| Design Characteristics | Criteria |
| Propulsion | Electric battery driven, utilizing distributed electric propulsion |
| Propulsive units | 3 or more |
| Battery systems | 2 or more |
| MTOW | 12,500 1bs (5,670 kg) or less |
| Controlling Dimension (CD) | 50 feet (15.2 m) or less |
| Flight Control | Highly augmented stability and control |
| Operating Conditions | |
| Criteria Land-based (ground or elevated) – no amphibian or float |
| Operation location | operations |
| Pilot | On board |
| Flight conditions | VMC |
| Performance | Criteria |
| Hover | Hover out of ground effect (HOGE) in normal operations |
| Takeoff | Vertical |
| Landing | Vertical from a steady state hover |
## 2.0 Vertiport Design and Geometry.
## 2.1. Overview.
The takeoff and landing area design and geometry contained in this EB includes the TLOF, the FATO, and the Safety Area. The dimensions for these areas are presented in Table 2-1 and are based on the dimension D or RD of the Design VTOL aircraft as defined for each vertiport facility (see Figure 1-1). The FAA Office of Airports is working with the FAA Aircraft Certification Service to develop a mechanism and target for aircraft developers to, as an option, demonstrate landing accuracy. The ability to demonstrate equivalent helicopter landing accuracy to this target will support a reduced non-load-bearing FATO and, at a minimum, a 1 RD TLOF infrastructure requirement. ‡ The sizing requirements contained in Table 2-1 will continue to be applied at landing facilities catering to aircraft that do not or cannot demonstrate the target landing accuracy during type certification. A future performance-based TLOF size will incorporate the aircraft observed landing precision, while ensuring all propulsors can remain over a loadbearing surface. These sizing requirements may be modified as additional VTOL operational testing is performed. See Figure 2-1 for the relationship among the TLOF, FATO, and Safety Area.
Table 2-1: Takeoff and Landing Area Minimum Dimensions
| ReferenceVTOL AircraftMTOW | Airplane Size | Distance FromVertiport FATO Centerto Runway Centerline |
| 12,500 1bs (5,670kg) or less | Small Airplane (12,500 1bs (5,670 kg) or less)) | 500 feet (152 m) |
| 12,500 1bs (5,670kg) or less | Large Airplane (12,501-300,000 1bs (5,670.4-136,079 kg)) | 500 feet (152 m) |
| 12,500 1bs (5,670kg) or less | Heavy Airplane (Over 300,000 1bs (136,079 kg)) | 700 feet (213 m) |
Figure 6-1: Example of an On-airport Vertiport
Note: See Table 6-1.
Note: Figure does not reflect every type of configuration.
## 7.0 Site Safety Elements.
## 7.1. Fire Fighting Considerations.
Refer to NFPA 418, Standard for Heliports and Vertiports, for the most current guidance on fire protection. Refer to NFPA 855, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems, for guidance on safety standards for stationary and mobile energy storage systems. Chapters on emergency response provide relevant guidance for fire protection engineers, system designers, code officials, and emergency responders.
## 7.2. Security and Safety.
For vertiports located in secured airport environments, unless screening was carried out at the VTOL passengers’ departure location, Transportation Security Administration regulations may require that a screening area and/or screening be provided before passengers enter the airport’s secured areas. If necessary, airports should establish multiple VTOL parking positions and/or locations in the terminal area to service VTOL passenger screening and/or cargo needs. General information about passenger screening is available on the Transportation Security Administration website, https://www.tsa.gov/.
Controlling vertiport access and keeping operational areas clear of people, animals, equipment, debris, and vehicles is important for safety and security. The following guidance applies to safety barriers and access control measures:
1. For ground-level vertiports, erect a safety barrier around the VTOL aircraft operational areas in the form of a fence or a wall outside of the Safety Area and below the 8:1 elevation of the approach/departure surface. Other types of safety barriers may be used if they provide adequate positive deterrent to persons inadvertently entering an operational area and do not attract wildlife or negatively impact safety.
2. If necessary, near the approach/departure paths, install the barrier by placing it well outside the outer perimeter of the Safety Area and below the elevation of the approach/departure and transitional surfaces described in paragraph 2.5.
3. Safety barriers must be high enough to present a positive deterrent to persons inadvertently or maliciously entering an operational area, but at a low enough elevation to be non-hazardous to all aircraft operations.
4. Provide control access to airport airside areas with adequate security measures as required or recommended by the Transportation Security Administration.
5. Display a vertiport caution sign like that shown in Figure 6-2 at all vertiport access points.
6. Ensure all persons are outside of the DCA when aircraft are operating, as described in paragraph 2.5.
For on-airport vertiports, proponents coordinates with their local Transportation Security Administration security representative.
# CAUTION VERTIPORT LANDING AREA
AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY
## 7.3. Wind and Turbulence.
Wind conditions affect all aircraft to some degree. A wind analysis is recommended to determine the primary approach path to the vertiport. The FAA recommends a data period covering at least the last ten consecutive years of wind observations for this analysis.
Additionally, air (e.g., wind) flowing around and over buildings, stands of trees, terrain irregularities, and elsewhere can create turbulence on ground-level and rooftop vertiports that may affect VTOL operations. The following guidelines apply to turbulence:
1. When possible, locate the TLOF away from buildings, trees, and terrain to minimize air turbulence near the FATO and the approach/departure paths.
2. Assess the turbulence and airflow characteristics near and across the surface of the FATO to determine if turbulence mitigating design measures are necessary (e.g., air gap between the roof, roof parapet, or supporting structure). Perform this assessment when the FATO is located near the edge and top of a building or structure, or within the influence of turbulent wakes from other buildings or structures. The FAA’s
Technical Report FAA/RD-84/25, Evaluating Wind Flow around Buildings on Heliport Placement, addresses the wind’s effect on helicopter operations.
3. Providing a minimum 6-foot (1.8 m) unobstructed air gap on all sides above the level of the top of a structure (e.g., roof and adjacent parapets and walls) and the elevated vertiport will reduce the turbulent effect of air flowing over it.
4. Where an air gap or other turbulence-mitigating design measures are not taken on elevated structures, operational limitations may be necessary under certain wind conditions.
5. Airflow and turbulence measuring equipment may be required for rooftop vertiports. The airflow around the vertiport will need to be assessed to determine how many airflow measurement devices may be needed to accurately characterize the airflow
## 7.4. Weather Information.
An optional automated weather observing system (AWOS) measures and automatically broadcasts current weather conditions at the vertiport site. When installing an AWOS, locate it at least 100 feet (30.5 m) and not more than 700 feet (213 m) from the TLOF and such that its instruments will not be affected by rotor/propeller wash from VTOL operations. Find guidance on AWOS systems in AC 150/5220-16, Automated Weather Observing Systems (AWOS) for Non-Federal Applications, and FAA Order 6560.20, Siting Criteria for Automated Weather Observing Systems (AWOS). Other weather observing systems will have different siting criteria. Further research is being conducted as other systems may be able to provide weather data.
## 7.5. Winter Operations.
Swirling snow dispersed by a VTOL’s rotor/propeller wash can cause the pilot to lose sight of the intended landing point and/or obscure objects that need to be avoided. Elevated vertiports may benefit from the incorporation of in-surface snow and ice melt systems.
1. Design the vertiport to accommodate the methods and equipment to be used for snow removal.
2. Design the vertiport to allow the snow to be removed sufficiently so it will not present an obstruction hazard or a flying debris hazard to persons and vehicles.
3. For vertiports in winter weather, an optional dark TLOF surface can be used to absorb more heat from the sun and melt residual ice and snow.
4. Find guidance on winter operations in AC 150/5200-30, Airport Field Condition Assessments and Winter Operations Safety.
## 7.6. Access to Vertiports by Individuals with Disabilities.
Congress has passed various laws concerning access to airports. Since vertiports are a type of airport, these laws are similarly applicable. Find guidance in AC 150/5360-14, Access to Airports by Individuals with Disabilities.
## 7.7. Electromagnetic Effects.
Nearby electromagnetic devices, such as a large ventilator motor, elevator motor, magnetic resonance imaging machine (MRI), or other devices that consume large amounts of electricity may cause temporary abnormalities in the VTOL magnetic compass and interfere with other onboard navigational equipment. Buried rebar or other objects made of iron/steel below the vertiport surface have also been shown to interfere with a VTOL’s navigation instruments.
Be alert to the location of any such devices with respect to hospitals. A warning sign alerting pilots to the presence of an MRI is recommended. Take steps to inform pilots of the MRI locations or other electromagnetic equipment that consume large amounts of electricity. Vertiports are recommended to include electromagnetic interference (EMI) hazard marking and signage to alert pilots to potential EMI impacts, as shown in Figure 6-2 and Figure 6-3. Locate the EMI hazard sign at ingress/egress points on the vertiport for maximum visibility.
For additional information, see the FAA’s Technical Report FAA/RD-92/15, Potential Hazards of Magnetic Resonance Imagers to Emergency Medical Service Helicopter Services.
Figure 6-3. Vertiport EMI Hazard Marking
Align the compass with magnetic north. Use arrows, as shown, to indicate the four cardinal headings (N, S, E, W) and four intercardinal headings (NE, SE, SW, and NW).
Use a minimum dimension of a 6-foot (1.8 m) outer diameter and a 4-foot (1.2 m) inner diameter for the compass circle.
Use blue paint for the compass circle and white paint for the inner portion of the compass. If necessary for visual contrast, use a one-foot white outline along the outer edge of the compass and arrows.
Figure 7-1. Vertiport EMI Hazard Sign
CAUTION
Strong Magnetic Field
Aircraft navigational
instruments may be affected.
Confirm accuracy
of navigation instruments
during all operations.
# APPENDIX A. AIR TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR SITING VERTIPORTS ON OR NEAR EXISTING AIRPORTS
The siting of vertiports supporting Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) presents unique challenges. With the expected certification of AAM aircraft on the horizon and requests to establish vertiports already being received by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), additional guidance is needed.
Vertiport proponents should evaluate several factors when selecting potential sites. One important consideration is how current Air Traffic Control (ATC) procedures at a nearby airport may influence the capacity or efficiency of a proposed vertiport site. Adversely impacting these procedures could introduce safety issues, reduce capacity, and affect economic viability, especially when operating close to larger aircraft‡‡‡.
This guidance was developed to aid proponents in understanding key ATC considerations that may impact a proposed vertiport site serving AAM VTOL aircraft operating under visual flight rules (VFR). This document is not intended to replace or supersede official policy and guidance contained in Federal Regulations, FAA Orders, or facility Standard Operating Procedures. For detailed guidance, proponents should refer to the following resources:
1. FAA Order JO 7210.3, Facility Operation and Administration
2. FAA Order JO 7110.65, Air Traffic Control
## A.1. Definitions.
Below are definitions for various terms used throughout this appendix.
Visual Flight Rules (VFR): Rules that govern the procedures for conducting flight under visual conditions. The term “VFR” is also used in the United States to indicate weather conditions that are equal to or greater than minimum VFR requirements. In addition, it is used by pilots and controllers to indicate the type of flight plan.
