1 / 14

Agenda Item Wind Turbine Interference – Possible Mitigations

Agenda Item Wind Turbine Interference – Possible Mitigations. Jason Strong, Eng Mgr Surveillance Sensors NATS En-Route Ltd. Mitigation Options. Guidelines includes a variety of mitigation options which should be considered.

ulric-franklin
Download Presentation

Agenda Item Wind Turbine Interference – Possible Mitigations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Agenda Item Wind Turbine Interference – Possible Mitigations Jason Strong, Eng Mgr Surveillance Sensors NATS En-Route Ltd

  2. Mitigation Options • Guidelines includes a variety of mitigation options which should be considered. • The choice and appropriateness of mitigation options varies from case to case, influenced by: • Surveillance technology employed • Cooperative / Non-Cooperative • Age & Capability • Capacity • Supportability • Air Traffic Density • Number of flights per Hour • Airspace Volume • Air Traffic Complexity • Mix of Aircraft • Military / State Aircraft • En-Route or Terminal Control Sustainable Energy – Sustainable ATC Surveillance Workshop – Eurocontrol, Brussels, April 2010

  3. Mitigation Applicability • Guidelines Identifies different options for different Surveillance Classifications • Non-Cooperative Surveillance Sensor • Cooperative Surveillance Sensors • Operational • Wind Turbine • It is rare & unlikely that a single mitigation technique is sufficient on its own. Often a combination of options needs to be employed. Sustainable Energy – Sustainable ATC Surveillance Workshop – Eurocontrol, Brussels, April 2010

  4. Risks identified requiring mitigation • Reduced PSR Probability of Detection (Pd) • PSR False Targets • PSR Positional Accuracy • Overload of PSR Capabilities (Capacity) • Reduced SSR Pd • SSR False Targets • SSR Position Accuracy • Guidelines identify which mitigations are effective at addressing each type of risk. Sustainable Energy – Sustainable ATC Surveillance Workshop – Eurocontrol, Brussels, April 2010

  5. Mitigation Options Table 1 – Page 48 Sustainable Energy – Sustainable ATC Surveillance Workshop – Eurocontrol, Brussels, April 2010

  6. Mitigation Options Table 2 – Page 49 Sustainable Energy – Sustainable ATC Surveillance Workshop – Eurocontrol, Brussels, April 2010

  7. Non-Cooperative Surveillance Sensor • Blank Azimuth Sector • Suppress returns in a range / azimuth sector • Filtering of Wind Farm false returns • Strengthen Track Initiation Conditions • Adapt PSR overload prevention facilities • Upgrade PSR processing capabilities • Upgrade PSR output interface capabilities • In-Fill PSR • In-Fill MSPSR Sustainable Energy – Sustainable ATC Surveillance Workshop – Eurocontrol, Brussels, April 2010

  8. PSR Blanking • Either a whole azimuth sector or range defined. • Effective way of addressing clutter & capacity related issues. • Obvious drawback of blanking out real aircraft returns • Maybe be suitable in certain operational situations, e.g.: • Low Risk of non-cooperative aircraft • Low complexity • Low traffic density Sustainable Energy – Sustainable ATC Surveillance Workshop – Eurocontrol, Brussels, April 2010

  9. PSR Processing • Improved Processing Techniques • Increase Probability of Detection • Reduce the number of false plots • Improve the acquisition of targets through enhanced track initiation techniques • Use of Non-Auto Initiation zones • Several manufacturers looking at enhancements to existing technology or new/alternative replacement technology • Complex solution but potentially offers the most ‘complete’ mitigation option. Sustainable Energy – Sustainable ATC Surveillance Workshop – Eurocontrol, Brussels, April 2010

  10. Surveillance ‘In Fill’ • Applicable to both cooperative & non cooperative surveillance • Places more emphasis mitigation at the end user rather than the Radar Head • Requires a surveillance picture to be built up from multiple surveillance sensors • Mosaic solution • Multi-Radar Tracking solution • Effective solution but limited in number of applications due to: • Computational limitations • Finite maximum number of surveillance sensors • Accuracy requirements Sustainable Energy – Sustainable ATC Surveillance Workshop – Eurocontrol, Brussels, April 2010

  11. Cooperative Surveillance System • Blank SSR Transmission in an azimuth sector • In-Fill SSR • In-Fill Wide Area Multilateration (WAM) • In-Fill ADS-B • Improve SSR Anti-Reflection capability / Mode-S Sustainable Energy – Sustainable ATC Surveillance Workshop – Eurocontrol, Brussels, April 2010

  12. Operational • Move ATC Route • Change airspace classification or create a Transponder Mandatory Zone Sustainable Energy – Sustainable ATC Surveillance Workshop – Eurocontrol, Brussels, April 2010

  13. Wind Turbine • Move Turbines to outside Radar Line of Site • Move Turbines out of Critical Areas • Change Windfarm layout • Reduce number of turbines within Line of Site • Reduce Wind Turbine Reflectivity Sustainable Energy – Sustainable ATC Surveillance Workshop – Eurocontrol, Brussels, April 2010

  14. Jason Strong Engineering Manager, Surveillance Sensors Jason.strong@nats.co.uk +44 1489 444701 NATS, Corporate & Technical Centre, 4000/4200 Parkway Whiteley, Fareham, Hampshire. UK PO15 7FL Sustainable Energy – Sustainable ATC Surveillance Workshop – Eurocontrol, Brussels, April 2010

More Related