QXXXX/V/NBO/E/000/005/ A) YMMM

B) 0901210056 C) PERM E) WIND FARM BEING ERECTED BTN CANBERRA-GOULBURN WIND FARM -REF AIP MAP - VNC, VTC, WAC, ERC A NEW 63 TURBINE WIND FARM IS BEING ERECTED BETWEEN CANBERRA ANDGOULBURN ON THE HIGH TERRAIN ADJACENT TO THE EASTERN SHORES OF LAKE GEORGE APROX BETWEEN 16DME AND 20 DME CANBERRA - VTC SPOT HEIGHTS 2670, 2959, 3 083 AND 3146 ARE RELEVANT. BLADES AND TOWERS UP TO 410FT AG L.

F) SFC G) 410FT AGL C0016/09 NOTAMN Q) YMMM/QOBCE/IV/ BO/A/000/999/ A) YRTI B) 0904240436 C) PERM E) AD OBST - WIND

TURBINE 289FT, 303DEG M 1.25NM FROM ARP AMD ERSA

Sample NOTAM

AERONAUTICAL CHARTS AIRSERVICES AIS (3)

Portland Wind Farm Identification on WAC.

AERONAUTICAL CHARTS RAAF AIS (1)

• RAAF AIS maintains data base of tall structures, if advised .– 30m or more above ground level – within 30km of an aerodrome; or– 45m above ground level elsewhere.

• Provides obstacle information to interested parties, and• produces its own maps: -

– JNC, ONC, TPC & JOG.– No special wind turbine icon,

� standard obstacle icon used,� and descriptive words “Turbine Motors”.

• Administered via Chart Amendment Document (CHAD).– Issued every 8 weeks to coincide with AIRAC cycle.

AERONAUTICAL CHARTS RAAF AIS (2)

“Wind Motors” north of Snowtown, South Australia.

INTERNATIONAL AERONAUTICAL CHARTS

Sample Canadian Aeronautical Chart.

COMMENTARY ON THE CURRENT SITUATION - AUSTRALIA (1).

• Obstacles must be lit or removed in the vicinity of aerodromes.

• Obstacles >110m must be reported to CASA,– and desirably to Airservices AIS.

• Obstacles >30m must be reported to RAAF AIS,– and desirably to Airservices AIS.

• The above actions should ensure that such obstacles will eventually appear on aeronautical charts.

• Whether an obstacle is to be marked or lit will be assessed by CASA,– which, at this time, would seem to have limited authority to

mandate such outside of the limits of the OLS.

COMMENTARY ON THE CURRENT SITUATION – AUSTRALIA (2).

What are the most vulnerable aviation sectors to th e presence of wind turbines?

If one assumes that all wind turbines are located outside the OLS of any aerodrome then, in principle, only low level aviation operations are potentially vulnerable; i.e.,– agricultural aviation operators,– low level military aviation operations, and– sport aviation operators; e.g.,

� ultralights, hang gliders, hot air balloons, etc.

All other aircraft operations should be above 500ft or LSALT if they are being operated in a legal fashion, and, as such, should be flying above the maximum height of any wind turbine.

COMMENTARY ON THE CURRENT SITUATION - AUSTRALIA (3).

AGRICULTURAL AVIATION OPERATORS• Operate between 20 – 30m from the ground.

• Wind farms, therefore, have the potential to: -– decrease the safety of agricultural aviation operations,

� but agricultural aviation operators can “see & avoid” wind turbines, and

� night operations are unlikely to occur in vicinity of wind turbines.

– decrease productivity,

– decrease accuracy of fertiliser deposits,

– decrease productivity of land owners,– increase cost to land owners, and

– reduce revenue of agricultural aviation operators.

• Issues mentioned considered largely “commercial” as opposed to “safety”related,

– but are of concern to agricultural aviation industry and may lead to compensation claims against wind farm developers.

–

COMMENTARY ON THE CURRENT SITUATION – AUSTRALIA (4).

LOW LEVEL MILITARY AVIATION OPERATIONS.

• Unlikely to be affected provided: -– advice as to the presence of wind farms is provided to

the RAAF AIS, and– such wind farms are recorded on RAAF aeronautical

maps. • RAAF may raise an objection or it will vary the military

aircraft low level operational routes so that wind farms will be avoided.