Pilot or Controller Applied Visual Separation: a means used by ATC to separate aircraft in terminal areas and en route airspace in the NAS. There are two methods employed to accomplish this separation§§§:
1. The tower controller sees the aircraft involved and issues instructions, as necessary, to ensure that the aircraft avoid each other.
2. A pilot sees the other aircraft involved and upon instructions from the controller provides separation by maneuvering the aircraft to avoid it.
## A.2. Assumptions.
Applicable air traffic procedures and separation standards are determined by the type of aircraft (size, performance, wake category, etc.), flight rules (instrument flight rules (IFR) vs VFR), and class of airspace. This guidance assumes that the AAM VTOL aircraft using a proposed vertiport site will operate under VMC and VFR with an on-board pilot. In addition, pilot or controller applied visual separation will be utilized, when appropriate, to reduce operational impact.
## A.3. Air Traffic Considerations.
When selecting a vertiport site, it is advisable that vertiport proponents understand how the following air traffic considerations may impact the proposed vertiport operations. Failing to consider these in the site selection process may result in delays or restrictions on the proposed vertiport, reducing its operational efficiency.
## A.3.1. Impacts Due to Wake Turbulence Separation.
To avoid dangerous wake turbulence encounters, controllers apply appropriate wake turbulence separation between an airborne VTOL aircraft and larger aircraft\*\*\*\*. In general, the closer a vertiport FATO is to a runway, the more likely wake turbulence will impact its operations. As such:
1. A vertiport FATO located less than 700 feet (213 m) from the runway centerline may impact both runway and vertiport operations. At this distance, the effects of wake turbulence shall be mitigated for airborne VTOL aircraft during simultaneous operations with most aircraft. This proximity to a runway requires stringent operational coordination to prevent interference with aircraft taking off and landing.
2. A vertiport FATO located between 700 (213 m) and 2,499 feet (762 m) from a runway centerline may allow for more independent operations. Depending on aircraft type, flight directions, altitudes and other circumstances, wake turbulence mitigation may impact vertiport capacity and careful planning is still necessary to manage potential interactions with runway traffic.
3. A vertiport FATO located 2,500 feet (762 m) or more from a runway centerline has the greatest potential for independent flight paths and minimal disruption to runway operations. This separation enhances both safety and operational efficiency.
In addition to lateral separation, vertical separation is also critical. VTOL aircraft operating VFR must be able to enter their vertiport ingress/egress routes at an altitude at least 500 feet (152 m) above/below aircraft arriving or departing from the runway. If the VTOL is following or passing underneath a heavy/super aircraft, a minimum of 1,000 feet separation is required.
## A.3.2. Impacts Due to Missed Approach Procedures for Fixed-Wing Aircraft.
Many airports have instrument approach procedures to safely guide aircraft to land when cloud ceilings or visibility are reduced. One important component of an instrument approach procedure is the missed approach procedure. A missed approach procedure gives pilots instructions on how to proceed in case a safe landing cannot be continued.
When an aircraft is on final approach, ATC ensures that the missed approach procedure is clear of other traffic. At airports with a significant number of operations, this can cause additional delays to VTOL aircraft arriving or departing the vertiport.
## A.3.3. Impacts Due to Departure Procedures.
Existing Area Navigation (RNAV) instrument departures (or other departure procedures) allowing aircraft to fly headings that diverge from the runway centerline may limit arrival/departure flexibility from the vertiport and must be assessed on a site-specific basis.
## A.3.4. Impacts Due to Visual Flight Pattern.
Airports have established visual traffic patterns to better organize the flow of VFR aircraft arrivals and departures. These traffic patterns are typically 1,000 feet (305 m) above ground level (AGL) and can be on either side of a runway.
At airports with a significant number of VFR operations, the visual traffic pattern can become busy, with numerous aircraft in the pattern simultaneously. For this reason, a vertiport that is located below the visual traffic pattern may experience additional delays as controllers sequence VTOL arrivals and departures with aircraft in the visual traffic pattern.
## A.4. Vertiport Siting Scenarios.
This section illustrates how the air traffic consideration discussed above would apply to three common vertiport site scenarios. These scenarios are 1) vertiport located adjacent to a runway, 2) vertiport between parallel runways, and 3) vertiport off-the-end of a runway. The graphic below provides a graphical depiction of these scenarios.
## A.4.1. Vertiport Location Adjacent to Airport Runways.
When siting a vertiport adjacent to an airport runway, it is essential to consider the distance from the runway centerline. As discussed in the previous section, a vertiport FATO located closer than 2,500 feet (762 m) from the runway centerline could impact runway operations and incur vertiport delays.
Figure A-1. Siting Vertiports on or Near Existing Airports
Note: These notional depictions are not to scale and only illustrate the relative position of a vertiport in relation to a runway. The actual distances from the runway are critical to assessing the potential impacts.
Vertiport proponents should also be aware that VTOL aircraft crossing an active runway may be delayed by ATC until there is a sufficient gap between runway operations. As such, VTOL aircraft to/from destinations that are located on the other side of a runway at a busy airport may experience additional delays and/or circuitous routings.
Another important consideration is the vertiport location relative to the visual traffic pattern. A vertiport that is located below the visual traffic pattern may experience delays as controllers sequence VTOL arrivals and departures with aircraft in the traffic pattern.
Lastly, when siting a vertiport adjacent to an airport runway, vertiport proponents should become familiar with the missed approach procedures at the airport. If a vertiport is in the path of a missed approach procedure, controllers may need to apply additional buffer between an aircraft landing at the airport and VTOL aircraft landing/departing the vertiport.
## A.4.2. Vertiport Location Between Parallel Runways.
In addition to the considerations discussed in the previous section, vertiports located between parallel runways introduce additional ATC complexities that could increase delays for VTOL aircraft. With runways on both sides of the vertiport, ATC must consider multiple active flight paths, types of aircraft, and limitations.
When a VTOL aircraft arrives/departs a vertiport located between parallel runways, it must either fly over a runway or proceed parallel to the runway until it can safely cross the extended runway centerline. In some cases, the most direct route would be to fly over the runway. However, at busy airports, the efficiency impacts due to wake turbulence separation and/or missed approach procedures can create significant delays for VTOL aircraft. In other cases, arriving/departing parallel to the runways before crossing the extended runway centerline may result in less delay, but it could also increase flying time/distance.
## A.4.3. Vertiport Location Off the End of Airport Runways.
Vertiports located near the approach or departure end of an airport runway may present significant challenges for ATC. Locations closer to the runway arrival threshold or departure ends will present greater difficulty than those farther away and incur more delays and/or operational restrictions.
For example, if a vertiport is placed along the extended runway centerline, vertiport aircraft must be able to enter their ingress/egress routes at an altitude at least 500 feet (152 m) below traffic arriving or departing from the runway (1,000 feet when passing underneath a heavy/super aircraft). If the vertiport is close enough to the runway and the above separation cannot be achieved, VTOL operations will need to be delayed until there is a sufficient gap in the arrival or departure sequence to the runway.
## APPENDIX B. ACRONYMS AND TERMS
| AAM | advanced air mobility |
| AC | Advisory Circular |
| AC | alternating current |
| ADA | Americans with Disabilities Act |
| ALP | Airport Layout Plan |
| AWOS | automated weather observing system |
| CCS | combined charging standard |
| CD | candela |
| CFR | Code of Federal Regulations |
| D | controlling dimension |
| DC | direct current |
| DCA | downwash/outwash caution area |
| DER | distributed energy resource |
| DWOW | Downwash/Outwash |
| EB | Engineering Brief |
| EMS | Emergency Medical Service |
| ESS | energy storage system |
| ETL | effective translational lift |
| EV | electric vehicle |
| EVSE | electric vehicle supply equipment |
| eVTOL | electric vertical takeoff and landing |
| FAA | Federal Aviation Administration |
| FATO | final approach and takeoff area |
| FC | failure condition |
| FOD | foreign object debris |
| GSE | ground service equipment |
| GVGI | generic visual glideslope indicators |
| HOGE | hover out of ground eff ect |
| IEC | International Electrotechnical Commission |
| IEEE | Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers |
| IFC | International Fire Code |
| IFR | instrument flight rules |
| IMC | instrument meteorological conditions |
| ISO | International Organization for Standardization |
| kph | kilometers per hour |
| kWh | kilowatt per hour |
| LAP | Landing Area Proposal |
| LBA | load-bearing area |
| LED | light emitting diode |
| LOB | line of business |
| MCS | megawatt charging system |
| mJ | millijoule |
| MSL | mean sea level |
| MTOW | maximum takeoff weight |
| MW | megawatt |
| MWh | megawatt per hour |
| NAS | National Airspace System |
| NEC | National Electric Code |
| NEPA | National Environmental Policy Act |
| NEMSPA | National EMS Pilots Association |
| NFPA | National Fire Protection Association |
| NREL | National Renewable Energy Laboratory |
| OEM | original equipment manufacturer |
| OFA | object free area |
| PAPI | precision approach path indicator |
| PPR | prior permission required |
| R&D | Research and Development |
| RD | Rotor diameter |
| RNAV | Area Navigation |
| SAE | SAE International |
| TDPC | touchdown/positioning circle |
| TLOF | touchdown and liftoff area |
| UL | Underwriters Laboratories |
| VFR | visual flight rules |
VGSI Visual Glideslope Indicator VMC visual meteorological conditions VTOL vertical takeoff and landing
# FAA AC 150/5390-2D Heliport Design
Subject: Heliport Design
Date: 1/5/2023
Initiated By: AAS-100
AC No: 150/5390-2D
Change:
1 Purpose.
This advisory circular (AC) provides standards for the planning, design and construction of heliports serving helicopters with single, tandem (front and rear) or dual (side by side) rotors.
2 Cancellation.
This AC cancels AC 150/5390-2C, Heliport Design, dated April 24, 2012.
3 Applicability.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommends the standards and guidelines in this AC for uniformity in planning, design, and construction of heliports. This AC does not constitute a regulation, is not mandatory and is not legally binding in its own right. This AC will not be relied upon as a separate basis by the FAA for affirmative enforcement action or other administrative penalty. The standards and guidelines contained in this AC are practices the FAA recommends for establishing an acceptable level of safety, performance, and operation for heliports. Conformity with this AC is voluntary, except for the projects described in subparagraphs 1, 2, and 3 below:
Use of these standards and guidelines is mandatory for projects funded under Federal grant assistance programs, including but not limited to the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act Airport Grants program. See Grant Assurance #34. Heliport sponsors should familiarize themselves with the obligations and assurances that apply to each grant program from which they obtained grant funds.
This AC is mandatory, as required by regulation, for projects funded by the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) program. See PFC Assurance #9.
This AC has no applicability under Title 14 Code of the Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 139 due to an exemption for heliport operators per § 139.1(c)(5).
Other federal agencies, states, or other authorities having jurisdiction over the construction of heliports not funded with AIP, CARES Act, or PFC funds have discretion in establishing the extent to which these standards apply.
