Wind turbines

[JWH]

Sure . . . anywhere above the turbine is smoother air . . but with wind farms that's over 350ft AGL so not legal in Canada at least . . TCCA says 300ft AGL (90m) limit. Here's an interesting photo that says a lot.

That is a very interesting picture.

It is my understanding that in the U.S. we can go above the 400' rule as long as we stay within 400' of the structure.

 

[David Cooke]

That is a very interesting picture.

It is my understanding that in the U.S. we can go above the 400' rule as long as we stay within 400' of the structure.

Yes under FAA PART107 rules you can go to 400ft above a 1000ft structure as long as you stay within 400ft of the structure . . (like a tower or a building) . . . but do that too often and the people who own the building or the tower are going to take notice and tell you they don't want you there and send people in uniforms to your house. I hope the new rules in Canada will follow FAA just for the Wind Turbine drone market if nothing else. Then 300feet is fine for a limit. It's really no issue there if you are actually flying to do some useful work . .. something other than site seeing. If you are site seeing, then people seem to think "The Sky's the Limit". I hope they get REAL pretty soon so authorities can stop panicing over Drones.

 

[Keith Mitchell]

*** Warning ***
YES, ... I wanted to do everything "by the book." Flying above the tower to set the POI would have put me over 400' AGL.

If this is in the USA, per FAA Part 107, you can fly higher than 400' AGL as long as you are within 400' of a structure. So, for example, if your wind turbine is 350' tall, then you could fly up to 750' AGL when you are directly over the wind turbine. Here is a link where this rule is summarized.

 

[jack1144]

Yes under FAA PART107 rules you can go to 400ft above a 1000ft structure as long as you stay within 400ft of the structure . . (like a tower or a building) . . . but do that too often and the people who own the building or the tower are going to take notice and tell you they don't want you there and send people in uniforms to your house. I hope the new rules in Canada will follow FAA just for the Wind Turbine drone market if nothing else. Then 300feet is fine for a limit. It's really no issue there if you are actually flying to do some useful work . .. something other than site seeing. If you are site seeing, then people seem to think "The Sky's the Limit". I hope they get REAL pretty soon so authorities can stop panicing over Drones.

Hi David,
Very cool photo. I have a standing SFOC with Transport Canada and 400 feet AGL is and has been the limit in Canada long before the FAA's rules.( commercial operators) If we can prove a viable safety structure for a flight operation , we can apply for a extension of the SFOC.
The key here totals 3 things safety, safety and of course safety.
The blade inspections are very do-able.
I would also hope they (TC) gets enough funding for tightening up enforcement .

 

[David Cooke]

Yes I'd say funding is their biggest issue really. They need resources.
Interestingly . . . my SFOC says "300ft" . . what does yours say?

 

[jack1144]

Yes I'd say funding is their biggest issue really. They need resources.
Interestingly . . . my SFOC says "300ft" . . what does yours say?

We are cleared to 400feet AGL as per the Standing SFOC.
We have safety procedures in place to make this a safe operation.
If your flying under an exemption ( AC 600-004 ) then you are limited to 300 feet AGL)
The 400 foot AGL limit is spelled out in the CARS.
The whole idea is that we protect the MANNED aircraft that could be using the airspace.
Even at 300 feet AGL helicopters, ultralite, gliders, etc could be an issue.
Changes are still coming to help protect those manned aircraft.
Send me a PM if you need more info David

 

[David Cooke]

No . . . I'm a commercial Helicopter pilot as well . . . so I'm aware of the need for traffic separation . . . I was just surprised you could get a standing SFOC to 400ft . . where in the CARS is that 400ft? . . that's just for helicopter min altitude AGL . . nothing in there yet about UAVs?. . will have to look and get our SFOC amended. I always monitor aircraft frequencies . . just for helicopters in the area. . . we are often just a mile or 3 from the airport. . . and file NOTAMs as needed but I could sure use 400ft occasionally when inspecting towers or buildings . . or just getting a larger overhead of a building site . . instead of breaking it up into multiple shots

 

[jack1144]

No . . . I'm a commercial Helicopter pilot as well . . . so I'm aware of the need for traffic separation . . . I was just surprised you could get a standing SFOC to 400ft . . where in the CARS is that 400ft? . . that's just for helicopter min altitude AGL . . nothing in there yet about UAVs?. . will have to look and get our SFOC amended. I always monitor aircraft frequencies . . just for helicopters in the area. . . we are often just a mile or 3 from the airport. . . and file NOTAMs as needed but I could sure use 400ft occasionally when inspecting towers or buildings . . or just getting a larger overhead of a building site . . instead of breaking it up into multiple shots

Ok David, great.So I was preaching to the choir.
Notams, VFF monitoring, near aerodromes contact them, observer(s). Yup, you got it all.
I applied for 400 ft as the SI 623-001 , page 99, Specific Conditions, item (8), stated
8)
No pilot shall operate the UAV above 400 feet above ground level (AGL). (Note- This shall be considered the standard altitude limit, however, Inspectors may need to specify a
different limit.)
Hope you can get it.
CARS 603.68 allows conditions to be determined by " the Minister"
Did you apply as Restricted Complex?
Thanks

 

[David Cooke]

Ok David, great.So I was preaching to the choir.
Notams, VFF monitoring, near aerodromes contact them, observer(s). Yup, you got it all.
I applied for 400 ft as the SI 623-001 , page 99, Specific Conditions, item (8), stated
8)
No pilot shall operate the UAV above 400 feet above ground level (AGL). (Note- This shall be considered the standard altitude limit, however, Inspectors may need to specify a
different limit.)
Hope you can get it.
CARS 603.68 allows conditions to be determined by " the Minister"
Did you apply as Restricted Complex?
Thanks

Looking back at the application process I used "Simplified" form first . . not understanding their "simple" process and when it was first rejected I called and discussed it with an inspector finally . . and submitted a Restricted Complex . . later getting it approved as a "Standing SFOC" for Ontario. So I just noticed the "300ft/3miles" restriction is highlighted under the "Simplified" process that I filled out first and those numbers just got carried over into my eventually approved application . . . I gotta read stuff more carefully . . . anyway, yesterday I applied for another amendment and we'll see how they respond. So far they have not responded to the amendment I sent them almost 6 weeks ago. . . looking up SI623-001 pg99 wording again too . .I see a new version was just published 4 Jan 2017

 

[Sam1313]

i know this is an older post, but check this video out of how the wind turbine are constructed. This is the Utility I work for in Kansas. It is clear a Drone was used to film it, which i know the company own one they also use for inspections.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[jack1144]

Looking back at the application process I used "Simplified" form first . . not understanding their "simple" process and when it was first rejected I called and discussed it with an inspector finally . . and submitted a Restricted Complex . . later getting it approved as a "Standing SFOC" for Ontario. So I just noticed the "300ft/3miles" restriction is highlighted under the "Simplified" process that I filled out first and those numbers just got carried over into my eventually approved application . . . I gotta read stuff more carefully . . . anyway, yesterday I applied for another amendment and we'll see how they respond. So far they have not responded to the amendment I sent them almost 6 weeks ago. . . looking up SI623-001 pg99 wording again too . .I see a new version was just published 4 Jan 2017

Ah, that's it. I see both new and old are the same for that section. Lots of other changes though.
Good luck, you will likely get it.

 

[David Cooke]

Ah, that's it. I see both new and old are the same for that section. Lots of other changes though.
Good luck, you will likely get it.

Hope so . .. they do not seem to be in any hurry . . just an automated response so far

 

[Lanno]

Going to do a test inspection on some wind towers. These are the big tall towers you see on hillsides in windy areas. My concern is this:
Will the top of the towers affect gps signal?
Will the thrust affect or pull in the phantom?
I guess I'll find out. But be sure I will approach with extreme caution!
Appreciate any feedback.

I have just flown my P4P about as close as I should get to working wind turbines, from over half a kilometre (1/4 mile) away, with no radio interference at all. The drone performed perfectly.

 

[David Cooke]

View attachment 92892
I have just flown my P4P about as close as I should get to working wind turbines, from over half a kilometre (1/4 mile) away, with no radio interference at all. The drone performed perfectly.

Agree . . no issues around turbines but you may find it a bit turbulent downwind . . this was early morning so pretty quiet

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Also other still shots and video here . . . wind turbine are great to film if you can get permissions to be on the property or at least near enough to stay in VLOS

Keep sending more turbines anyone? . . .

 

[HaniG]

How I would LOVE to get a contract for wind turbine inspection. Matrice 600 Pro with Zenmuse Z30.

 

[HaniG]

What we did recently.

 

[David Cooke]

Those are NASTY lookin drives there! . . hope there is enough oil left INSIDE the hub for the season . . as opposed to what is already OUTSIDE I mean

 

[bonty78]

Hi,

I need a favour....any one on this forum have done wind turbine inspections with the x5s camera? I just need some(in sequence) photos(data with metadata imbeded) of one turbine. Pretty please.

 

[bonty78]

View attachment 97265View attachment 97266View attachment 97267
Hi,

I need a favor....any one on this forum have done wind turbine inspections with the x5s camera? I just need some(in sequence) photos(data with metadata embedded) of one turbine. Pretty please.