Transport Canada rescinds turbine order

plane chatham airportBy Trevor Terfloth, Chatham Daily News
With several changes to ensure flight safety, eight wind turbines that Transport Canada had ordered removed near the Chatham-Kent Municipal Airport earlier this year can now stay. Transport Canada had said the turbines, owned by Erieau Wind, violated height limits on lands at the airport, which are subject to the airport zoning regulations (AZRs).

However, the agency said it is discontinuing the enforcement action that commenced in July. “We’ve stated all along the airport’s been safe and it’s proven in the order,” Mayor Randy Hope told The Daily News on Wednesday. “Now it’s just about moving on. … One more hurdle behind us.”

According to a media release, the potential safety risks were “mitigated by Nav Canada with the issuance of a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), which was later replaced with an altered Instrument Approach Procedure Chart so that pilots are aware of the wind turbines and can avoid them.” Read article

31 thoughts on “Transport Canada rescinds turbine order

  1. This confirms what I said when The order to remove the turbines was made public. Money talks and Transport Canada does not have the balls to enforce its own orders.

  2. Municipal airport – and, – they now know – the risks!

    Hope says – nothing!
    ‘[excerpt] “We’ve stated all along the airport’s been safe and it’s proven in the order,” Mayor Randy Hope told The Daily News on Wednesday. “Now it’s just about moving on. … One more hurdle behind us.”’

    It’s over?
    ‘[excerpt] Municipal officials will meet with Transport Canada early next year to discuss how the situation can be avoided in the future by ensuring that no new wind turbines are constructed in the AZRs.’

    And, still a municipal airport!

    • These 8 turbines are “safe” but NO new ones can be installed in the AZRs.
      Doesn’t even make sense.

      Besides the developers their big money lenders have influence in Ottawa.

      Perhaps another MP Minister should be replaced in the next election?

      • More like a warning!

        ‘[excerpt] According to a media release, the potential safety risks were “mitigated by Nav Canada with the issuance of a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), which was later replaced with an altered Instrument Approach Procedure Chart so that pilots are aware of the wind turbines and can avoid them.”’

        And, still a municipal airport.

        So – then it becomes a question of – liability!

  3. Exactly as I suspected. The government only enforces its own rules when it benefits them, not the pilots, public or wildlife.

    • The government bowed to a foreign corporation at C-K and to another foreign corporation about the weather radar.

  4. How can a situation that was unsafe for flying 2 years ago be declared safe today when nothing physical has been altered? This is a terrible decision by the federal government implying they are not really serious about flight safety.

    • The government (or the heavy muscle money people controlling the government) must have decided that Chatham-Kent Airport area has no adverse weather conditions to limit a pilot’s visibility or control of the plane. So, no unpredictable fog, no snowstorms, no blinding heavy rainstorms, no strong buffeting winds. We will see . . .

      • This is Hope-a-Dope’s problem
        no matter how he spins it.

    • Don’t forget that a large Air Force cargo plane landed there and took off this past summer. Wonder why this took place? No problems landing or taking off for this aircraft with pilots trained to land at risky places?

      • Chatham Daily News, July 6, 2014

        “Military aircraft lands in Chatham-Kent as part of training exercise”

        AC-130 Hercules military transport landed Chatham-Kent airport.

        http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/2014/07/06/military-aircraft-lands-in-chatham-kent-as-part-of-training-exercise

        Question is whether or not the pilots of this military aircraft were later asked their opinion on any flight safety issues at this airport?

        AC-130 for rescues in Lake Eire or Lake St.Clair which are done by the Coast Guard? Parachute soldiers into Lake Erie for a rescue operation?

      • Maybe just the photos of the AC-130 landing and taking off would do the job at a hearing?

      • Why should Transport Canada play
        cat and mouse – with the mayor of Chatham-Kent?

        The mayor is not a hero to some,
        but, he now has a problem – self made.

      • Airport Zoning Regulations (AZR) – and,
        why did Mayor Hope ignore the AZR?

        Did the Wynne government exempt –
        the GDF SUEZ – wind turbine project,
        or did Mayor Hope – choose to ignore the AZR?

        It’s getting squishy on the sofa – eh?

  5. Interesting to note the concern shown for pseudo safety issues by Wynne and others over pipeline construction, compared to real safety issues where wind turbines are involved. Wind companies get carte blanche to throw up plants as quickly as possible before the Liberal mandate runs out.

  6. Oxy Moron:
    ‘[excerpt] Municipal officials will meet with Transport Canada early next year to discuss how the situation can be avoided in the future by ensuring that no new wind turbines are constructed in the AZRs.’

    It should read:
    Municipal officials will meet with Transport Canada early next year to discuss
    decertification of the airport,
    and Mayor Hope can become his own island.

    • Right now the good citizens of Ontario have to rely on what Chatham city officials and the news media say about this airport decision.

      People need to have access to the TC decision itself.

      • Mayor Hope thinks he’s smarter than Transport Canada.
        What part is unclear?

  7. Think an Access to Information request may be necessary.
    Cost is still $5– as far as I know.

    Can anybody suggest wording for the ATIP request,
    and provide contact information for the applicable ATIP office(s)?

    BTW you are free to blame Stephen Harper Conservatives
    for this industry-led, government-supported FRAUD.

    • http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-s-climate-change-comments-only-half-the-story-critics-say
      Prime minister says he’s open to Alberta-style carbon pricing, something he’s previously opposed
      By Margo McDiarmid, CBC News Posted: Dec 18, 2014

      ‘[excerpt] The prime minister also took credit for getting tough on coal.

      “We are phasing out in Canada through regulations, we are phasing out the use of traditional dirty coal. It’s going to go to zero in the next 15 years or so,” Harper said.

      New federal coal regulations apply to new plants built after 2015. Existing plants built in the last 50 years are grandfathered, meaning they would have up to 2030 to close or introduce carbon capture and storage technology to reduce emissions.

      Ontario’s Environment Minister Glen Murray points out the province closed coal plants with no help from Ottawa.

      “if the federal government wants to start taking credit for provincially funded initiatives, they could at least have the decency to make a commitment to support those initiatives in the future.”

      Harper’s comments could be more about politics than policy — an attempt to soften his image on the environment in an election year when climate change is again becoming a hot political topic.’

      • Let’s make a deal renewable energy & carbon credits in exchange for pipelines?

  8. TOO BAD , NONE of the rule makers/non-compliance investigators/enforcers can provide pilots with charts of wind GUSTS, DOWNDRAFTS, UPDRAFTS to which aircraft are subjected in unruly, unpredictable weather.

    It’s one thing to take off or land a huge transport on a CALM, SUNNY summer afternoon, but I will be praying that C-K pilots will have the good judgement and courage to refuse to take off or land at the C-K airport when they determine that they, their passengers and or aircraft are in danger.

    • Henny…. Shut down the airport? Really? Government response “Guess the airport wasn’t viable anyway! No one’s using it” “So…. let’s make good use of the space and put up a few MORE turbines”!!

      What was there first…. the airport or the wind turbines?? “In the best interest of human safety” take down the TURBINES!!

      • It has always been Mayor Hope’s call.
        He chose wind turbines.

        The federal government did not tell the municipal government
        to go ahead, and build wind turbines.

        The airport should be decertified;
        and, you can thank Mayor Hope.

        But – you will always have a small municipal airport –
        without federal inspections.
        Mayor Hope says – it is safe.
        Therefore – it is safe.

Leave a Reply

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