## 4 Related Documents.
ACs and Orders referenced in the text of this AC do not include a revision letter, as they refer to the latest version. See Appendix E for a list of associated publications.
## 5 Principal Changes.
The AC incorporates the following principal changes:
Complete reorganization of this AC:
a. Consolidated Chapters 2, 3 and 4 (GENERAL AVIATION, TRANSPORT, and HOSPITAL heliport chapters, respectively) into Chapter 2.
b. Consolidated Chapter 7 (Heliport Gradients and Pavement Design) into Chapter 2.
c. Included a separate Chapter 3 on Heliport Taxiways, Taxi Routes, and Helicopter Parking.
d. Included a separate Chapter 4 on Heliport Markings and Lighting.
e. Included a separate Chapter 7 on Heliport Site Safety Elements.
f. Added new Appendix B, Pre-designated Emergency Landing Areas (PELAs).
g. Incorporated Engineering Brief #87, Heliport Perimeter Light for Visual Meteorological Conditions, into this AC to address specific heliport lighting requirements. Heliport lighting design requirements are included in Appendix G.
Revised figures and tables to correspond with the design requirements and dimensions for GENERAL AVIATION, TRANSPORT, and HOSPITAL heliports.
Enhanced the figures to include dimensional, layout, and offset requirements.
Updated the format of the document and made minor editorial changes throughout.
Included a heliport evaluation process flow chart in Appendix F.
## 6 Using this Document.
Hyperlinks (allowing the reader to access documents located on the internet and to maneuver within this document) are provided throughout this document and are identified with underlined text. When navigating within this document, return to the previously viewed page by pressing the “ALT” and “ ←” keys simultaneously.
Figures in this document are general representations and are not to scale. Colors and shading used in the figures are illustrative only. Guidance on specific heliport markings is provided in Chapter 4.
## 7 Use of Metrics.
Throughout this AC, U.S. customary units are used followed with “soft” (rounded) conversion to metric units. The U.S. customary units govern.
## 8 Where to Find this AC.
You can view a list of all ACs at
https://www.faa.gov/regulations\_policies/advisory\_circulars/. You can view the Federal Aviation Regulations at https://www.faa.gov/regulations\_policies/faa\_regulations/.
## 9 Feedback on this AC.
If you have suggestions for improving this AC, you may use the Advisory Circular Feedback form at the end of this AC.
John R. Dermody
Director of Airport Safety and Standards
## CONTENTS
Paragraph Page
CHAPTER 1. Introduction.. .... 1-1
1.1 Background.. ..... 1-1
1.2 General... .... 1-1
1.3 Facilities. . .... 1-1
1.4 Planning. ... .... 1-2
1.5 Existing Heliports. ..... ..... 1-2
1.6 Location. ............. ...................... 1-2
1.7 AC Organization. ........ ....... 1-3
1.8 Explanation of Terms...... ....... 1-3
1.9 Selection of Approach/Departure Paths.. ... 1-10
1.10 Notification Requirements. .. ..... 1-10
1.11 Hazards to Air Navigation. . .... 1-15
1.12 Federal Assistance. . ... 1-18
1.13 Environmental Impact Analyses.. ... 1-18
1.14 Terminal Facilities Design Considerations.. ..... 1-19
1.15 Zoning for Compatible Land Use. ...... ................. 1-19
1.16 Access to Heliports by Individuals with Disabilities..... ....... 1-20
1.17 State Role. ... ..... 1-20
1.18 Local Role and Building Code.. ... 1-20
1.19 Related Referenced Material.. .... 1-20
CHAPTER 2. Heliport Design... ..... 2-1
2.1 General... .... 2-1
2.2 Prior Permission Required (PPR) Facilities........... ........ 2-1
2.3 Design Approach. ..... .... 2-1
2.4 Access by Individuals with Disabilities.. ..... 2-1
2.5 Heliport Site Selection. . ... 2-4
2.6 TLOF/FATO and Safety Area Relationships. ..... 2-7
2.7 Touchdown and Liftoff Area (TLOF).. ... 2-9
2.8 Final Approach and Takeoff Area (FATO). .. 2-17
## CONTENTS
Paragraph Page
2.9 Safety Area.. .. 2-21
2.10 Fall Protection and Safety Net Design.. ... 2-24
2.11 Pavement Design and Soil Stabilization. . ... 2-25
2.12 VFR Approach/Departure Paths. . .. 2-27
2.13 Heliport Protection Zone (HPZ). . .. 2-35
2.14 Wind Cone. . ... 2-35
CHAPTER 3. Heliport Taxiways, Taxi Routes, and Helicopter Parking ...... ...... 3-1
3.1 General.. .... 3-1
3.2 Taxiways and Taxi Routes....... ........ 3-1
3.3 Taxiway/Taxi Route Widths..... ...... 3-1
3.4 Taxiway Surfaces.... ..... 3-6
3.5 Taxiway and Taxi Route Gradients. ... 3-6
3.6 Helicopter Parking. . .... 3-6
3.7 Parking Position Sizes.... .... 3-13
3.8 Walkways.... ... 3-16
3.9 Fueling. ........ ... 3-16
3.10 Tiedowns.... ... 3-16
CHAPTER 4. Heliport Markings and Lighting...... ......... 4-1
4.1 General.. .... 4-1
4.2 Heliport Retroreflective Markers and Markings. .... 4-1
4.3 Standard Heliport Identification Marking... ..... 4-1
4.4 TLOF and FATO Markings.. ..... 4-6
4.5 Extended Pavement/Structure Markings for GENERAL AVIATION and
HOSPITAL Heliports. ..... .... 4-10
4.6 FATO Perimeter Markings. .... ................ ..... 4-10
4.7 Flight Path Alignment Guidance Marking.. ... 4-11
4.8 Taxiway and Taxi Route Markings..... ........................................................... 4-12
4.9 Helicopter Parking Position Markings.. ...... 4-13
4.10 Walkways..... ... 4-14
4.11 Closed Heliport. . .. 4-14
## CONTENTS
Paragraph Page
4.12 Marking Sizes. .. ... 4-15
4.13 Heliport Lighting. . .. 4-15
CHAPTER 5. Helicopter Facilities on Airports... ..... 5-1
5.1 General.. .... 5-1
5.2 Touchdown and Liftoff Area (TLOF). ... 5-1
5.3 On-Airport Location of Final Approach and Takeoff Area (FATO). ... 5-1
5.4 Safety Area..... ...... 5-3
5.5 VFR Approach/Departure Paths. .. .... 5-3
5.6 Heliport Protection Zone (HPZ). ... 5-3
5.7 Taxiways and Taxi Routes..... ... 5-3
5.8 Helicopter Parking. . .. 5-4
5.9 Security. .. .. 5-4
CHAPTER 6. Instrument Operations .... ..... 6-1
6.1 General.. ... 6-1
6.2 Planning. ... ... 6-3
6.3 Airspace. .. ... 6-3
6.4 Final Approach Reference Area (FARA). .. ...... 6-3
6.5 Improved Instrument Lighting System. ... ..... 6-4
6.6 Obstacle Evaluation Surfaces. .... 6-8
6.7 Visual Glideslope Indicators (VGSI)... ..... 6-8
CHAPTER 7. Heliport Site Safety Elements ... ..... 7-1
7.1 General.... ..... 7-1
7.2 Marking and Lighting of Difficult-To-See Objects.. ..... 7-1
7.3 Safety Considerations. . ... 7-4
Appendix A. Emergency Helicopter Landing Facilities (EHLF)..... ..... A-1
A.1 General... .. A-1
A.2 Notification and Coordination. .. ... A-1
A.3 Rooftop Emergency Facilities.. .. A-1
## CONTENTS
Paragraph Page
Appendix B. Pre-designated Emergency Landing Areas (PELAs) ..... ..B-1
Appendix C. Helicopter Data... .... C-1
Appendix D. Dimensions for Marking Size and Weight Limitations............... . D-1
Appendix E. Associated Publications and Resources ...... .....E-1
Appendix F. Heliport Evaluation Process Flow Chart ... .....F-1
Appendix G. Design Requirements for Heliport Perimeter Lighting ..... ..... G-1
G.1 Elevated and In-pavement Omnidirectional Helipad Perimeter Light. ... G-1
G.2 Photometric Requirements.. .. G-2
G.3 Additional Heliport Perimeter Light Requirements.. .. G-2
G.4 L-860H and L-852H Light Fixture Testing. ... .. G-3
G.5 Installation Criteria. .. .. G-3
## FIGURES
Figure 1-1. FAA Form 7480-1, Notice for Construction, Alteration and Deactivation of Airports
... 1-12
Figure 1-2. Example of a Heliport Layout Plan.. .... 1-13
Figure 1-3. Example of a Heliport Location Map... ..... 1-14
Figure 1-4. Offsite Development Requiring Notice to the FAA . ... 1-17
Figure 2-1. GENERAL AVIATION Heliport – Basic Features... ... 2-2
Figure 2-2. TRANSPORT Heliport – Basic Features...... ..... 2-3
Figure 2-3. HOSPITAL Heliport (Ground Level) – Basic Features.. .. 2-4
Figure 2-4. Heliport EMI Hazard Marking.. .. 2-6
Figure 2-5. Heliport EMI Hazard Sign .... .. 2-7
Figure 2-6. TLOF/FATO/Safety Area Relationships and Minimum Dimensions . .. 2-8
Figure 2-7. Heliport Gradients and Rapid Runoff Shoulder - Load-bearing FATOs. ... 2-12
Figure 2-8. Optional Elongated TLOF and FATO with Two Takeoff Positions.. ... 2-13
Figure 2-9. Elevated Heliport: GENERAL AVIATION and HOSPITAL. ... 2-15
Figure 2-10. Elevated Heliport: TRANSPORT . .... 2-16
Figure 2-11. Additional FATO Length for Heliports at Higher Elevations .. ... 2-19
Figure 2-12. Non-load-bearing FATO and Safety Area over Water: GENERAL AVIATION and
HOSPITAL Heliports .. ... 2-23
Figure 2-13. Non-load-bearing Safety Area over Water: TRANSPORT ... ... 2-24
Figure 2-14. Helicopter Landing Gear Loading: Gradients and Pavement ..... ..... 2-26
Figure 2-15. VFR Heliport Approach/Departure and Transitional Surfaces. .. 2-28
Figure 2-16. VFR Curved Approach/Departure and Transitional Surfaces – GENERAL
AVIATION and TRANSPORT Heliports. .. 2-29
Figure 2-17. VFR HOSPTIAL and PPR Heliport Optional Lateral Extensions of the 8:1
Approach/Departure Surface .. 2-31
Figure 2-18. VFR HOSPITAL and PPR Heliport Optional Lateral Extension of the Curved 8:1
Approach/Departure Surface . ... 2-33
Figure 2-19. Flight Path Alignment Marking and Lights ... ... 2-34
Figure 2-20. Heliport Protection Zone (HPZ).. ... 2-36
Figure 3-1. Taxiway/Taxi Route Relationship – Paved Taxiway.. .. 3-2
Figure 3-2. Taxiway/Taxi Route Relationship – Unpaved Taxiway with Elevated Retroreflective
Edge Markers .... .. 3-3
Figure 3-3. Taxiway/Taxi Route Relationship – Unpaved Taxiway with In-Pavement
Retroreflective Edge Markers ........ ...... 3-4
Figure 3-4. Hover Taxi Area.. ... 3-5
Figure 3-5. Typical Parking Area Design – “Taxi-through” Parking Positions. ............ ........ 3-7
Figure 3-6. Typical Parking Area Design – “Turn-around” Parking Positions ....... ...... 3-8
Figure 3-7. Typical Parking Area Design – “Back-out” Parking Positions.. .... 3-9
Figure 3-8. “Turn-around” Parking Position Marking.. .. 3-11
Figure 3-9. “Taxi-through” and “Back-out” Parking Position Marking.. .. 3-12
Figure 3-10. Parking Position Identification, Size, and Weight Limitations – Paved Areas, Turn-
Around Parking...... ..... 3-14
Figure 3-11. Parking Position Identification, Size, and Weight Limitations – Paved Areas, “Taxi
through” and “Back-out” Parking........ ........ 3-15
Figure 4-1. Standard TLOF Markings ..... .... 4-3
Figure 4-2. Standard Heliport Identification Symbol, TLOF Size and Weight Limitations ....... 4-4
Figure 4-3. HOSPITAL Heliport – Standard Identification Marking.. .... 4-5
Figure 4-4. HOSPITAL Heliport – Alternative Identification Marking.. .... 4-6
