Windmills vs. Birds of Prey

[Kevin Christner]

In the name of almighty green energy, the government has issued a new ruling: "The newly finalized rule would grant 30-year permits allowing wind farms and other projects to accidentally kill federally protected eagles, provided they meet certain criteria."

Full article below.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303722104579242640493630608?mod=WS J_hps_sections_business

Would seem to preclude using bird deaths as a reason to oppose wind farms on the Appalachian ridges.

Unfortunate.

2C

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, December 7, 2013 8:55:29 AM UTC-5, Kevin Christner wrote:
> In the name of almighty green energy, the government has issued a new ruling: "The newly finalized rule would grant 30-year permits allowing wind farms and other projects to accidentally kill federally protected eagles, provided they meet certain criteria."
>
>
>
> Full article below.
>
>
>
> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303722104579242640493630608?mod=WS J_hps_sections_business
>
>
>
> Would seem to preclude using bird deaths as a reason to oppose wind farms on the Appalachian ridges.
>
>
>
> Unfortunate.
>
>
>
> 2C
http://www.epaw.org/multimedia.php?article=b2
And windmills do strike soaring birds. In this case a vulture in Greece.

Karl Striedieck

[[email protected]]

It looks like the wind turbine was a thermal trigger. Appears that the vulture found the air disturbance of the blades attractive because the motion of the blades may be a thermal trigger..

I have flown over the Cohocton, NY wind farm many times and have never seen any large soaring birds in the vicinity.

I have thermaled with Red Tail Hawks numerous times in the area but never in the vicinity of the wind farm.

Any soaring Ornithologists amongst us?

Chuck Zabinski

[Roy Clark, \B6\]

Another Executive Branch Decision in line with many others by an Administration that does not wish to be limited by the inconvenience of exiting Legislation. That our National Bird will be sacrificed to pure political greed is most unfortunate indeed as well as yet another raised middle finger to America's traditional cultural values and symbols.
Hopefully, Alaska will not grow many wind farms as more than half of the estimated breeding pairs soar over the largest state.

[son_of_flubber]

On Saturday, December 7, 2013 8:55:29 AM UTC-5, Kevin Christner wrote:
> In the name of almighty green energy, the government has issued a new ruling: "The newly finalized rule would grant 30-year permits allowing wind farms and other projects to accidentally kill federally protected eagles, provided they meet certain criteria."

At least the legislation does not license the windmill operators to accidentally kill glider pilots. Or does that dispensation already exist under case law?

Who is liable when pilots collide with hazards like antenna towers?

I recall someone saying that the windmills would not be a problem because the best ridge lift would be somewhat below and in front of the blades.

[Dan Marotta]

Not to enter the discussion of wind farms, but

When a pilot collides with a ground obstruction it's his fault. The hazards
are marked on the charts which are required to be in the cockpit and
accessible to the pilot.

Was that really a serious question?

"son_of_flubber" > wrote in message
...
On Saturday, December 7, 2013 8:55:29 AM UTC-5, Kevin Christner wrote:
> In the name of almighty green energy, the government has issued a new
> ruling: "The newly finalized rule would grant 30-year permits allowing
> wind farms and other projects to accidentally kill federally protected
> eagles, provided they meet certain criteria."

At least the legislation does not license the windmill operators to
accidentally kill glider pilots. Or does that dispensation already exist
under case law?

Who is liable when pilots collide with hazards like antenna towers?

I recall someone saying that the windmills would not be a problem because
the best ridge lift would be somewhat below and in front of the blades.

[Soartech]

Dan Marotta wrote:

> When a pilot collides with a ground obstruction it's his fault.

You would think so.
We have a local reservoir that is surrounded by a scenic network of trails.
The trails are very popular with hikers and mountain bikers. There are several large metal gates here and there to keep out motor vehicles. About 3 or 4 years ago a women rode her mountain bike right into one of these large, obvious metal gates and was injured. She sued the town for a million dollars and WON !!
So given this "prior ruling" feel free to fly into any large fixed object and if you survive, sue the owner of it.

[Dan Marotta]

Your point is well made and sad.

I recall back in the '80s reading about two hunters returning from a trip in
a Mooney. They were scud running and ran into a power line strung across a
highway. The powerline was not depicted on the sectional chart. The
grieving widow sued the FAA and won even though the sectional in the
aircraft was out of date and was folded up in the back seat of the airplane.
They were using a gas station road map with which to navigate.

Offshoot of that was that the sectional charts now have a warning on them
which states that not all obstructions may be depicted on the chart.


"Soartech" > wrote in message
...
Dan Marotta wrote:

> When a pilot collides with a ground obstruction it's his fault.

You would think so.
We have a local reservoir that is surrounded by a scenic network of trails.
The trails are very popular with hikers and mountain bikers. There are
several large metal gates here and there to keep out motor vehicles. About 3
or 4 years ago a women rode her mountain bike right into one of these large,
obvious metal gates and was injured. She sued the town for a million dollars
and WON !!
So given this "prior ruling" feel free to fly into any large fixed object
and if you survive, sue the owner of it.