extract of 'part 1 charts' from annex 14 update workshop heliexpo

Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo March 2015

Extract of ‘Part 1 Charts’ from Annex 14 Update Workshop

HeliExpo 2015


ICAO FRAMEWORK• PPR (Private Use) Heliports Not Directly Considered In Annex 14 [Only

Brief Reference To PPR Heliports Made In This Presentation]

• Annex 14 covers Hospital Heliports * - Most European Nations consider Annex 14 PC1 Requirements Apply To All ‘Public Interest’ Facilities including Hospital Heliports.

• “Europe” considers Hospital Heliports should be designed for Performance Class 1 operations – requirement of JAR OPS 3 ** …... with a DLB Area (FATO + Safety area) of 2D:

• US/FAA in AC-2B considers HOSPITAL HELIPORTS essentially special case of a General Aviation (GA) Heliport and akin to a ‘PRIVATE USE/PPR’ Heliports – however in AC-2C the FAA have changed the requirements so in most cases they are the same as for GA Heliports.

• ** Note: EASA EU-OPS Part CAT was issued in 2012 – this is essential the same as JAR-OPS 3 and Nations are now ‘adopting’ the new EU rules: even so in a number of Nations at this time JAR-OPS 3 still applies.

•


ICAO ANNEX 14 - HELIPORTS

• PERFORMANCE CLASS 1 (PC1)

• PERFORMANCE CLASS 2 & 3 (PC2/PC3)

Performance Requirements defined in ICAO Annex 6

US/FAA USES AIRWORTHINESS CATEGORIES – CAT A and CAT B. THERE ARE NO FAA ‘PERFORMANCE CLASS / CAT A’ REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO OPERATIONS AT HELIPORTS – IN 1980/1990s SOME ‘TRANSPORT/CAT A REQUIREMENTS’ (from the old Part 127: Certification and operations of scheduled air carriers with helicopters) WERE APPLIED IN CASE OF SCHEDULE OPERATIONS.


GENERAL

• PC2 and PC3 Heliports in ICAO Annex 14 corresponds, in general terms, to General Aviation Heliport in the FAA AC.

• PC1 Heliport in ICAO Annex 14 is approximately the same as Transport Heliport in FAA AC … but is Annex 14 based on PC1/Cat A performance rather than dimensions related to size of helicopter as in FAA AC-2C: in this respect Annex 14 is generally less demanding and more logical than FAA AC-2C!


PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS Generalize Equivalents

ICAO ANNEX 6*(JAR-OPS 3) US/FAA**

PERFORMANCE CLASS 1 CAT A

PERFORMANCE CLASS 2 CAT B***

PERFORMANCE CLASS 3 CAT B

*ANNEX 6: UPDATED/REVISED BY THE ICAO HELICOPTER TILTROTOR STUDY GROUP (HTSG) –latest version issued in 2007.

** CAT A (CATEGORY A) AND CAT B (CATEGORY B) ARE AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION DESIGNATIONS. –

*** PC 2 – AKIN TO “CAT B TAKEOFF AND LANDING + CAT A EN-ROUTE/CRUISE”: SOME US/FAA CAT A/OEI EN-ROUTE REQUIREMENTS.


TDP

AEO

OEI200 ft

Reject T/O DistanceFATO

Safe forced landing – outside heliport

AEO OEI

200 ft

Safe forced landing – outside heliportFATO

FATO

AEO

PERFORMANCE CLASSIFICATIONS

PERFORMANCE CLASS 1

PERFORMANCE CLASS 2

PERFORMANCE CLASS 3

[Chart Based on Figures supplied by Jim Lyons]


TDP

AEO

OEI200 ft

Reject T/O DistanceFATO

Safe forced landing – outside heliport

AEO OEI

200 ft

Safe forced landing – outside heliportFATO

FATO

AEO

PERFORMANCE CLASSIFICATIONS

PERFORMANCE CLASS 1

PERFORMANCE CLASS 2

PERFORMANCE CLASS 3

[Chart Based on Figures supplied by Jim Lyons]

‘Cat A’

‘Cat A’ Enroute - Cat B T/O + Land

‘Cat B’


PERFORMANCE CLASS 1 (SHORT-FIELD) CAT. A.