Figure 4-5. Paved TLOF/Paved FATO – Paved TLOF/Unpaved FATO – Marking:
TRANSPORT Heliports and Other Heliports with a Paved TLOF...... ...... 4-7
Figure 4-6. Unpaved TLOF/Unpaved FATO – Marking: GENERAL AVIATION and
HOSPITAL Heliports ... .... 4-8
Figure 4-7. Extended Pavement/Structure Marking: GENERAL AVIATION and HOSPITAL
Heliports.. ... 4-11
Figure 4-8. Marking a Closed Heliport... ................................... ...... 4-15
Figure 4-9. Elevated TLOF – Perimeter Lighting ...... .................................. ..... ...... 4-17
Figure 4-10. TLOF/FATO Perimeter Lighting...... ................ .... 4-18
Figure 4-11. TLOF In-pavement and FATO Elevated Perimeter Lighting . .... 4-19
Figure 4-12. FATO Elevation.. .... 4-21
Figure 4-13. Landing Direction Lights. .. 4-23
Figure 5-1. Example of Heliport Facilities Located on an Airport.. .. 5-2
Figure 6-1. FARA/FATO Relationship: Precision Instrument Procedure...... ....... 6-4
Figure 6-2. Heliport Instrument Lighting System (HILS): Non-precision .... ....... 6-6
Figure 6-3. Heliport Approach Lighting System ... ....... 6-7
Figure 6-4. Visual Glideslope Indicator (VGSI) Siting and Clearance Criteria .......................... 6-9
Figure 7-1. Airspace Where Heliport Marking and Lighting are Recommended: Straight
Approach.. ... 7-2
Figure 7-2. Airspace Where Heliport Marking and Lighting are Recommended: Curved
Approach.. .. 7-3
Figure 7-3. Heliport Caution Sign . .. 7-5
Figure A-1. Rooftop Emergency Landing Facility.. . A-2
Figure C-1. Helicopter Dimensions ... . C-2
Figure D-1. Form and Proportions of 36-inch (0.9 m) Numbers for Marking Size and Weight
Limitations . . D-2
Figure D-2. Form and Proportions of 18-inch (0.5 m) Numbers for Marking Size and Weight
Limitation. . D-3
Figure G-1. Perimeter Light Intensity Distribution ... . G-2
## TABLES
Table 2-1. TLOF/FATO Minimum Dimensions 1 .. 2-8
Table 2-2. Minimum Dimensions for Elongated FATO with Two Takeoff Positions.... .. 2-13
Table 2-3. TLOF Elevation and Configuration of Rooftop and other Elevated Heliports ........ 2-14
Table 2-4. Minimum VFR Safety Area Width as a Function of Heliport Markings GENERAL
AVIATION, HOSPITAL, and PPR Heliports... ... 2-21
Table 2-5. Differences in Safety Net Design for Rooftop and Elevated Heliports.. .. 2-25
Table 3-1. Taxiway/Taxi Route Dimensions – GENERAL AVIATION, TRANSPORT, and
HOSPITAL Heliports .. .. 3-5
Table 4-1. FATO Perimeter Light Design .. ... 4-20
Table 5-1. Recommended Distance between FATO Center to Runway Centerline for VFR
Operations .. .. 5-3
Table 6-1. Standards for Instrument Approach Procedures. .. 6-2
Table C-1. Helicopter Data . . C-3
Table G-1. Helicopter Approach Angles Assuming VMC. . G-1
Table G-2. Perimeter Lighting Intensity Recommendations .. . G-2
# CHAPTER 1. Introduction
## 1.1 Background.
Section 103 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 states in part, “In the exercise and performance of his power and duties under this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall consider the following, among other things, as being in the public interest: (a) The regulation of air commerce in such manner as to best promote its development and safety and fulfill the requirements of defense; (b) The promotion, encouragement, and development of civil aeronautics . . .” This public charge, in effect, requires the development and maintenance of a national system of safe heliports. Using the standards and recommendations contained in this publication in the design of heliports supports this public charge.
These standards and recommendations do not limit or regulate the operations of helicopters, aircraft or heliports. When it is not feasible to meet the standards and recommendations in this advisory circular (AC), consult with the appropriate offices of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Airports and Flight Standards Service to identify possible adjustments to include operational procedures that accommodate safe heliport operations to the maximum extent.
The guidance provided in this AC is limited to heliports and helicopter operations. This AC does not specifically consider the characteristics of all vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft or unmanned aircraft. New aircraft entrants that have an interest in operating at heliports should work with the FAA Office of Airports and Flight Standards to demonstrate that their aircraft’s operational and safety parameters comply with this AC, prior to operations.
The FAA is developing guidance for vertiports that would be intended for VTOL and/or unmanned aircraft. Until that guidance is published, entities developing operating sites for new aircraft entrants are encouraged to work with the FAA Office of Airports and Flight Standards on applicable design, operational, and safety criteria tailored to the performance of aircraft which intend to operate at those facilities.
## 1.2 General.
This chapter provides:
an explanation of terms used in this AC,
• notification responsibilities of heliport proponents to the FAA,
general heliport siting guidance, and
sources of technical information relating to the planning and design of a civil heliport.
## 1.3 Facilities.
Most heliports are not large and elaborate. A minimal facility may be adequate as a private-use prior permission required (PPR) heliport (see Appendix A) and may serve as the initial phase in the development of a public-use heliport capable of serving the
general aviation segment of the helicopter community. See Chapter 2 for requirements and design guidance for each specific heliport type.
The basic elements of a heliport include:
clear approach/departure paths,
• clear area for ground maneuvers,
• final approach and takeoff area (FATO),
• touchdown and liftoff area (TLOF),
safety area, and
a wind cone.
## 1.4 Planning.
This AC is a design document intended to assist engineers, architects, and city planners to design, locate, and build a suitable heliport. While the heliport itself may be simple, the planning and organization necessary to properly develop a heliport can present challenges. Ensure proper consideration of the physical, technical, safety, and public interest matters described in this document during the planning and establishment of a heliport.
## 1.5 Existing Heliports.
Whenever a change or alteration to an existing heliport requires the submission of FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, or FAA Form 7480-1, Notice of Landing Area Proposal, consider taking necessary actions, as practical, to bring the heliport up to current design standards. Refer to paragraph 1.11.3 for additional information.
## 1.6 Location.
The optimum location for a heliport is near the desired origination and/or destination of the potential heliport users. Industrial, commercial, and medical operations in urban locations are demand generators for helicopter services, even though they often compete for the limited ground space available.
## 1.6.1 Factors to Consider.
Heliport sites adjacent to a river, lake, railroad, freeway, or highway offer potential for multi-functional land usage.
Locations that have the advantage of unobstructed airspace and which have properly enacted zoning can provide further protection from disruptive encroachment.
Requirements for scheduled “airline-type” passenger services may necessitate the development of an instrument procedure to permit “all-weather” service.
## 1.7 AC Organization.
This AC covers GENERAL AVIATION heliports (including PPR heliports), TRANSPORT heliports, HOSPITAL heliports, and emergency landing facilities. Heliport proponent familiarity with the terminology used in this specialized field is imperative. See paragraph 1.8 for specific heliport terminology and definitions.
## 1.7.1 Helicopter Facilities on Airports.
Consider developing separate heliport facilities for helicopter use when there are a significant number of helicopter operations on an airport. Chapter 5 addresses helicopter facilities on airports.
## 1.7.2 Instrument Operations.
Instrument approach procedures at heliports are practical since the introduction of the global positioning system (GPS). Good planning suggests that heliport proponents plan for the eventual development of instrument approaches to their heliports. Consider the recommendations in Chapter 6 in contemplating future instrument operations at a heliport during heliport site selection and design, even if the heliport will not initially have instrument operations.
## 1.7.3 Heliport Gradients and Pavement Design.
Chapter 2 provides guidance on heliport gradients and pavement design issues.
## 1.7.4 Additional Information and Resources.
Additional information and resources are found in the Appendices as follows:
• Appendix A provides guidance on emergency helicopter landing facilities.
• Appendix B provides guidance for pre-designated emergency landing areas.
Appendix C provides helicopter dimensional data.
Appendix D provides guidance on the form, size, and proportions of certain heliport markings.
Appendix E provides a list of associated publications and resources referenced in this AC.
• Appendix F provides a heliport evaluation process flow chart.
Appendix G provides design guidance on heliport lighting.
## 1.8 Explanation of Terms.
The Pilot/Controller Glossary of the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) defines terms used in the Air Traffic System. Copies of the AIM are available from the FAA website https://www.faa.gov/air\_traffic/publications/. Other terms used in this publication follow.
## 1.8.1 Air Taxi.
Refers to helicopter taxi operations, typically below 100 feet (30.5 m) above ground level (AGL), which allows helicopter movement from one point to another.
## 1.8.2 Approach/Departure Path.
## 1.8.3 Controlling Dimension (D).
The greater of helicopter overall length (OL) and overall width (OW).
## 1.8.4 Design Helicopter.
A single or composite helicopter that reflects the maximum weight, maximum contact load/minimum contact area, controlling dimension (D), overall width (OW), rotor diameter (RD), tail rotor arc radius, undercarriage dimensions, and pilot’s eye height of all helicopters expected to operate at the heliport.
## 1.8.5 Design Loads.
Design and construct the touchdown and lift area (TLOF), and any load-bearing surfaces, to support the loads imposed by the design helicopter and any ground support vehicles and equipment.
