This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
NAVIGATION & RADAR


FEATURE SPONSOR


LIGHTWAVE RADAR AFTER FIVE YEARS IN THE MAKING, WIND TURBINE CLUTTER IS NOW OFFICIALLY OVER


INDUSTRY STANDARD The team’s decision to design a traditional scanning radar that operates at S-band was driven by the fact that it continues to be acknowledged as the industry’s standard. It has been globally adopted for over sixty years by aviation customers around the world. As well, it is the most cost-efficient and least susceptible to jamming than any other type of radar.


S-BAND OPERATION By operating at S-band, impacts from weather such as rain and snow are negated while X-band systems are significantly degraded. As well, X-band is not recommended for use at an airport location per the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority’s guidance on terminal surveillance.


OTHER TECHNOLOGIES


In 2008, C Speed took a clean sheet of paper and designed a radar system to mitigate wind turbine clutter for the benefit of airports and wind developers in the United Kingdom.


Its engineering team focused on meeting the stringent requirements of governmental aviation regulators, commercial airports, and military aerodromes. In addition, while it would incorporate state-of-the- art technology, it would still need to be affordable for its aviation customers to acquire, integrate, operate and maintain - including many that were anticipated to originate from the wind development community where radar technology was unfamiliar territory.


LIGHTWAVE RADAR After months of work the team agreed on a set of requirements that would result in an S-band, solid state, primary surveillance radar that would employ a traditional scanning antenna array. LightWave Radar was born.


In May 2013, nearly five years after setting out to design and build the world’s first wind turbine clutter mitigation radar system, C Speed delivered, under contract, the first LightWave Radar production system to Manston, Kent’s International Airport. Today, it remains the first and only mitigation radar system that does not require terrain screening that has been purchased, installed, and integrated in the United Kingdom.


While some other radar providers in the market have attempted to adapt other radar technologies to the wind turbine clutter mitigation market, they have not seen success for several reasons. Firstly a ‘flash bulb’ type radar, one that transmits an omni-directional beam with multiple ‘listening’ or receive beams is designed to just look up from within a windfarm.


This involves locating one radar in each windfarm which generates a much higher cost, is handicapped by a severely limited range of only 5 nautical miles, and is massively challenged by requiring the airport to accept multiple data feeds which is highly undesirable.


It is also one of the most easily jammed radars that exist.


Another X-band provider has resorted to ‘blanking’ techniques to remove clutter where turbines are present, however, this creates holes in the coverage volume. And, as such, seems unlikely to be accepted by the regulators as you must demonstrate predictable performance.


SUMMARY Today, with multiple installations in the United Kingdom and the United States, LightWave Radar is now allowing airports and wind developments to co-exist as was planned five years ago. With LightWave Radar, the issue of wind turbine clutter is now officially over.


David Colangelo C Speed


Click to view more info = Click to view video


26


www.windenergynetwork.co.uk


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116