ICAO Annex 14 FATO

Basic FATO

RTOD(A) is given in Flight Manual for all takeoff procedure except ‘vertical takeoff procedures’!


THEORETICAL ‘RESTRICTED FIELD LENGTH’CAT. A. PROCEDURES

Size of RTOD(A) – according to Part 29 certification requirements it should be in the Flight Manual – but it is not for ‘vertical type takeoff procedures’!


‘RESTRICTED FIELD LENGTH’ CAT. A. PROCEDURES

Size of RTOD(A): according to Part 29 certification requirements this should be in the Flight Manual – but it is not for ‘vertical type takeoff procedures’!


“Free Field Cat A” FATO with TLOF

SAFETY AREA

TLOF

FATO

NOT TO SCALE

RTOA [RTOD]


Annex 14/FAA - MAIN DIFFERENCES

ICAO ANNEX 14 ~ FAA AC 150-5390-2C*

• Annex 14 based on “Operational Performance”Requirements (Helicopter Performance Class) Defined In Annex 6

• FAA AC-2C Based On Heliport Type (Use).

• Main Technical Differences • Load Bearing Area Size Requirements**• Airspace Requirements

*Issued by FAA in April 2012.

** Differences between ‘Annex 14 Vol II’ and FAA AC-2C are, in practice, considerably less as a result of the ‘tranche 1’ changes.


‘Tranche 2’ / 4th Edition (2013) Changes


PC1 – Lack of RTOD(A)The fact that the size of RTOD(A), even though according to Part 29 certification requirements should be in the Flight Manual, is not for ‘vertical type takeoff procedures’ was recognized by HDWG and in ‘Tranche 2’ (2013) the Note changed:-

3.1.3 The dimensions of a FATO shall be:

a) where intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 1, as prescribed in the helicopter flight manual (HFM) except that, in the absence of width specifications, the width shall be not less than the greatest overall dimension (D) of the largest helicopter the FATO is intended to serve;

‘Tranche 1’ – Third Edition (2009)

Note.— Where the term FATO is not used in the HFM, the minimum landing/take-off area specified in the HFMfor the appropriate flight profile is used.

‘Tranche 2’ –Forth Edition (2013)

Note.— The term FATO is not used in the HFM. The minimum landing/take-off area specified in the HFM for the appropriate performance class 1 flight profile is necessary to determine the size of the FATO. However, for vertical take-off procedures in performance class 1, the required rejected take-off area is not normally quoted in the HFM, and it will be necessary to obtain information (from the manufactures) which includes complete containment — this figure will always be greater than 1 D.


Annex 14 ‘TRANCHE 2’/4th Edition

A large number of changes to ‘Tranche 2’ (2013) were also made following the ‘State Letter’ version issued in July 2010: some were made as a result of ‘ICAO member (State)’ comments. Also (from about July 2012) ICAO HDWG members agreed that some of the previously agreed ‘Tranche 2’ changes added confusion and should be removed. This is related to the way the FATO is defined andthe use of the term FATO/TLOF in connection with elevated heliports and helidecks, and a number of minor issues. As a result, with inputs from the HDWG, a number of (editorial) corrections and changes have been made by the ICAO Secretariat in consort with the Air Navigation Bureau in ‘Tranche 2’.


Term FATO/TLOF has been removed from throughout the Annex 14 Volume II. Based on discussions at HDWG-7, with reference to IP02, there was consensus that for a 0.83D arrangement it is a reduction in the TLOF only that is permitted. For a sub-1DTLOF, the FATO is required to be at 1D in all cases. Therefore where the TLOF is 1Dor greater it is always the case that the FATO and the TLOF “occupy the same space” and so are (fully) “coincidental”. However, where the TLOF is permitted to reduce below 1D (but never below 0.83D) there is no corresponding reduction in the size of the FATO permitted and so in this case the FATO and the TLOF cannot be said to “occupy the same space.” Accepting that the TLOF is always located within the boundary of the larger FATO it is correct to describe the FATO and TLOF as being “collocated” in this case. Unless otherwise indicated within a specific section, the changes herein described in detail address the relationship between the FATO and TLOF for helidecks and for shipboard heliports. As the FATO and TLOF cannot be regarded as coincidental in all cases it is necessary for text formally relating to “FATO/TLOF” to now reflect one or other design element; either SARPs refer to “the FATO” or to “the TLOF”.