## 1.8.5.1 Static Load.
For design purposes, the design static load is equal to the helicopter’s maximum takeoff weight applied through the total contact area of the wheels or skids. See paragraph 2.7.3.1.
## 1.8.5.2 Dynamic Load.
For design purposes, assume the dynamic load at 150 percent of the maximum takeoff weight of the design helicopter applied through the main undercarriage on a wheel-equipped helicopter or aft contact areas of skidequipped helicopter. See paragraph 2.7.3.2.
## 1.8.6 Elevated Heliport.
A heliport located on a rooftop or other elevated structure where the TLOF is at least 30 inches (0.8 m) above the surrounding surface (a ground-level heliport with the TLOF on a mound is not an elevated heliport).
## 1.8.7 Emergency Helicopter Landing Facility (EHLF).
A clear area at ground level or on the roof of a building capable of accommodating helicopters engaged in fire fighting and/or emergency evacuation operations. An EHLF meets the definition of a heliport in this AC and under 14 CFR Part 157, Notice of Construction, Alteration, Activation, and Deactivation of Airports.
## 1.8.8 Final Approach and Takeoff Area (FATO).
A defined area over which the pilot completes the final phase of the approach to a hover or a landing and from which the pilot initiates takeoff. The FATO and TLOF are normally co-located but may be located separately. The FATO is associated with all instrument approach/departure procedures.
1.8.9 Final Approach Reference Area (FARA). An obstacle-free area with its center aligned on the final approach course. It is located at the end of a precision instrument FATO.
1.8.10 Frangibly Mounted. While there is no accepted standard for frangibility regarding helicopter operations, remove all objects from a FATO and safety area except those of the lowest mass practicable and frangibly mounted objects no higher than 2 inches (51 mm) above the adjacent TLOF elevation, to the extent practicable.
A heliport intended to accommodate individuals, corporations, aerial tourism, and public safety agencies. For the purposes of this AC, “general aviation” refers to all helicopter operations other than scheduled service (with the exception of unscheduled service with helicopters with maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) greater than 12,500 pounds (lbs)). HOSPITAL heliports and emergency landing facilities fall under general aviation but are treated separately in the AC due to their specific requirements. GENERAL AVIATION heliports may be publicly or privately owned.
1.8.12 Ground Taxi. The surface movement of a wheeled helicopter under its own power with wheels touching the ground.
1.8.13 Hazard to Air Navigation. An existing or proposed object that the FAA, as a result of an aeronautical study, determines will have a substantial adverse effect upon the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by helicopters and other aircraft, operation of air navigation facilities, or existing or potential airport capacity.
1.8.14 Helipad. A small, designated area, usually with a prepared surface, on a heliport, airport, landing/takeoff area, apron/ramp, or movement area used for takeoff, landing, or parking of helicopters. A helipad on an airport does not constitute a heliport.
1.8.15 Heliport. An area of land, water, or structure used or intended to be used for helicopter landings and takeoffs and includes associated buildings and facilities.
1.8.16 Heliport Elevation. The highest elevation of all helicopter landing areas (TLOFs) within the heliport, expressed as the distance above mean sea level (MSL).
1.8.17 Heliport Imaginary Surfaces. The imaginary planes defined in 14 CFR Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace, centered about the FATO and the approach/departure paths, which are used to identify the objects where notice to and evaluation by the FAA is
required. Recommendations for mitigating possible obstructions to air navigation may include realignment of approach/departure paths or removal, lowering, marking, and lighting of objects.
## 1.8.18 Heliport Layout Plan.
The plan of a heliport showing the layout of existing and proposed heliport facilities including the approach/departure paths and dimensions of TLOF, FATO, and Safety Area.
## 1.8.19 Heliport Protection Zone (HPZ).
An area off the end of the FATO and under the approach/departure path intended to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground.
## 1.8.20 Heliport Reference Point (HRP).
The geographic position of the heliport expressed as the latitude and longitude at:
The center of the FATO, or the centroid of multiple FATOs, for heliports having visual and non-precision instrument approach procedures; or
The center of the final approach reference area (FARA) when the heliport has a precision instrument procedure.
## 1.8.21 Helistop.
A heliport that provides no fueling, defueling, maintenance, repairs, or storage of helicopters. The geometry and approach/departure surfaces of a helistop are identical to those of a heliport. This AC does not use this term, as the design standards and recommendations in this AC apply to all heliports.
## 1.8.22 HOSPITAL Heliport.
A HOSPITAL heliport services helicopters used by helicopter air ambulance providers. A HOSPITAL heliport may be designed to accommodate large military helicopters in some emergencies. Air ambulance helicopters are often used to transport injured persons from the scene of an accident to a hospital and to transfer patients from one hospital to another. A designated helicopter landing area located at a hospital or medical facility is a heliport and not a medical emergency site.
## 1.8.23 Hover Taxi.
The movement of a helicopter above the surface, typically used to move short distances from one point to another. Generally, this takes place at a wheel/skid height of 1 to 5 feet (0.3 to 1.5 m) and at a slow ground speed of less than 20 knots (37 kilometers(km)/h). For facility design purposes, assume a skid-equipped helicopter to hover-taxi.
## 1.8.24 In-Pavement Lights.
Where the term “in-pavement lights” is specified in this AC, interpret it as including inground lights.
1.8.25 Landing Position. An area, normally located in the center of an elongated TLOF, on which the helicopter lands.
1.8.26 Large Helicopter. A helicopter with a maximum takeoff weight of more than 12,500 lbs (5,670 kilograms (kg)).
1.8.27 Load-Bearing Area (LBA). The portion of the TLOF and any additional support structure capable of supporting the dynamic load of the design helicopter.
1.8.28 Medical Emergency Site. An unprepared site at or near the scene of an accident or similar medical emergency on which a helicopter may land to pick up a patient to provide emergency medical transport. A medical emergency site is not a heliport as defined in this AC.
1.8.29 Medium Helicopter. A helicopter with a maximum takeoff weight of more than 7,000 lbs (3,175 kg) and up to 12,500 lbs (5,670 kg).
1.8.30 Obstruction to Air Navigation. Any fixed or mobile object, including a parked helicopter, of greater height than any of the heights or surfaces presented in subpart C of Part 77.
1.8.31 Overall Helicopter Length (OL). The overall length of the helicopter, which is the dimension from the tip of the main or forward rotor to the tip of the tail rotor, fin, or other rear-most point of the helicopter. This value is with the rotors at their maximum extension. See Appendix C. If only the value of the RD is known, estimate the value for OL using the relationship OL = 1.2 RD (or conversely, RD = 0.83 OL).
1.8.32 Overall Width (OW). The OW is defined as the maximum outer dimension of the aircraft rotors or wings. See Appendix C.
1.8.33 Parking Pad. The center portion of a helicopter parking position, whether paved or grass.
A heliport developed for exclusive use of the owner and persons authorized by the owner and about which the owner and operator ensure all authorized pilots are thoroughly knowledgeable. These features include but are not limited to:
approach/departure path characteristics
• preferred heading
obstacles in the area
size and weight capacity of the facility
• heliport facility limitations
1.8.35 Public-use Heliport. A heliport available for use by the public without a requirement for prior approval of the owner or operator.
1.8.36 Rotor Diameter (RD). The length of the main rotor, from tip to tip.
1.8.37 Rotor Downwash. The downward movement of air caused by the action of the rotating main rotor blades. When this air strikes the ground or some other surface, it causes a turbulent outflow of air from beneath the helicopter.
1.8.38 Safety Area. A defined area on a heliport surrounding the FATO intended to reduce the risk of damage to helicopters accidentally diverging from the FATO.
1.8.39 Shielded Obstruction. A proposed or existing obstruction that does not need to be marked or lighted due to its proximity to another obstruction whose highest point is at the same or higher elevation.
1.8.40 Shoulder Line. A marking line perpendicular to a helicopter parking position centerline that is intended to provide the pilot with a visual cue to assist in parking.
1.8.41 Small Helicopter. A helicopter with a maximum takeoff weight of 7,000 lbs (3,175 kg) or less.
1.8.42 Tail Rotor Arc Radius. The distance from the hub of the main rotor to the outermost tip of the tail rotor or the rear-most point of the helicopter tail, whichever is farther.
1.8.43 Takeoff Position. An area, normally located on the centerline and at the ends of an elongated TLOF, from which the helicopter takes off. Typically, there are two such positions on an elongated TLOF, one at each end.
1.8.44 Taxi Route. An obstruction-free corridor established for the movement of helicopters from one part of a heliport/airport to another. A taxi route includes the taxiway plus the appropriate clearances on both sides.
## 1.8.45 Taxiway.
A marked route between the TLOF and other areas on the heliport. This AC defines two types of helicopter taxiways:
1.8.45.1 Ground Taxiway. A taxiway intended to permit the surface movement of a wheeled helicopter under its own power with wheels on the ground. The minimum dimensions defined for a ground taxiway may not be adequate for hover taxi.
1.8.45.2 Hover Taxiway. A taxiway intended to permit the hover taxiing of a helicopter.
1.8.46 Touchdown and Liftoff Area (TLOF). A load-bearing (generally paved) area normally centered in the FATO, on which the helicopter performs a touchdown or liftoff.
1.8.47 Transitional Surface. An imaginary surface which, in conjunction with the approach/departure surface, provides airspace clear of hazards to allow safe approaches to, and departures from, the FATO.
## 1.8.48 TRANSPORT Heliport.
A heliport designed to accommodate air carriers providing scheduled service on large helicopters (helicopters with a maximum takeoff weight greater than 12,500 lbs (5,670 kg)). Extensive airside and landside infrastructure is provided to accommodate passengers and to enable operations in instrument meteorological conditions.
## 1.8.49 Touchdown/Positioning Circle (TDPC) Marking.
A circular marking located in the center of a TLOF or a parking position. When the pilot’s seat is over the TDPC, the whole of the helicopter undercarriage will be within the TLOF or parking position, and all parts of the helicopter rotor system, will be clear of any obstacle by a safe margin.
1.8.50 Undercarriage Width (UCW). The distance between the outside edges of the outer tires or skids. See Figure B-1.
1.8.51 Unshielded Obstruction. A proposed or existing obstruction that may need to be marked or lighted since it is not near another marked and lighted obstruction whose highest point is at the same or higher elevation.
## 1.9 Selection of Approach/Departure Paths.
Design heliports to the extent practicable for two approach/departure paths. Consider wind, obstructions, and environmental impacts, for example, in selecting the approach/departure paths.
## 1.9.1 Wind.
Well-designed approach/departure paths permit pilots to avoid downwind conditions and minimize crosswind operations. Align the preferred flight approach paths and departure paths, to the extent feasible, with the predominant wind direction. Base other approach paths and departure paths on the assessment of the prevailing winds or, when this information is not available, separate such flight paths and the preferred flight path by at least 135 degrees. If it is not feasible to provide adequate coverage of wind conditions through multiple approach/departure paths, operational limitations may be necessary under certain wind conditions. See paragraph 2.12.1.
