C-K Airport-Wind Turbine Report by… Genivar

Chatham Kent Airport Study Report December 4 2012 by… Genivar.

ck airport

19 thoughts on “C-K Airport-Wind Turbine Report by… Genivar

  1. Airports are suffering. I just learned that Dunnville airport (and associated warplane museum) are to be closed and covered with turbines. This is a great loss, both for current and future industries.

    Also, what about other uses, such as gliders and hot air balloons? Those are important industries, both for locals and tourists. Turbines will all but kill these off, I imagine.

  2. Sadly it appears this is an accident waiting to happen – allowing wind turbines to be built in the vicinity of an airport. How many lives are being put in danger?

    Adjusting approaches and whatever other “mitigations” are proposed is unacceptable. There is absolutely no excuse for building these rotating industrial structures anywhere near an airport.

  3. How about a little contest folks….

    I read the C-K airport report noted here…

    There was a very interesting method used to prevent collisions with wind turbines in inclement weather… Someone sure has some imagination!

    See if you can spot something interesting… It sure made my eyes open up a bit… It’s actually a non-solution solution — but everyone drank the Kool-Aid it seems — complete with the hemlock.

    Innovative to the core these folks! I’ll try to remember to dig out the passage later — maybe tomorrow…

    In the meantime — happy reading and see if you can spot the non-solution solution to the serious problem.

    • This makes me curious…

      1. Currently, the Airport is restricted to an operational classification of non-instrument due to the lowintensity airfield lighting system. Under an operational classification of non-instrument the instrument approach procedures are limited to a minimum descent altitude of 500 ft AGL. Should a medium intensity airfield lighting system be installed, the Airport could change the operational classification to instrument non-precision, under which the lowest permitted approach minima is 250 ft AGL. The installation of this equipment will result in immediate and significant safety and operational benefits to the Airport and its stakeholders

      Ah well — never mind — all is well.

  4. Let me see….raise minimum altitudes? Redesign of the instrument approach procedure? Really??? Let’s just pretend the planes are helicopters, and go in straight down! That’s not a problem….right?

  5. If C-K residents divide up the report among them and each take a part to read and note places where issues can be raised. Can be done quickly this way and this does not place a burden on just a couple of people.
    Works the same way as Donna L. did with the IPCC report.

    Anyway, TC said the turbines should be removed due to safety issues. Either remove the turbines or close down the airport. There is no compromise with airport safety.

    • The spokeswoman from Transport Canada who stepped to the fore to announce that the wind turbines must be taken down has likely now been told to sit down and shut up.

      Status quo firmly in place, next on the agenda …

  6. Then if more lighting is installed then planes can descend to 250 feet landing approach.
    Better lighting to see the IWTs before you hit one of them?
    This is why reports like this should be looked at by the public.

  7. Breaking News!
    The Windsor Star, Oct.3,2013
    Herb Gray Parkway Girder Decision
    Minister Glen Murray’s decision.
    The first option was to remove the girders and the second option was to try and salavage the girders.
    The choice was to try to salavage the girders.
    The Panels conclusion was that the girders do not meet the requirements of the applicable regulations, codes and etc.
    So it’s not just airports where issues have been raised.
    Contractors allowed to substitute inferior materials in projects?

  8. RE News, nov.17,2012
    “Fluor loses Gabbard case: UPDATE 2
    This was a $400M issues involving offshore wind turbine foundations.
    Ongoing isue since 2009?
    Seems the people at QP can’t relate one issue with another when handing out contracts?
    Fluor is a contractor in the Herb Gray Parkway.

  9. Windsor Star, Oct.4,2013
    “Why weren’t girders red-flagged?”
    MTO solution is to change the regulations to make the girders ok to use now.

    “Greater Gabbard parties settle over quality concerns involving the lower foundations and the upper foundations.
    Bing search has plenty of information on this story. Google not much.

    Similar issues in these two events with foundations.

  10. The Windsor Star, Oct.5,2013
    “Is the province liable over Parkway girders”?
    “the ministry, Infrastructure Ontario, and the consortium will jointly develope a monitoring program for the affected girders …”

    Changing the girder regulations is also known as MITIGATION?
    Monitor this road project for 30 years? Monitor IWT projects for 20 years? Same tactics! Same solutions.

    • Third World Construction,
      approved by the Ontario Liberal government – and, just for fun,
      propped up – by the NDP

      Ontario citizens – poorer and possibly deader.

      Nothing is for sure –
      but, one thing is for sure
      ……we’re having a conversation; and,
      it’ll make you crazy – that’s for sure.

      How embarrassing – the world is watching.

  11. Ontarians are paying for first rate construction of the Parkway and getting 3rd world construction.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *