AERODROME DESIGN Pty Ltd

ABN 63 102 371 871

WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT and AERODROMES

The following pare looks at the need for protection of airspace around aerodromes to ensure
development of tall structures, such as wind farms, does not adversely impact on aviation safety or
the operating capability of the aerodrome.
Aerodromes are classified into 4 categories:
Certified mandatory classification for Regular Public Transport (RPT) or Air Transport aircraft with
more than 30 passenger seats. Adelaide, Port Lincoln, Kingscote, Mount Gambier, Whyalla are
examples.
Registered normally applicable to aerodromess with an RPT service by aircraft with less than 30
passenger seats. Additionally aerodromes with a published Non-Precision Instrument Approach
(NPA) must be either certified or registered. Examples include Renmark, Port Pirie, Wudinna and
Tumby Bay.
Certain Other an aerodrome that is used at least once a week by an aircraft engaged RPT
operations or air transport with a seating capacity of more than 9 seats but not more than 30 seats.
Challenger Mine and Honeymoon are examples.
Aeroplane Landing Areas (ALA) aerodrome used for RFDS, private, aerial work or charter aircraft
generally less than 5700kg maximum weight. Normally applies to Council aerodromes that do not
have an RPT or Air Transport service and the aerodrome does not have an instrument approach.
NOTE
Non-Precision Approaches (NPA)s include non-directional beacon (NDB) and GPS approaches. All
Regular Public Transport (RPT) aerodromes have these. Some registered aerodromes such as
Wudinna and Renmark also have NPAs. ALAs that previously had NPAs have had to either cancel
the procedure or upgrade and become registered e.g. Tumby Bay. A NPA allows an aircraft to
descend to a lower minimum safe altitude during periods of reduced visibility before making a visual
fix on the aerodrome. For that reason NPA aerodromes require greater protection from obstacles.
Aerodromes and Airspace Protection
Airspace around aerodromes needs to be protected from obstacles that at certain heights and
locations would otherwise become hazardous to aircraft or restrict the ability of aircraft operating
into and out of the aerodrome.
The Obstacle Limitation Surface is a series of prescribed surfaces protecting the approach, take off,
side transition and circling areas around an aerodrome. Aerodromes with instrument approaches
must also protect for Procedures for Air Navigation Services Aircraft Operations, (PANS-OPS
surfaces).
Standards used to determine the obstacle limitation surfaces are presented in the Civil Aviation
Safety Authority Manual of Standards Part 139 - Aerodromes in the case of certified and registered
aerodromes. At certain other aerodromes the standards contained on MOS are also expected to be
applied in planning.
Depending on the type of aircraft able to use the aerodrome, the approach and take-off surfaces
may extend for as little as 2.5 kilometres or as much as 15 kilometres from the runway strip end.

Wind Farm Development and Aerodromes

Page 1

AERODROME DESIGN Pty Ltd

ABN 63 102 371 871

The runway strip is a cleared area that extends out from each end and the sides of a runway to
provide a safe area in the event of an aircraft running off the runway during landing or taking off. At
either side of the runway strip and the approach surface are transitional surfaces. These are
intended to protect an aircraft which encounters severe cross winds during landing.
There are two, or in some cases three, other surfaces which provided obstacle protection for aircraft
circling to land - the inner horizontal surface, the conical surface and/or the outer horizontal surface
in the case of larger aerodromes. Again, depending on aircraft size and the type of activities catered
for by the airport, their combined effect may extend up to 15 kilometres radius of the airport
For an ALA, the recommendations for the OLS are covered in CASA Civil Aviation Advisory Publication
CAAP 92-1(1). The standard is somewhat dated when it comes to protection of the obstacle
limitation surface as (a) the approach and takeoff surfaces only extend 900m from the runway ends,
(b) they do not provide circling clearance and (c) most importantly they do not meet the
requirements of the RFDS.
Councils would be wise to adopt a planning strategy to protect the aerodrome obstacle limitation
surface (OLS) to the standards set in CASA Manual of Standards Part 139 - Aerodromes as applicable
to a registered or certified aerodrome, catering to at least Code 2 (e.g. Kingair, PC12, Beech 1900
standard) or preferably Code 3 (Metro 3, Saab 340 etc) catering for non - instrument approach
procedures. The Code Numbers are the international aerodrome reference code numbers which
relate to the reference field length of different aircraft models as determined during aircraft
certification.
For example Peterborough is currently a natural surface runway, but it has been extended to 1600m
and Council have installed aviation lights to NPA standard. Council has planned the ground facilities
based on possible future use by Code 3 aircraft using NPAs. It therefore makes sense the
surrounding airspace should also be protected to this standard.
The main difference between NPA and non-instrument runways is the length of the approach
surface. An outline of the MOS 139 standards is shown below.
OLS Dimension in metres