## 1.9.2 Obstructions.
In determining approach/departure paths, consider any existing or proposed (future) obstructions near the heliport and those likely to be a hazard to air navigation. See paragraph 1.11.
## 1.9.3 Environmental Impacts.
In environmentally sensitive areas, select the final approach/departure path(s) to minimize any environmental impact, providing it does not decrease flight safety. See paragraph 1.13.
## 1.10 Notification Requirements.
Part 157 sets requirements for persons proposing to construct, activate, deactivate, or alter a heliport to give advance notice of their intent to the FAA. This includes but is not limited to the following changes:
• changing the size or number of FATOs;
• adding, deleting, or changing an approach or departure route;
change to a heliport status (for example, changing the heliport status) from private to public-use or vice versa.
File FAA Form 7480-1 (see Figure 1-1) with the appropriate FAA Airports Regional or District Office at least 90 days before construction, alteration, deactivation, or change in use when notification is required. See the FAA Airports website at https://www.faa.gov/airports/ for contact information. Alterations to an existing heliport requiring notification could include changes to heliport dimensions, approach and departure surfaces, heliport location, and heliport relocation to a different site.
Appendix F provides the general heliport evaluation process flow chart to be followed by heliport proponents.
## 1.10.1 Draw the heliport layout plan to scale showing key dimensions, such as:
heliport elevation
TLOF size
FATO size
safety area size
distance from safety area perimeter to property edges
approach/departure paths showing locations of:
o buildings
o trees
fences
o power lines
o obstructions (including elevations)
o schools
o churches
o hospitals
o residential communities
o waste disposal sites
o other significant features, as specified on FAA Form 7480-1 and shown in Figure 1-2.
1.10.2 The preferred type of heliport location map using current web-based satellite imagery. Show the location of the heliport site and the approach/departure paths on the map. Point out the heliport site on this map with a red arrow. Indicate the latitude and longitude of the proposed heliport in North American Datum of 1983 (NAD-83) coordinates. See Figure 1-3.
Figure 1-1. FAA Form 7480-1, Notice for Construction, Alteration and Deactivation of Airports
| U.S. Depatment of Transportation OMBCONTROLNUMBER:2120-0036Federal Aviation Administration EXPIRATIONDATE:11/30/2022 |
| NOTICE FOR CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION AND DEACTIVATION OF AIRPORTS |
| A. Airport Owner Check if this is also the Property Owner | B. Airport Manager (Complete if different than the Airport Owner) |
| 1.Name and Address Check if this is the Airport's Physical Address | 1.Name and Address Check if this is the Airport's Physical Address |
| 2.Phone | 3.Email | 2.Phone | 3.Email |
| C. Purpose of Notification (Answer allquestions that apply) | D. Name, Location, Use and Type of Landing Area |
| 1.Construct orEstablish an: | AiportUtralight Fightpark□BallonportHeliport□Seaplane Base □Other | 1.Name of Landing Area | 2.Loc ID (for existing) |
| 2.Construct, AlterorRealign a | □Runway□Helipad(s) □other□TaxiwayPublic UseAiports only) | 3.Associated City and State | 4.Distance from City(mm) |
| 3.Change StatusFrom/To: | □VFR to IFR □IFR to VFR□Private Use to Public Use□Public Use to Other | 5.County(Physical Location) | 6.Direction from City |
| 4.Change Traff cPattern | □DIRECTION:ALTITUDEChee Litalitueif nortannTurbo:std.nonstd. Prop:□stdnonstd.Helo. std nonstd. Otter Describein boxC6. | 7.Latitude。 1 = | 8. Longitude。 1 " | 9.Elevation |
| 10.CurentUse: | PrivatePublic Private Use of Public Lands |
| 5.Deactivate | Airpot RWY □TWY | 11.Ownership | □PrivatePublic Military(Branch) |
| 6. Description: | 12.Airport □Airport Ultralight Flihtpark BallonportHeliport(applicable elecAmbulanceLaw EnforcementType: Fire Protection) Seaplane Base□Other |
| E. Landing Area Data (List any Proposed, New or Unregistered Runways, Helipads etc.) | | | | | | | |
| 1.Airport, Seaplane Base or Ultralight Flightpark (use second pageif needed) | 2.Heliport, Balloonport or other Landing Area (use second pageif needed) |
| RWY ID | / | / | Helipad ID | | |
| Lat. & Long. | Show on attachment(s) | Showon attachment(s) | Lat. & Long. | Show on atachment(s) | Show on attachment(s) |
| Surface Type | | | Surface Type | | |
| Length feet) | | | TLOF Dimensions | | |
| Width feet) | | | FATO Dimensions | | |
| Lighting (f any) | | | Lighting (if any) | | |
| Right Tratic (YN) | / | / | Ingress/Egress (Degrees) | | |
| Elevation (AMSL) | Show on attachment(s) | Showon attachment(s) | Elevation (AMSL) | Showon attachment(s) | Show on attachment(s) |
| VFR or IFR | / | / | Elevated Height (AGL) | | |
| F.Operational Dat | F. Operational Data (Indicate if the number provided is Actual or Estimated) |
| 1.Number of Based Aircraft | 2.Average Number of Monthly Landings |
| Present or Estim ated | Estimated in 5 Years | Present or Estimated | Estimated in 5 Years |
| Single Engine | | | | |
| Muli Engine | | | | |
| Jet | | | | |
| Helicopter | | | | |
| Glider | | | | |
| Military | | | | |
| Utralight | | | | |
| 3haie |
| 4.Are IFRProcedures forthe Airport Anticipated?□Yes□No.IfYes,within _years |
| G.CERTereycerify hatalof theabvestateertsae earetreancopleteheestofy wee. |
| 1.Name,tite of person fing this notice (ype or prit) | 2.Signature (inink) |
| 3.Date 4.Phone 5.Email |
FAAForm7480-1(7/20)SUPERSEDES PREVIOUSEDITION
See online FAA Form 7480-1.
Figure 1-2. Example of a Heliport Layout Plan
Draw heliport layout plan to scale with key dimensions and locations, including:
a. TLOF and FATO size
b. Safety area dimensions
c. Distances from the safety area perimeter to property boundaries, buildings, etc.
d. Site furnishings (bollards, signs, benches, and other site accessories)
See Chapter 2 for guidance on heliport facility sizes and shapes.
Figure 1-3. Example of a Heliport Location Map
## 1.10.3 The FAA Role.
The FAA will conduct an aeronautical study of the proposed heliport under § 157.7, FAA Determinations. Part (a) of this section of the regulation states:
“The FAA will conduct an aeronautical study of an airport proposal and, after consultations with interested persons, as appropriate, issue a determination to the proponent and advise those concerned of the FAA determination. The FAA will consider matters such as the effects the proposed action would have on existing or contemplated traffic patterns of neighboring airports; the effects the proposed action would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA; and the effects that existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA) and natural objects within the affected area would have on the airport proposal. While determinations consider the effects of the proposed action on the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft and the safety of persons and property on the ground, the determinations are only advisory. Except for an objectionable determination, each determination will contain a determinationvoid date to facilitate efficient planning of the use of the navigable airspace. A determination does not relieve the proponent of responsibility for compliance with any local law, ordinance or regulation, or state or other federal regulation. Aeronautical studies and determinations will not consider environmental or land use compatibility impacts.”
## 1.10.4 Penalty for Failure to Provide Notice.
Persons who fail to give notice are subject to civil penalty under Title 49 United States Code 46301, Civil Penalties, of not more than \$25,000 (or \$1,100 if the person is an individual or small business concern).
## 1.10.5 Notice Exemptions.
Section 157.1, Applicability, exempts sites meeting one of the conditions below from the requirement to submit notice. These exemptions do not negate a notice or formal approval requirement prescribed by state law or local ordinance. For the purposes of applying the Part 157 exemption criteria cited in (2) and (3) below, a landing and associated takeoff is considered one operation. Section 157.1 projects are:
[A heliport] subject to conditions of a federal agreement that requires an approved current heliport layout plan to be on file with the FAA, or
[A heliport] at which flight operations will be conducted under visual flight rules (VFR) and which is used or intended to be used for a period of less than 30 consecutive days with no more than ten operations per day.
The intermittent use of a site that is not an established airport, that is used or intended to be used for less than one year, and at which flight operations will be conducted only under VFR. For this part, “intermittent use of a site” means:
a. the site is used or is intended to be used for no more than three days in any one week, and
b. no more than ten operations will be conducted in any one day at that site.
## 1.11 Hazards to Air Navigation.
Part 77 establishes requirements for notification to the FAA of objects that may affect navigable airspace. See Figure 1-4 for examples of development requiring notice to the FAA.
Part 77 sets standards for determining obstructions to navigable airspace and provides for aeronautical studies of such obstructions to determine their effect on the safe and efficient use of airspace. Part 77 applies only to the following:
public heliports and public airports;
airports operated by a federal agency or the Department of Defense (DoD); and
private airports and heliports with at least one FAA-approved instrument approach procedure.
## 1.11.1 FAA Studies.
## 1.11.1.1 Part 77.
Part 77 defines objects that are obstructions to surfaces. Presume these objects to be hazards to air navigation unless an FAA study determines otherwise. The FAA conducts aeronautical studies to determine the
physical and electromagnetic effect on the use of navigable airspace, air navigational facilities, public airports and heliports, and private airports and heliports with at least one FAA-approved instrument approach procedure. The FAA encourages public agencies to enact zoning ordinances to prevent man-made features from becoming hazards to navigation.
## 1.11.1.2 Part 157.
FAA aeronautical studies performed under Part 157 establish standards and notification requirements for anyone proposing to construct, alter, or deactivate a civil or joint-use (civil/military) airport or heliport. This regulation also addresses proposals that alter the status or use of airport or heliport facilities.
## 1.11.2 Mitigation of Hazards.
You may mitigate the adverse effect of an object presumed or determined to be a hazard by:
Removing the object.
Altering the object, for example, reducing its height.
Marking and/or lighting the object, provided an FAA aeronautical study has determined that the object would not be a hazard to air navigation if it were marked and/or lighted. Find guidance on marking and lighting objects in AC 70/7460-1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting.
## 1.11.3 Notification Requirements.
Part 77 requires persons proposing certain construction or alteration to give a 45-day notice to the FAA of their intent. Use FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, to provide notification. See https://oeaaa.faa.gov/ for more information and to download FAA Form 7460-1. Alterations to an existing heliport requiring notification could include changes to heliport dimensions, approach and departure surfaces, heliport location, and heliport relocation to a different site.
Figure 1-4. Offsite Development Requiring Notice to the FAA
Notice under Part 77 is required for all public-use heliports or private-use heliports with at least one FAA-approved instrument approach procedure.
## Offsite Development Examples for Figure 1-4:
① Building is less than 200 feet (ft) (61 meters (m)) in height, but top will penetrate the 25:1 surface (notice required by § 77.9).
② Antenna is over 200 ft (61 m) in height (notice is required by § 77.9(a)).
③ Antenna is less than 200 ft (61 m) in height and penetrates the 25:1 surface (notice is required by § 77.9(b)(3)).