‘Tranche 2’ Changes – ICAO Statement As a result of the debate, the ICAO Secretariat issued the following statement:-


Annex 14 ‘Tranche 2’ (2013)

The same issues related to a minimum FATO size of 1D agreed for helidecks applies in case of PC2/3 elevated heliports –the changes were made for ‘Helidecks’ in section 3.3 and issued in ‘Tranche 2’ 2013: however due to time limitations to make the necessary changes to ‘section 3.2 Elevated Heliports’, the ICAO Secretariat (with inputs from the HDWG Rapporteur and some HDWG members), decided to withdraw the revised (new) proposed ‘Tranche 2’ for section 3.2 and simply include in ‘Tranche 2 document’ [issued in July 2013] the earlier ‘Tranche 1 Text’ for section 3.2 - this does NOT include the term FATO/TLOF but still refers to a 0.83D FATOs for PC2/3 for “less than 3175 kg (7000 lb) heliports”!!

IFHA did NOT support the ICAO solution and proposed that the ‘Tranche 2’ Annex 14 version should NOT BE ISSUED until all the text changes had been competed – the State members of HDWG did not support IFHA and the ‘Tranche 2’ [4th Edition] was issued in July 2013.


Annex 14 – 1D FATO Annex 14 – 0.83D FATO / TLOF(Helicopter less than 3175 kg/7000lbs)

2D

FATO/TLOF – DLB – 0.83D

Touchdown/Position Marking – 0.5D

FATO/TLOF – DLB – 1D

DLB = Dynamic Load Bearing

Helideck – ‘Tranche 1’

Airspace/Obstacle requirements NOT shown


Annex 14 – 1D FATO Annex 14 – 0.83D FATO / TLOF(Helicopter less than 3175 kg/7000lbs)

TLOF – DLB – 0.83D

Touchdown/Position Marking – 0.5D

FATO/TLOF – DLB – 1D

DLB = Dynamic Load Bearing

HELIDECKS - ‘Tranche 2’

FATO – 1D “need not be load bearing for helicopters”[Recommendation added that TLOF is 1D and DLB]

Airspace/Obstacle requirements NOT shown


‘Tranche 3’ – AP3


A number of items were discussed after ‘Tranche 2’ was issued (2013) and a number of additional changes agreed: these ‘Tranche 3’ changes were addressed/agreed at the 3rd Aerodrome Panel (AP/3) – 7-11 April 2014. These changes were “swept up” in a State Letter (comments required by 19 March 2015). The aim is that will be issued next year with an applicability date of November 2016. The items are:-

(i) Frangibility of essential objects around helidecks

(ii) Frangibility of essential objects around shipboard heliports

(iii) Reduction of line size and/or thickness of touchdown markings for smaller helidecks and shipboard heliports (<16 m)

(iv) Major amendment of/New Chapter 6. Heliport Services – 6.1 Rescue and fire fighting. [Joint pape r of HDWG and RFFWG]

‘Tranche 3’ – AP3


“BIG CHANGES” IN FORMAT AND SOME REQUIREMENTS ARE BEING PROPOSED BY

ICAO HDWG – SOME HAVE BEEN “TENTATIVELY AGREED” – THESE WILL

ONCE FORMALLY APPROVED BE ISSUED IN ‘TRANCHE 4’ (2019 ???)

forCHAPTER 3 - Physical Characteristics

and associated sections in CHAPTER 5 - Visual Aids

HDWG LATEST PROPOSALS


FORMAT CHANGE


MAJOR FORMAT CHANGE PROPOSED

During the later part of 2012 and 2013, Jim Lyons on behalf of HDWG Onshore Heliport Sub-group (Rapporteur Dale South, Australia) made a detailed review of the ‘Chapter 3 requirements’ - this result in April 2013 the issue of a 116 page “DISCUSSION PAPER - HELIPORTS – DEFINED AREAS - TOWARD AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD.”