COMMENTARY ON THE CURRENT SITUATION – AUSTRALIA (5).

SPORT AVIATION OPERATORS.

• Hang gliders can (and do) operate from defined launch areas in the vicinity of wind farms and can “see & avoid”the wind turbines.

• Ultralight aircraft and balloons can “see & avoid” wind turbines.

• In all the above cases, operations at night are unlikely.

THE WAY AHEAD (1)

THE WAY AHEAD (2)

• It is recommended that any wind turbines / wind turbine farms, if at all possible, be located in accordance with, inter alia, the following principles: -– outside the OLS of any aerodrome, [the OLS usually

does not extend more than 15km from any aerodrome and the further away the lower the risk.]� and, therefore, the highest points of the turbines (i.e., the turbine

blade tips), will not penetrate any OLS.

– the highest points of the turbines do not penetrate any prescribed airspace, and

– there is no interference with any operational procedures.

THE WAY AHEAD (3)

• It is further recommended that each wind farm development proposal should be the subject of a formal risk assessment to identify the potential risks to aviation operations.

• Each proposal would need to be considered on an individual basis, but it is believed that there will be some cases where obstacle lighting will not be necessary based on a rational risk assessment.– There is precedence for this approach;

� e.g., the UK CAA and the US FAA take this approach.

THE WAY AHEAD (4)

• If it is determined that the wind turbines are indeed an obstacle and a hazard to aviation operations in the vicinity, then: -

• obstacle lights should be installed.• Such lights should meet the requirements imposed by

CASA, – but it is recommended that the preferred position of the

wind farm industry should be that any such obstacle lights should be medium intensity lights installed in accordance with the recommendations in ICAO Annex 14.

THE WAY AHEAD (5)

• If CASA recommends, or mandates, obstacle lighting on the wind turbines and an independent risk assessment has concluded that such is not necessary, then what?

• Firstly, it is suggested that the wind farm developer should seek a copy of CASA’s aeronautical assessment justifying its recommendations for obstacle lighting.

• If such an assessment is not forthcoming, or the assessment itself contradicts the independent risk assessment, then---

• HART Aviation is of the view that CASA’s decision in this respect should be challenged.

THE WAY AHEAD (6)

There are several ways to challenge the CASA decision, amongst which are: -

• CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner,• Ombudsman,• Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review),• Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

• The wind turbine developer should seek legal advice in respect of the above.

LIABILITY – A COMMENTARY (1)

• If CASA just recommends the marking and/or lighting of wind turbines;– whilst such a recommendation may be difficult to

ignore, the wind developer may choose to do so,– based on an independent risk assessment that there

is no associated aviation risk, or it is acceptably low,– and accept the consequential liability in the remote

event of an aircraft colliding with one of the wind turbines.

• The question is ---- “Is such a position defensible?”

LIABILITY – A COMMENTARY (2)

• Legal opinion needs to be sought on this matter but one should not overlook the law relating to criminal liability for negligent conduct.

• The following is an excerpt from the court case concerning a mid air balloon accident near Alice Springs on 13th August 1989, which resulted in the death of 13 people,– which may have some relevance.

LIABILITY – A COMMENTARY (3)

To be criminally negligent the conduct must first pass the test of negligence as used in the common law of tort. It must then pass a further test to ascertain whether such conduct could properly be described as being grossly negligent.-----------the first test---------is best expressed in Baron Alberson’s definition stated during the last century (the 1800s) and repeated on numerous occasions with approval since, “Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations wh ich ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or something which a prudent and reasonable man would not.”The second test, that determining criminal responsibility, is best described as gross negligence. In Rex v. Bateman (1925) 19 Cr.App.R 8 the test was described as “in order to establish criminal liability the facts must be such that, in the opinion of the jury, the negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation between the subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to a mount to a crime against the State and conduct deserving punishment”.

LIABILITY – A COMMENTARY (4)

• It could be viewed that the presence of a professionally prepared risk analysis, which concluded that the wind turbines / wind turbine farm concerned presented no associated aviation risk, or such risk was acceptably low, would be a valid defence in any liability action arising from an aircraft collision with the wind turbines / wind turbine farm,

• using the principles mentioned in the afore-mentioned legal case.

• Nevertheless, it is emphasised that a legal opinion should be sought, regardless.

QUESTIONS?