④ Construction crane penetrates 25:1 surface (notice is required by § 77.9(b)(3)).
⑤ Building is less than 200 ft (61 m) in height and does not penetrate the 25:1 surface (notice is not required).
⑥ Building is more than 5,000 ft (1,524 m) from heliport (notice is required if building will be 200 ft (61 m) or more in height).
## 1.11.4 Heliport Development Plans.
Future public heliport development plans and feasibility studies on file with the FAA may influence the determinations resulting from Part 77 studies. Owners of public and private heliports with FAA-approved instrument approach procedures can ensure full consideration of future heliport development in Part 77 studies only when they file plans with the FAA. Ensure the coordinates and elevations of planned FATO(s),
approach/departure paths including their azimuths, and types of approaches for any new FATO or modification of an existing FATO are included in heliport plan data.
## 1.12 Federal Assistance.
The FAA administers a grant program that provides financial assistance to eligible sponsors to develop a public-use heliport. Information on federal aid program eligibility requirements is available from FAA Airports Regional and District Offices and on the FAA Airports website, www.faa.gov/airports.
## 1.13 Environmental Impact Analyses.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires the FAA to consider potential environmental impacts prior to agency decision making, including, for example, the decision to fund or approve a project, plan, license, permit, certification, rulemaking, or operations specification. Actions that may warrant an environmental review are normally associated with federal grants or airport layout plan (ALP) approvals leading to the construction of a new heliport or significant expansion of an existing heliport.
## 1.13.1 Environmental Review Items.
An environmental review addresses noise, historic and cultural resources, wildlife, energy conservation, land usage, air quality, water quality, pollution prevention, light emissions, and other visual effects, and other public health and safety issues. The review evaluates the “no action” alternative and a reasonable range of feasible alternatives, including mitigation not included in the initial alternative. The review will also describe actions taken to ensure public involvement in the planning process. An opportunity for a public hearing may be required for the federally funded development of, or significant improvement to, an existing heliport.
## 1.13.2 Guidance.
FAA Order 1050.1, Polices and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, FAA Order 5050.4, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Projects, and other supplemental guidance from FAA Air Traffic and Flight Standards provide guidance on environmental impact analysis. Contact state and local governments, including metropolitan planning organizations and local transit agencies, directly, as they may also necessitate an environmental report. The procedures in AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports, describe a means of assessing the noise impact. Contact the appropriate FAA Airports Regional or District Office for current information related to assessing the noise impact of heliports. Proponents of non-federally assisted heliports work with local governmental authorities concerning environmental issues.
## 1.14 Terminal Facilities Design Considerations.
A heliport terminal provides curbside access for passengers using private autos, taxicabs, and public transit vehicles. Public waiting areas need the usual amenities, and a counter for rental car services may be desirable. Design passenger auto parking areas to accommodate current requirements, with the ability to expand them to meet future requirements. Readily available public transportation may reduce the requirement for employee and service personnel auto parking spaces. Build attractive and functional heliport terminal buildings or sheltered waiting areas. Guidance on designing terminal facilities is provided in AC 150/5360-13, Airport Terminal Planning.
At PPR heliports, the number of people using the facility may be so small that there is no need for a terminal building, and minimal needs for other facilities and amenities.
## 1.14.1 Security – TRANSPORT Heliports.
Unless screening was carried out at the helicopter passengers’ departure location, Transportation Security Administration regulations may require that a screening area and/or screening be provided before passengers enter the airport’s secured areas. If needed, provide multiple helicopter parking positions and/or locations in the terminal area to service helicopter passenger and/or cargo interconnecting needs. Find information about passenger screening at the Transportation Security Administration website (https://www.tsa.gov/public/).
## 1.15 Zoning for Compatible Land Use.
The FAA encourages all heliport operators to promote the adoption of the following zoning measures where state and local statutes permit to ensure the heliport will continue to be available and to protect the investment in the facility.
## 1.15.1 Zoning to Limit Building/Object Heights.
Find general guidance on drafting an ordinance that would limit building and object heights in AC 150/5190-4, A Model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects Around Airports. Substitute the heliport surfaces for the airport surfaces described in the model ordinance.
## 1.15.2 Zoning for Compatible Land Use.
The FAA encourages public agencies to enact zoning ordinances to control the use of property within the HPZ and the approach/departure path environment, restricting activities to those that are compatible with helicopter operations. See paragraph 2.13.
## 1.15.3 Air Rights and Property Easements.
Use air rights and property easements as options to prevent the encroachment of obstacles near a heliport.
## 1.16 Access to Heliports by Individuals with Disabilities.
Congress has passed various laws concerning access to airports. Since heliports are a type of airport, these laws are similarly applicable. Find guidance in AC 150/5360-14, Access to Airports by Individuals with Disabilities.
## 1.17 State Role.
Many state departments of transportation, aeronautical commissions, or similar authorities require prior approval and, in some instances, a license for the establishment and operation of a heliport. Several states administer a financial assistance program like the federal program and are staffed to provide technical advice. Contact your respective state aeronautics commissions or departments for specifics on licensing and assistance programs. Contact information for state aviation agencies is available at https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/state\_aviation.
## 1.18 Local Role and Building Code.
Some communities have enacted zoning laws, building codes, fire regulations, etc., that can affect heliport establishment and operation. Most municipalities have a formal process such as a “Conditional Use Permit” in place for the establishment of a heliport. Check with your local Planning and Zoning Commission for details. Some have or are in the process of developing codes or ordinances regulating environmental issues such as noise and air pollution. A few localities have enacted specific rules governing the establishment of a heliport. Therefore, make early contact with officials or agencies representing the local zoning board, the fire, police, or sheriff's department, and elected personnel who represent the area where the heliport is to be located.
## 1.19 Related Referenced Material.
Find a list of associated publications and references in Appendix E.
# CHAPTER 2. Heliport Design
## 2.1 General.
This chapter provides guidance on the design of heliports. There are three types of heliports. GENERAL AVIATION, TRANSPORT, and HOSPITAL. Figure 2-1, Figure 2-2, and Figure 2-3 show basic features of these three heliport types. See paragraph 1.8 for descriptions of the three heliport types. This chapter provides general heliport design guidance and also highlights any differences in design elements among the types of heliports.
## 2.2 Prior Permission Required (PPR) Facilities.
Unless required by federal law or regulation, the recommendations in this AC are not mandatory for PPR heliports. Recommendations for PPR heliports are provided due to the specific nature of these heliport facilities where the operator ensures that pilots are thoroughly familiar with the heliport, its procedures, and any facility limitations.
## 2.3 Design Approach.
The design standards in this chapter assume that there will never be more than one helicopter within the FATO and the associated safety area. A TLOF can be located within the FATO or outside the FATO, as described in paragraph 2.7.
## 2.4 Access by Individuals with Disabilities.
Various laws require heliports operated by public entities and those receiving federal financial assistance to meet accessibility requirements. See paragraph 1.16.
Figure 2-1. GENERAL AVIATION Heliport – Basic Features
See Chapter 4 for guidance on heliport markings.
Locate the wind cone outside of the Safety Area. Ensure the wind cone and any security fencing or security barrier will not interfere with the approach/departure surface or transitional surface.
Figure 2-2. TRANSPORT Heliport – Basic Features
See Chapter 4 for guidance on heliport markings.
Locate the wind cone outside of the Safety Area. Ensure that the wind cone and any security fencing or security barrier will not interfere with the approach/departure surface or transitional surface.
Figure 2-3. HOSPITAL Heliport (Ground Level) – Basic Features
Locate the security fence and wind cone outside of the Safety Area. Ensure that the wind cone and any security fencing or security barrier will not interfere with the approach/departure surface or transitional surface.
See Chapter 4 for guidance on heliport markings.
## 2.5 Heliport Site Selection.
## 2.5.1 Long-term Planning.
The FAA encourages public agencies and others planning to develop a GENERAL AVIATION, TRANSPORT, or HOSPITAL heliport to consider the possible future need for instrument operations and facility expansion. Consider any current or future potential use by military helicopters that may be used in disaster relief efforts during planning for HOSPITAL heliports.
## 2.5.2 Property Requirements.
The property needed for GENERAL AVIATION and TRANSPORT heliports is dependent upon the volume and types of users, helicopter sizes, and the scope of amenities provided for each type of heliport facility. Property requirements for helicopter operators and for passenger amenities frequently exceed the property needed for “airside” purposes. The area needed for heliport or helipad operations may be as simple as a cleared area on the ground, a wind cone, and a clear approach/departure path for day heliport operations.
## 2.5.3 Turbulence.
Air flowing around and over buildings, stands of trees, terrain irregularities, etc., can create turbulence on ground-level and roof-top heliports that may affect helicopter operations. Assess the turbulence and airflow characteristics near, and across the surface of the FATO, and along the final section of the approach/departure path to determine if an air gap among the roof, roof parapet or supporting structure, and/or some other turbulence mitigating design measure is necessary. Perform this assessment where the FATO is located near the edge and top of a building or structure, or within the influence of turbulent wakes from other buildings or structures. The FAA’s Technical Report FAA/RD-84/25, Evaluating Wind Flow around Buildings on Heliport Placement, addresses the wind’s effect on helicopter operations. Take the following actions in selecting a site to minimize the effects of turbulence, as described in paragraphs below.
## 2.5.3.1 Ground-Level Heliports.
Proximity of buildings, trees, and other large objects to ground-level heliports can cause air turbulence and affect helicopter operations. Locate the landing and takeoff area away from such objects to minimize air turbulence near the FATO and the approach/departure paths.
## 2.5.3.2 Elevated Heliports.
Establishing a 6-foot (1.8 m) or more air gap on all sides above the roof level will generally minimize the turbulent effect of air flowing over the roof edge. If an air gap is included in the elevated heliport design, keep it free of objects that would obstruct the airflow. Where it is impractical to include an air gap or other turbulence mitigating design measures, operational limitations may be necessary under certain wind conditions.
## 2.5.4 Electromagnetic Effects.
Nearby electromagnetic devices, such as a large ventilator motor, elevator motor, magnetic resonance imaging machine (MRI), or other devices that consume large amounts of electricity may cause temporary abnormalities in the helicopter magnetic compass and interfere with other onboard navigational equipment. Buried rebar or other objects made of iron/steel below the heliport surface have also been shown to interfere with a helicopter’s navigation instruments.
Be alert to the location of any such devices with respect to a HOSPITAL heliport. A warning sign alerting pilots to the presence of an MRI is recommended. Take steps to inform pilots of the MRI locations or other electromagnetic equipment that consume large amounts of electricity. Heliports are recommended to include Heliport electromagnetic interference (EMI) hazard marking and signage to alert pilots to potential EMI impacts, as shown in Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5. Locate the EMI hazard sign at ingress/egress points on the heliport for maximum visibility.
For additional information, see the FAA’s Technical Report FAA/RD-92/15, Potential Hazards of Magnetic Resonance Imagers to Emergency Medical Service Helicopter Services.