This resulted in major debates within the Sub-groups and HDWG and initially it was proposed that, much like the ‘fixed-wing/Aerodrome SARPs’ in that the Annex 14 Vol 1, the helicopter SARPs in Annex Vol II should be defined onlyin terms of ‘objective standards’ and that guidance on the way to apply these standards should be given in a new/updated heliport Manual.


OBJECTIVE STANDARDS / PRESCRIPTIVE STANDARDS

Major Changes Proposed (and essentially agreed) with in HDWG:-

Change from “Prescriptive Standards” in current Annex 14 Vol II to:-

“Objective Standards and Prescriptive Standards”

What is the Difference? What is an “Objective Standards”??

.


An objective based standard sets out the ‘objective(s)’ to be achieved without prescribing how it is to be achieved.

A prescriptive based standard provision sets out a specific specification/requirement for compliance.

A ‘prescriptive standard’ describes exactly what is required in terms of the design according to the standard. The designer has to follow exact instructions and not deviate (or use their own approach).

The use of ‘‘objective standard’ and ‘prescriptive standard’ is preferred since it gives greater flexibility and freedom in designing heliport while avoiding ‘design variations’ which can lead to unsafe heliports/helidecks designs.

OBJECTIVE STANDARDS / PRESCRIPTIVE STANDARDS


OBJECTIVE STANDARDSExtract from Annex 14 Vol 1 – Aerodromes (4th Edition 2004)

3.1.7 Primary runway

Recommendation.— Except as provided in 3.1.9, the actual runway length to be provided for a primary runway should be adequate to meet the operational requirements of the aeroplanes for which the runway is intended and should benot less than the longest length determined by applying the corrections for local conditions to the operations and performance characteristics of the relevant aeroplanes.

Note 1.— This specification does not necessarily mean providing for operations by the critical aeroplane at its maximum mass.

Note 2.— Both take-off and landing requirements need to be considered when determining the length of runway to be provided and the need for operations to be conducted in both directions of the runway.

Note 3.— Local conditions that may need to be considered include elevation, temperature, runway slope, humidity and the runway surface characteristics.

Note 4.— When performance data on aeroplanes for which not known, guidance on the determination of the actual length of a primary runway by application of general correction factors is given in the Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 1.


OBJECTIVE STANDARDSExtract from Annex 14 Vol 1 – Areodromes (4th Edition 2004)

3.1.7 Primary runway

Recommendation.— Except as provided in 3.1.9, the actual runway length to be provided for a primary runway should be adequate to meet the operational requirements of the aeroplanes for which the runway is intended and should benot less than the longest length determined by applying the corrections for local conditions to the operations and performance characteristics of the relevant aeroplanes.

Note 1.— This specification does not necessarily mean providing for operations by the critical aeroplane at its maximum mass.

Note 2.— Both take-off and landing requirements need to be considered when determining the length of runway to be provided and the need for operations to be conducted in both directions of the runway.

Note 3.— Local conditions that may need to be considered include elevation, temperature, runway slope, humidity and the runway surface characteristics.

Note 4.— When performance data on aeroplanes for which not known, guidance on the determination of the actual length of a primary runway by application of general correction factors is given in the Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 1.


PRESCRIPTIVE STANDARDExtract from Annex 14 Vol II – Heliports (4th Edition-2013)

Final approach and take-off areas……….



b) where intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 2 or 3, of sufficient size and shape to contain an area within which can be drawn a circle of diameter not less than:

1) 1 D of the largest helicopter when the maximum take-off mass (MTOM) of helicopters the FATO is intended to serve is more than 3 175 kg;

2) 0.83 D of the largest helicopter when the MTOM of helicopters the FATO is intended to serve is 3 175 kg or less.

