Almost Invisible Radio Masts
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
onetrack:
Are you able to provide more information on this aspect, whether in Australia or outside of Oz?
I understand there has been at least one event involving an aircraft collision with wind turbines whilst on a landing approach?
Feel a thought for the people that climb them for a living !
The scariest video you have ever watched in the name of science
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QSK? - The information I have, is that the collision was in 2008, in Northern France, between a twin-engine aircraft on approach, and two wind turbines. The incident does not appear on any significant aircrash database, so I have to presume the aircraft landed safely.
Even in the U.S., there is now a serious clash between plans for the greening of America via wind turbine power, and the requirements of the military for training purposes.
The Americans are still trying to establish a set policy for wind farm installations near military bases, that might lead to training accidents.
Naturally, it goes without saying, that if you have wind farms, you have HT powerlines and pylons, as part of the deal.
I do not understand why powerlines can't have simple, visible markers installed on the lines. Surely the cost is little, in comparison to the powerline cost.
It's interesting to note that before one single teensy bit of construction commences on a building... especially where powerline contact possibility is increased... the powerlines are marked better than any school crossing...
GAO report: When airplanes and windmills collide
Even in the U.S., there is now a serious clash between plans for the greening of America via wind turbine power, and the requirements of the military for training purposes.
The Americans are still trying to establish a set policy for wind farm installations near military bases, that might lead to training accidents.
Naturally, it goes without saying, that if you have wind farms, you have HT powerlines and pylons, as part of the deal.
I do not understand why powerlines can't have simple, visible markers installed on the lines. Surely the cost is little, in comparison to the powerline cost.
It's interesting to note that before one single teensy bit of construction commences on a building... especially where powerline contact possibility is increased... the powerlines are marked better than any school crossing...
GAO report: When airplanes and windmills collide
I agree. I feel sick just watching it at times. At the very top, when he lets go with both hands to prepare his carabiner, he is just standing on the tiniest of platforms. Man, that is a long way down!!
Can't find the form on the CASA website at the moment but from memory there may be one similar to that for Operational Assessment of Existing or Proposed Structure.
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...139/139c08.pdf
CASA assessment forms, so if you report something and provide sufficient detail, presumably this is what they look at:
http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/regul...sc/form406.pdf
http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/regul...sc/form407.pdf
This is also interesting reading:
Helicopter pilot killed after flying into powerlines today. Toowoomba
DF.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I responded to the original question with an answer (thankyou whoever assumed it was not pertinent).
Here is the reference document quote
As I said, very low cost, short range obstacle marker transmitters 
Can be announced on Display and Aural
Here is the reference document quote
DO242A MASPS page 3
For the purpose of this document, the term aircraft/vehicle (A/V) will refer to either 1) a machine or device capable of atmospheric flight, or 2) a vehicle on the airport surface movement area (i.e., runways and taxiways). For simplicity, the word aircraft is used to refer to aircraft and vehicles, where appropriate. In addition to A/Vs, ADS-B service may be extended to identify obstacles (e.g., an uncharted tower not identified by a current NOTAM). The full set of A/V categories, in the context of ADS-B, is provided in §2.1.2.3. While this section focuses on aviation applications, interoperability between different applications is desirable; for example, search and rescue operations.
For the purpose of this document, the term aircraft/vehicle (A/V) will refer to either 1) a machine or device capable of atmospheric flight, or 2) a vehicle on the airport surface movement area (i.e., runways and taxiways). For simplicity, the word aircraft is used to refer to aircraft and vehicles, where appropriate. In addition to A/Vs, ADS-B service may be extended to identify obstacles (e.g., an uncharted tower not identified by a current NOTAM). The full set of A/V categories, in the context of ADS-B, is provided in §2.1.2.3. While this section focuses on aviation applications, interoperability between different applications is desirable; for example, search and rescue operations.
Can be announced on Display and Aural
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
onetrack:
Thanks for that. Also found this on the 'net which may be of interest to you:
FAA Policy link:
Federal Register | Marking Meteorological Evaluation Towers
Accident Link:
WPR11LA094
Thanks for that. Also found this on the 'net which may be of interest to you:
FAA Suggests Markings For Met Towers
A pilot in California was killed earlier this month when his airplane struck a 197-foot-tall tower during an agricultural flight, just a few days after the FAA published a proposed policy that would establish voluntary procedures for marking such towers. Meteorological, or met, towers gather data to determine if a site would be profitable to develop for wind power, and they have proliferated in rural areas in recent years. Many of the towers are built to heights just a few feet below the 200-foot level that would require FAA notification and markings. The towers are often "narrow, unmarked and grey in color ... nearly invisible under some atmospheric conditions," according to the National Agricultural Aviation Association. The FAA proposes that the towers should be painted in alternating orange and white stripes, but compliance would be voluntary. The FAA is accepting commentson its proposal until Feb. 4.
Several of the comments already in the docket suggest that the FAA's guidelines should be mandatory. Others suggest that lighting should also be required. Iowa's Department of Transportation wrote, "Voluntary compliance ... falls short of a comprehensive national solution that addresses MET tower hazards." The DOT also suggested that strobe lighting should be required to ensure nighttime visibility. Brian Fox, of the Idaho Army National Guard, also said compliance should not be voluntary, and added that the wavelength "needs to be compatible with night-vision goggles." AOPA wrote, "Because of the danger to aircraft that exists from unmarked and unlighted meteorological towers, it is essential that they be made as conspicuous as possible"; however, AOPA concurred with the voluntary nature of the FAA plan.
A pilot in California was killed earlier this month when his airplane struck a 197-foot-tall tower during an agricultural flight, just a few days after the FAA published a proposed policy that would establish voluntary procedures for marking such towers. Meteorological, or met, towers gather data to determine if a site would be profitable to develop for wind power, and they have proliferated in rural areas in recent years. Many of the towers are built to heights just a few feet below the 200-foot level that would require FAA notification and markings. The towers are often "narrow, unmarked and grey in color ... nearly invisible under some atmospheric conditions," according to the National Agricultural Aviation Association. The FAA proposes that the towers should be painted in alternating orange and white stripes, but compliance would be voluntary. The FAA is accepting commentson its proposal until Feb. 4.
Several of the comments already in the docket suggest that the FAA's guidelines should be mandatory. Others suggest that lighting should also be required. Iowa's Department of Transportation wrote, "Voluntary compliance ... falls short of a comprehensive national solution that addresses MET tower hazards." The DOT also suggested that strobe lighting should be required to ensure nighttime visibility. Brian Fox, of the Idaho Army National Guard, also said compliance should not be voluntary, and added that the wavelength "needs to be compatible with night-vision goggles." AOPA wrote, "Because of the danger to aircraft that exists from unmarked and unlighted meteorological towers, it is essential that they be made as conspicuous as possible"; however, AOPA concurred with the voluntary nature of the FAA plan.
Federal Register | Marking Meteorological Evaluation Towers
Accident Link:
WPR11LA094