Code 2 non
instrument

Code 3 non
instrument

Code 3 non
precision
instrument

5%

5%

5%

55m

75m

75m

45m

45m

45m

Approach surface
Conical surface slope
Conical surface height (above
horizontal surface)
Horizontal surface height (above
runway elevation)
Horizontal surface radius (from
runway ends)
Approach slope
Approach Length

2500m

4000m

4000m

4%
2,500m

3.3%
3,000m

3.3%
15,000m

Takeoff surface
Takeoff length
Take off slope

2500m
4%

15000m
2%

15000m
2%

Wind Farm Development and Aerodromes

Page 2

AERODROME DESIGN Pty Ltd

ABN 63 102 371 871

The obstacle limitation surfaces are shown diagrammatically below.

Approach Surface Extends from runway strip end

Code 2 - 2,500 m
Code 3 non instrument - 3,000 m
Code 3 non precision instrument - 15,000 m

Take-off Surface Extends from clearway end

Code 2 - 2,500 m
Code 3 - 15,000 m

Conical Surface Originates from edge of horizontal surface

and rises at 1 in 5 to a height of 75 metres
above aerodrome elevation
Side Transitional Surface Rises up from runway strip edge
to meet the horizontal surface.
Height of the surface origin at runway
strip edge is runway centreline level.
Code 2 - 1 in 5 slope
Code 3 - 1 in 7 slope
Horizontal Surface Located 45 metres above aerodrome elevation
and extending out from runway strip ends
Code 2 non instrument - 2,500 m
Code 2 non precision instrument - 3,500 m
Code 3 - 4,000 m

Aerodrome Obstacle Limitation Surfaces

PANS-OPS Obstacle Assessment Surfaces

The height of the tallest structure or natural feature underneath a PANS-OPS surface determines its
altitude or elevation. If a new and higher structure is erected, the PANS-OPS surface height also
increases to ensure an aircraft will have a specified minimum clearance above obstacles in situations
where the pilot is relying on instruments and may have no external visual reference
The minimum obstacle clearance requirement is added to the height of the tallest object under the
PANS-OPS surface to determine the minimum descent or safe altitude to which a pilot may descend
in attempting to establish visual reference to the airport. The landing cannot be made unless the
pilot "is visual" at or before reaching this minimum descent altitude.
Unlike the OLS, PANS OPS surfaces are not necessarily a series of planes that can be readily extracted
from a publication such as MOS 139 and made into a readily understood set of plans. They require
preparation by specialist consultant, so apart from Adelaide and Parafield Airports, PANS OPS
surfaces have not been depicted on drawings or charts for any of the rural SA aerodromes so Council
planners have no guidance when assessing structures with respect to PANS OPS. In some cases it is
then necessary to refer obstacle data back to the instrument procedure designer - Airservices
Australia for clarification on whether a new structure is likely to impact on the PANS OPS surface

Wind Farm Development and Aerodromes

Page 3

AERODROME DESIGN Pty Ltd

ABN 63 102 371 871

Lighting of Wind Farms

Pilots flying under visual flight rules at night must remain at least 1500 ft above the highest terrain.
To ensure aircraft remain clear of obstacles at night or in periods of poor visibility CASA required
towers or structures more than 110m above surface level to be lit. The legislation was based on Civil
Aviation Safety Regulation 139 which pertains to aerodromes. This was successfully challenged by
the wind farm proponents in situations where the wind farm was outside the aerodrome OLS and
PANs OPS surfaces, arguing CASR 139 did not apply. Meanwhile CASA will not make assessments on
wind farms until new legislation is introduced; the timing of which is unknown at present.
With little else to go on, Councils at the very least will need to ensure wind farm remain well clear of
the aerodrome OLS. Proposals more than 110m above ground level remain a grey area until further
advice is received from CASA. It is possible CASA will align future requirements for lighting of wind
farms with overseas standards. We may see an increase in the allowable height from 110 to
something like 130m above ground level before lighting is required. However the timing of any new
regulations and likely allowable heights before lighting is mandated is unknown at this stage.
There have been papers put out by CASA that have suggested the impact of wind farm lighting on
communities may be reduced by shielding. The problem here is that shielding so that light are less
intrusive to communities at a lower height also shields the lights from aircraft that may be flying too
low. In my opinion the concept of shielding wind farm lights is doubtful.

Peter Francis
25/11/2011

Wind Farm Development and Aerodromes

Page 4