Note.— The term FATO is not used in the HFM. The minimum landing/take-off area specified in the HFM for the appropriate performance class 1 flight profile is necessary to determine the size of the FATO. However, for vertical take-off procedures in performance class 1, the required rejected take-off area is not normally quoted in the HFM, and it will be necessary to obtain information which includes complete containment — this figure will always be

greater than 1 D.

Note: It is proposed by HDWG to also change the FATO requirements.


PRESCRIPTIVE STANDARDExtract from Annex 14 Vol II – Heliports (4th Edition-2013)

Final approach and take-off areas……….



b) where intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 2 or 3, of sufficient size and shape to contain an area within which can be drawn a circle of diameter not less than:

1) 1 D of the largest helicopter when the maximum take-off mass (MTOM) of helicopters the FATO is intended to serve is more than 3 175 kg;

2)0.83 D of the largest helicopter when the MTOM of helicopters the FATO is intended to serve is 3 175 kg or less.

Note.— The term FATO is not used in the HFM. The minimum landing/take-off area specified in the HFM for the appropriate performance class 1 flight profile is necessary to determine the size of the FATO. However, for vertical take-off procedures in performance class 1, the required rejected take-off area is not normally quoted in the HFM, and it will be necessary to obtain information which includes complete containment — this figure will always be

greater than 1 D.

Note: It is proposed by HDWG to change the FATO requirements.


Extract from A DISCUSSION PAPER HELIPORTS – DEFINED AREAS TOWARD AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD - HDWG/8 DP/01 (April 2013)

Final approach and take-off areas (FATO) (surface level heliports)

3.1.0 A FATO shall consist of:

a) an obstacle free area of sufficient size and shape to provide containment of every part of the design helicopter: in the final phase of a normal approach; in the commencement of a normal take-off; and, for required manoeuvring within the FATO;

b) a surface which:

1) is resistant to the effects of rotor downwash;

2) has bearing strength sufficient to accommodate a rejected take-off when intended for use by helicopters operated in performance class 1;

c) an additional safety area to compensate for errors in manoeuvring. .

PROPOSED OBJECTIVE STANDARDS

Note: Since these draft requirements were proposed, a number of changes to the text as been proposed as result discussions within the HDWG.


Extract from A DISCUSSION PAPER HELIPORTS – DEFINED AREAS TOWARD AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD - HDWG/8 DP/01 (April 2013)

Final approach and take-off areas (FATO) (surface level heliports)

3.1.0 A FATO shall consist of:

a) an obstacle free area of sufficient size and shape to provide containment of every part of the design helicopter: in the final phase of a normal approach; in the commencement of a normal take-off; and, for required manoeuvring within the FATO;

b) a surface which:

1) is resistant to the effects of rotor downwash;

2) has bearing strength sufficient to accommodate a rejected take-off when intended for use by helicopters operated in performance class 1;

c) an additional safety area to compensate for errors in manoeuvring. .

PROPOSED OBJECTIVE STANDARDS

Note: No specific requirements given!


3.1.0 A FATO shall:a) consist of:

1) an obstacle free area of sufficient size and shape to provide containment of every part of the designhelicopter: in the final phase of a normal approach; in the commencement of a normal take-off; and, forrequired manoeuvring within the FATO;

2) a surface which:i) is resistant to the effects of rotor downwash;ii) has bearing strength sufficient to accommodate a rejected take-off when intended for use by

helicopters operated in performance class 1;b) be associated with an area to compensate for errors in manoeuvring.

3.1.2 The minimum dimensions of a FATO shall be:a) where intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 1:

1) the length of the Rejected Take-Off Distance prescribed in the helicopter flight manual (HFM) for therequired procedure, or 1.5 Design D - whichever is the greater; and

2) the width prescribed in the HFM for the required procedure or 1.5 Design D – whichever is the greater.Note: where a manufacturer, using flight test data, substantiates that a FATO of a size less than 1.5D meets the Part 29 requirement for a ‘minimum elevated heliport size demonstrated’ and during that demonstration provides containment of all parts of the helicopter within the FATO – regardless of direction of approach; a State may accept such a design dimension. However, it should be clearly understood that this design dimension is one which might preclude other helicopters of a similar size from operating in Performance Class 1 from the same heliport.

b) where intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance classes 2 or 3 the lesser of :

1) an area within which can be drawn a circle of diameter of 1.5 Design D; or,

2) an area meeting the requirement of 3.1.0 (a)(1) above.

