Agenda item 2: Summary of responses
Presented by:
Michel BORELY
EUROCONTROL
The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Structure of this presentation
1. Presentation of the Guidelines V1.0
2. The consultation process
3. Way ahead
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
2
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.
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
3
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.
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
4
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.
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
5
The process
Legend
Project
tolerable for
Surveillance
No
No
ANSP inputs
Wind energy
ANSP / Wind
energy
Operational
description
ANSP inputs
ANSP
Surveillance
sensor
descriptions
Wind energy developer inputs
Engineering
impact on
Surveillance?
Wind energy
project
description
Significant
operational
impact?
Project not
tolerable for
Surveilance
Yes
Yes
Surveillance
engineering
modification
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
No
Yes
Project redesign
Operational
modification
Possible
mitigations?
Yes
Yes
6
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.
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
7
PSR Zones
Zone
Zone 1
Zone 2
Description
0 - 500 m
500 m - 15 km
and in radar line
of sight
Assessment
Requirements
Safeguarding
Specific
assessment
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
Zone 3
Zone 4
Anywhere within
Further than 15 km
maximum
but within
instrumented range
maximum
but not in radar
instrumented range
line of sight or
and in radar line of
outside the
sight
maximum
instrumented range
Simple
assessment
No assessment
8
SSR Zones
Zone
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 4
Description
0 - 500 m
500 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
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
9
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.
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
10
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.
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
11
Mitigation options (Process)
•
Apply the process described in the guidelines
•
•
•
Provide surveillance input information
Provide operational input information
Initiate discussion on new projects
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
12
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)
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
13
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
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
14
Mitigation options (ATC Ops.)
•
Mitigations applicable to ATC operations:
•
•
Move ATC route
Change airspace classification or apply Mandatory
Transponder Zone (MTZ)
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
15
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
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
16
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.
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
17
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
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
18
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.
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
19
The families of comments
•
14 different categories of comments were identified:
1. Cosmetic
2. Cumulative impact
3. Document status
4. Document 015
5. Equations
6. Financial aspects
7. Line of sight
8. Mitigations
9. Operations
10. Process
11. Safety
12. Specific assessment vs. detailed/complex
13. Vocabulary
14. Zone definition
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
20
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.
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
21
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.
•
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
22
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.
•
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
23
Document 015 (Cont.)
•
Doc 015 is based on one surface (i.e. 2 zones)
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
24
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
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
25
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.
•
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
26
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.
•
•
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
27
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.
•
•
•
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
28
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.
•
•
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
29
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.
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
30
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.
•
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
31
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.
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
32
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.
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
33
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.
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
34
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.
•
•
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
35
Zone definition
Visibility calculated at 320 m
above radar ground level
•
Examples are
now included.
Zone 2
15 km
Zone 3
Zone 4
103 km
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
36
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.
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
37
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
michel.borely@eurocontrol.int
www.eurocontrol.int/surveillance
Sustainable Energy - Sustainable Surveillance Workshop EUROCONTROL, Brussels, April 2010
38