OBJECTIVE + PRESCRIPTIVE STANDARDS

Extract from HDWG/?‐ Proposed Amendment of Chapter 3 In Accordance With Discussion Paper HDWG/8‐DP/01

Objective Standard

Prescriptive Standard


3.1.0 A FATO shall:a) consist of:

1) an obstacle free area of sufficient size and shape to provide containment of every part of the designhelicopter: in the final phase of a normal approach; in the commencement of a normal take-off; and, forrequired manoeuvring within the FATO;

2) a surface which:i) is resistant to the effects of rotor downwash;ii) has bearing strength sufficient to accommodate a rejected take-off when intended for use by

helicopters operated in performance class 1;b) be associated with an area to compensate for errors in manoeuvring.

3.1.2 The minimum dimensions of a FATO shall be:a) where intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 1:

1) the length of the Rejected Take-Off Distance prescribed in the helicopter flight manual (HFM) for therequired procedure, or 1.5 Design D - whichever is the greater; and

2) the width prescribed in the HFM for the required procedure or 1.5 Design D – whichever is the greater.Note: where a manufacturer, using flight test data, substantiates that a FATO of a size less than 1.5D meets the Part 29 requirement for a ‘minimum elevated heliport size demonstrated’ and during that demonstration provides containment of all parts of the helicopter within the FATO – regardless of direction of approach; a State may accept such a design dimension. However, it should be clearly understood that this design dimension is one which might preclude other helicopters of a similar size from operating in Performance Class 1 from the same heliport.

b) where intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance classes 2 or 3 the lesser of :

1) an area within which can be drawn a circle of diameter of 1.5 Design D; or,

2) an area meeting the requirement of 3.1.0 (a)(1) above.

OBJECTIVE + PRESCRIPTIVE STANDARDS

Extract from HDWG/?‐ Proposed Amendment of Chapter 3 In Accordance With Discussion Paper HDWG/8‐DP/01

Objective Standard

Prescriptive Standard

. IFHA/OGP/ICCAIA suggested that most reading 3.1.0 a) 1) would not understand the implications of the text. In addition, as worded, it currently changes the definition of a FATO! Industry said it could not see no reason for this!

IFHA/OGP/ICCAIA: 3.1.2 b) 2) could lead to different States having different (larger) FATO requirements for PC2/3 – this is not supported on safety considerations.


INDUSTRY VIEW - OBJECTIVE STANDARDS

INDUSTRY VIEW - 2014.

IFHA – with OGP and ICCAIA – expressed concern on the proposal to base Annex 14 Vol II on ‘Objective Standards’ only since this could lead to difference States (nations) defining their national standards differently …… it has been the industry view, since we are dealing with safety, that common minimum standards should be the same worldwide.

Some States (Nations) agreed with IFHA and after much debate it was accepted by HDWG that instead of the annex containing only ‘Objective Standards’ Annex 14 Vol II should contain both ‘Objective Standards’ and ‘Prescriptive Standards’: IFHA supported this approach.


IFHA also previously expressed some concerns on focusing on making major changes to Chapter 3 (and associate section of Chapter 5) and introducing Objective Standards, as well as Perceptive Standards. Unfortunately this was taken by some to imply that IFHA were fundamentally against making changes. This is not the case.

The concern that IFHA expressed, along with those of OGP and ICCAIA, was that after spending 6 to 8-years to develop Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 SARPs which are now being used to design many heliports, HDWG are proposing to make major changes to the FATO sizes in Chapter 3 etc. when there are many other aspects, including lighting requirements (Section 5.3) and, more importantly, rewriting/updating the Heliport Manual (HM) which have not been addressed.

The best estimate based on the ICAO ‘track record’ is that to make the changes to Chapter 3 to include Objective standards and Prescriptive Standards – and get them fully accepted by through all the ICAO procedures – will take in order of 6-years!! Hence it will be like starting again!! Even so IFHA will work towards a satisfactory and timely solution which will hopefully the changes will be made in ‘Tranche 4’.

MAJOR FORMAT CHANGE PROPOSED


NEW Terminology


NEW Terminology Defined Area(s) - “Defined areas are the basic building blocks of heliports (helidecks) and each of them has a set of attributes. The set of attributes for any defined area remain even when collocated, or is coincidental with, another defined area; although, logically, the more stringent Standard will always apply. The best example of this is the TLOF which is never established in isolation - its attributes must always be satisfied.”

The recent changes being considered by HDWG, as result of each of the defined areas – such as FATO, TLOF, - have been examined in detail with respect to their objectives and attributes. As each section develops, the objectives and attributes are discussed with respect to challenges presented by real life operations. In a paper prepared by Jim Lyons for the HDWG Onshore Heliport Sub-group “each of the ‘defined areas’ have been described complete with (all of) its attributes, so that it can be positioned in isolation, or in combination with others, without having to resort to complicated tables specifying separation between defined areas, and defined areas and objects”. Extracts from “ HELIPORTS – DEFINED AREAS TOWARD AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD - HDWG/8- DP/01


NEW Terminology

Containment; an attribute which affords protection to the helicopter and/or its undercarriage and permits clearance from obstacles to be established – containment is of two types:

• undercarriage containment; and

• helicopter containment **

Note: where a defined area (such as a TLOF or taxiway) provides only undercarriage containment, it should be situated within, or collocated with, another defined area (a FATO, Stand or taxi-route) to ensure that helicopter containment is provided.

** ‘Rotor Containment’ for a typical helicopter with a main rotor and tail rotor


‘Undercarriage containment’ means that under normal operating circumstances, all parts of the undercarriage will be within the boundary of the defined area – i.e. the TLOFor the Taxiway.

‘Helicopter containment’ means that under normal operating circumstances, all parts of the helicopter will be within the boundary of the defined area – i.e. the FATO or the Stand; this always includes the main rotor and rearmost part (which might be the tail rotor, fenestron or another part of the tail section).

NEW Terminology


NEW Terminology

Undercarriage Containment: as a function of D (and RD) the value varies considerably from one helicopter to another

Helicopter Containment: this is 1D and is the minimumsize for a FATO

FATO


NEW Terminology

Undercarriage Containment: as a function of D (and RD) the value varies considerably from one helicopter to another

Helicopter Containment: this is 1D and is the minimumsize for a FATO

TLOF

FATO

It as been shown that 0.83D (1RD) covers all helicopters examined, with an adequate safety margin, and this has been agreed to be the minimum size for the PC2/3 TLOF.


NEW Terminology Helicopter Containment: this is 1D and is the minimum size for a FATO

TLOF – 0.83D

FATO

It is “suggested” within HDWG that to account for maneuvering etc. and scatter on landing ,the minimum PC1 and PC2/3 FATO should be 1.5D


‘TRANCHE 2’ APPLICABILITY


1.2 Applicability

Note.— The dimensions discussed in this Annex are based on consideration of single-main-rotor helicopters. For tandem-rotor helicopters the heliport design will be based on a case-by-case review of the specific models using the basic requirement for a safety area and protection areas specified in this Annex. The specifications of the main chapters of this Annex are applicable for visual heliports that may or may not incorporate the use of a Point-in-space approach or departure. Additional specifications for instrument heliports with non-precision and/or precision approaches and instrument departures are detailed in Appendix 2. The specifications of this Annex are not applicable for water heliports (touchdown or lift-off on the surface of the water).




1.2.1 The interpretation of some of the specifications in the Annexexpressly requires the exercising of discretion, the taking of a decision orthe performance of a function by the appropriate authority. In otherspecifications, the expression appropriate authority does not actuallyappear although its inclusion is implied. In both cases, the responsibilityfor whatever determination or action is necessary shall rest with the Statehaving jurisdiction over the heliport.

1.2.2 The specifications in Annex 14, Volume II, shall apply to allheliports intended to be used by helicopters in international civilaviation. They shall apply equally to areas for the exclusive use ofhelicopters at an aerodrome primarily meant for the use ofaeroplanes. Where relevant, the provisions of Annex 14, Volume I,shall apply to the helicopter operations being conducted at such anaerodrome.


APPLICABILITYCurrently the Annex only relates to “international civil aviation”: the HDWGmembers interpret this to mean that the SARPs are only applicable if the heliport is being used for the arrival and departure of helicopters involve in “international civil aviation” and not the domestic internal State operations involving both on-shore and off-shore operations. This would mean that the SARPS are only applicable to a small handful of heliports.

During a number of HDWG meetings various members have provided options to better understand and reflect the risk associated with helicopter operations in certain areas not covered under the “umbrella” applicability of “international”. The two primary areas not adequately addressed in the applicability are offshore operations at helidecks and heliport operations within congested hostile environments: some members – based on safety considerations - want the Annex 14 to apply to all heliports and helidecks.

Generally industry (IFHA, OGP and ICCAIA) supports Annex 14 applying to all heliports and helidecks!


Rationale (Helidecks):-

Many helidecks are undersized with obstacles too close to the facility, and new helidecks are still being built to the older standards which offer no improvement. There have been a number of accidents/incidents in the offshore helicopter community over the past 5 years. Of the recorded events, 97% of the events have occurred during landing, approach, or hover on the facility. Of these events 32 % were main rotor strikes, 16% tail rotor strikes and 6% loss of control (some due to helideck being undersized, and others due to gas ingestion.) [Statistics provided by OGP]

APPLICABILITY

Corresponding Heliport rational NOT available.


APPLICABILITY

1.2.2 The specifications in Annex 14, Volume II, shall apply to all heliports intended to be used by helicopters in international civil aviation. They shall apply equally to areas for the exclusive use of helicopters at an aerodrome primarily meant for the use of aeroplanes. Where relevant, the provisions of Annex 14, Volume I, shall apply to the helicopter operations being conducted at such an aerodrome. The specifications in Annex 14, Volume II, shall apply to helidecks on fixed offshore facilities. Recommendation: The specifications in Annex 14, Volume II, should apply to heliports, helidecks on floating facilities and shipboard heliports unless the results of an aeronautical study show that the risks to helicopter operations associated to the environment and specific conditions of the heliport, helideck or shipboard heliport are mitigated. Note: The aeronautical study may include a risk assessment considering factors such as:

a) the type of operation and the circumstances of the flight from/to the heliport; b) the area/terrain at which the heliport is located; c) the probability of a critical engine failure and the consequences of such an event; and

the training and operational procedures utilized by the heliport in the event of an emergency

HDWG initially suggested text.


APPLICABILITYHDWG Annex 14 Volume II Text submitted to APWG/2 (Dec 2013):-

1.2 Applicability

1.2.2 The specifications in Annex 14, Volume II, shall apply to all heliports intended to be used by helicopters in international civil aviation. They shall apply equally to areas for the exclusive use of helicopters at an aerodrome primarily meant for the use of aeroplanes. Where relevant, the provisions of Annex 14, Volume I, shall apply to the helicopter operations being conducted at such an aerodrome.

The specifications in Annex 14, Volume II, shall apply to helidecks.

Recommendation: The specifications in Annex 14, Volume II, should apply to all heliports.


APPLICABILITY – ICAO POSITION

Feedback from APWG/2 Meeting (Dec 2013):-

The proposed applicability change was not accepted …… “will only be reviewed (not necessarily accepted) if all guidance material is developed and submitted first so that AP members can ponder the certification implications. The AP members feel that applicability and certification do not need to be tied to each other.”

“The applicability was thought to be way too broad, even as a recommendation and several states want a review of ALL SARPS to know how each would change or be effected by a change in applicability.”

It was latter raised at AP/3 (April 2014) for inclusion in ‘Tranche 3’ and again rejected – HDWG are “at a lost on who to proceed” but are still considering this topic.

extract of 'part 1 charts' from annex 14 update workshop heliexpo

Documents