Figure 2-4. Heliport EMI Hazard Marking
Align the compass with magnetic north. Use arrows, as shown, to indicate the four cardinal headings (N, S, E, W) and four intercardinal headings (NE, SE, SW, and NW).
Use a minimum dimension of a 6-foot (1.8 m) outer diameter and a 4-foot (1.2 m) inner diameter for the compass circle.
Use blue paint for the compass circle and white paint for the inner portion of the compass. If necessary for visual contrast, use a one-foot white outline along the outer edge of the compass and arrows.
Figure 2-5. Heliport EMI Hazard Sign
# CAUTION
Strong Magnetic Field
Aircraft navigational instruments may be affected. Confirm accuracy of navigation instruments during all operations.
## 2.6 TLOF/FATO and Safety Area Relationships.
The relationship, minimum dimensions, and separation distances of the TLOF, FATO and safety area are shown in Figure 2-6 and Table 2-1. A heliport consists of the following:
A TLOF is typically located within a FATO but can be located outside of the FATO. See paragraph 2.7.1.
A safety area which surrounds the FATO.
Approach/departure surfaces to allow safe approaches to and departures from a heliport landing sites.
Figure 2-6. TLOF/FATO/Safety Area Relationships and Minimum Dimensions
For a circular TLOF and FATO, dimensions A, B, C, and E refer to diameters.
For a square TLOF and FATO, all sides of the TLOF and FATO have equal length (e.g., dimension E = dimension C and dimension A = dimension B).
For a square TLOF with a rectangular FATO, dimension E ≠ dimension C.
Table 2-1. TLOF/FATO Minimum Dimensions 1
| Scenario 1 | Scenario 2 | Scenario 3 | Scenario 4 |
| TLOF perimeter marked | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| FATO perimeter marked | See Note | See Note | Yes | Yes |
| Standard "H" ' marking | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| Safety area widthGENERAL AVIATIONheliports | 0.28 D butnot less than20 ft (6.1 m) | 0.28 D butnot less than30 ft (9.1 m) | 0.50 D butnot less than20 ft (6.1 m) | 0.50 D butnot less than30 ft (9.1 m) |
| Safety area widthHOSPTIAL and PPRheliports | 0.28 D butnot less than10 ft (3 m) | 0.28 D butnot less than20 ft (6.1 m) | 0.50 D butnot less than20 ft (6.1 m) | 0.50D butnot less than30 ft (9.1 m) |
| Note: Scenarios 1 and 2 apply whether the FATO is not marked or not. Do not mark the FATO if (a) the FATO (or part of the FATO) is a non-load-bearing surface and/or (b) the TLOF iselevated above the level of a surrounding load-bearing area. |
## 2.9.1 Fixed and Mobile Objects within the Safety Area.
The Safety Area design standards of this AC assume the TLOF and FATO are closed to other aircraft if a helicopter or other mobile object is within the FATO or the safety area. Remove all fixed objects within the Safety Area projecting above the FATO elevation except for lighting fixtures, which may project a maximum of 2 inches (51 mm) and must be frangible. For ground-level heliports, remove all above-ground objects to the extent practicable.
## 2.9.2 Safety Area Surface.
Guidelines on surface characteristics of safety areas include:
The safety area need not be load-bearing.
Design the safety area abutting the FATO at the same elevation as the FATO to avoid the risk of catching a helicopter skid or wheel.
Clear the safety area of flammable materials and treat the area to prevent loose stones and any other flying debris caused by rotor wash.
Safety areas can extend over water, as shown in Figure 2-12 and Figure 2-13.
## 2.9.3 Safety Area Gradients.
Design the surface of the safety area to be no steeper than a downward slope of 2:1 (2 units horizontal in 1 unit vertical). In addition, design the safety area elevation to be at or below the FATO edge elevation. See Figure 2-7.
Figure 2-12. Non-load-bearing FATO and Safety Area over Water: GENERAL AVIATION and HOSPITAL Heliports
Figure 2-13. Non-load-bearing Safety Area over Water: TRANSPORT
See paragraph 2.7 and Figure 3-4 for guidance on a TLOF located outside of the FATO.
## 2.10 Fall Protection and Safety Net Design.
Design heliport safety nets as follows:
Title 29 CFR Part 1910.23, Guarding Floor and Wall Openings and Holes, requires the provision of fall protection if the platform is elevated 4 feet (1.2 m) or more above its surroundings. The FAA recommends such protection for all platforms elevated 30 inches (0.8 m) or more.
Do not use permanent railings or fences since they would be safety hazards during helicopter operations.
Install a safety net meeting state and local regulations but not less than 5 feet (1.5 m) wide as an option.
Fasten both the inside and outside edges of the safety net to a solid structure.
Construct nets of materials that are resistant to environmental effects.
Table 2-5 describes the differences in safety net design for rooftop and other elevated heliports.
Table 2-5. Differences in Safety Net Design for Rooftop and Elevated Heliports
| TRANSPORT FATO | GA/HOSPITALLoad-bearing FATO |
| Lights | Use green lights meeting therequirements of Appendix Gto define the limits of theFATO. | • Use green lights meeting the requirements ofAppendix G to define the perimeter of a load-bearing FATO. Do not light the FATO perimeter if anyportion of the FATO is not a load-bearingsurface. |
| Locationand spacing | • See Figure 4-11 for lightspacing and layout. | Install a minimum of four (minimum of threelights for PPR and HOSPITAL heliports) in- pavement per side of a square or rectangularFATO.• Space lighting 25 ft (7.6 m) maximumspacing. |
| Installationguidance | • Mount frangible elevatedlight fixtures 10 feet (3 m) outfrom the FATO perimeter.• Ensure they do not penetrate ahorizontal plane at theadjacent TLOF elevation bymore than 2 inches (51 mm). | • N/A |
| ElevatedFATO | Lighting for an elevatedFATO is the same as for aground-level FATO.Ensure the elevated lights donot penetrate a horizontalplane at the adjacent TLOF | • In the case of an elevated FATO with a safetynet, mount the perimeter lights, as described in paragraph 4.13.2.• As an option, locate elevated FATO perimeterlights, no more than 2 inches (51 mm) high, |
| elevation by more than 2 inches (51 mm). | 10 feet (3 m) from the FATO perimeter. See Figure 4-11. Ensure the elevated lights do not penetrate a horizontal plane at the adjacent TLOF elevation by more than 2 inches (51 mm). |
| Circular FATO | • N/A | To define a circular FATO, use an even number of lights, with a minimum of eight light fixtures uniformly spaced. Locate in-pavement lights within 1 foot (0.3 m) inside or outside of the FATO perimeter See Figure 4-10. As an option, use a square or rectangular pattern of FATO perimeter lights even if the TLOF is circular. At a distance during nighttime operations, a square or rectangular pattern of FATO perimeter lights may provide the pilot with better visual alignment cues than a circular pattern, but a circular pattern may be more effective in an urban environment. |
Figure 4-12. FATO Elevation
See paragraph 4.13.3 for guidance on FATO lights.
## 4.13.4 Floodlights.
The FAA has not evaluated floodlights for effectiveness in visual acquisition of a heliport. Guidelines for the use and installation of floodlights includes:
TRANSPORT Heliports – Install floodlights to illuminate the helicopter parking areas.
GENERAL AVIATION and HOSPITAL Heliports – Install floodlights to illuminate the TLOF, the FATO, and/or the parking area if ambient light does not suitably illuminate markings for night operations.
Mount these floodlights on adjacent buildings to eliminate the need for tall poles, if possible. Place floodlights clear of the TLOF, the FATO, the safety area, the approach/departure surfaces, and transitional surfaces and ensure floodlights and their associated hardware do not constitute an obstruction hazard.
Aim floodlights down to provide adequate illumination on the apron and parking surface.
Ensure floodlights that might interfere with pilot vision during takeoff and landings are capable of being turned off by pilot control or at pilot request.
Note 1: Floodlights do not replace TLOF or FATO lighting recommendations.
Note 2: White lighting for heliport applications should not be activated until the aircraft has landed and deactivated prior to takeoff.
## 4.13.5 Landing Direction Lights.
Install landing direction lights when it is necessary to provide directional guidance to indicate available approach and/or departure path directions as an option, as follows:
Landing direction lights are a configuration of five green, omnidirectional lights meeting the standards of Appendix G, located on the centerline of the preferred approach/departure paths.
Space these lights at 15-foot (4.6 m) intervals extending outward in the direction of the preferred approach/departure paths, with spacing and layout, as illustrated in Figure 4-13.
Figure 4-13. Landing Direction Lights.
Locate the first omnidirectional landing direction light 20-60 ft (6.1-18.3 m) from the TLOF for GENERAL AVIATION and HOSPITAL heliports, and 30-60 ft (9.1-18.3 m) from the TLOF for TRANSPORT heliports.
See paragraph 4.13.5 for guidance on landing direction lights.
## 4.13.6 Flight Path Alignment Lights.
Flight path alignment lights provide approach and/or departure path directions in a straight line along the direction of approach and/or departure flight paths. If necessary, they may extend across the TLOF, FATO, safety area, or any suitable surface in the immediate vicinity of the FATO or safety area. Use three or more green lights spaced at 5 ft (1.5 m) to 10 ft (3 m).
Install flight path alignment lights meeting the requirements of Appendix G as an option.
Place these lights in a straight line along the direction of approach and/or departure flight paths.
Extend the lights across the TLOF, FATO, safety area, or any suitable surface in the immediate vicinity of the FATO or safety area, if necessary.
Install three or more green lights spaced at 5 feet (1.5 m) to 10 feet (3 m). See Figure 2-19.
## 4.13.7 Taxiway and Taxi Route Lighting.
## 4.13.7.1 Optional Taxiway and Taxi Route Lighting.
Install taxiway centerline lights per the following guidelines:
Install in-pavement bidirectional green taxiway centerline lights meeting the standards of AC 150/5345-46, Specification for Runway and Taxiway Light Fixtures, for type L-852A (straight segments) or L-852B (curved segments).
Space these lights at maximum 50-foot (15.2 m) longitudinal intervals on straight segments and at maximum 25-foot (7.6 m) intervals on curved segments, using a minimum of four lights to define the curve.
Uniformly offset the taxiway centerline lights no more than two feet (0.6 m) to facilitate painting of the taxiway centerline.
For GENERAL AVIATION and HOSPITAL Heliports, green retroreflective markers can be used as an option in lieu of the L-852A or L-852B lighting fixtures.
Use Type I retroreflective markers, as described in AC 150/5345-39, Specification for L-853, Runway and Taxiway Retroreflective Markers.
Do not use retroreflective markers for TRANSPORT heliports.
## 4.13.7.2 Optional Taxiway Edge Lights.
Specify taxiway edge lights per the following guidelines:
For paved taxiways, use type L-852T in-pavement omnidirectional blue lights meeting the standards of AC 150/5345-46 to mark the edges of a taxiway.
Use type L-861T elevated lights meeting the standards of AC 150/5345-46. The lateral spacing for the lights or reflectors is equal to 0.83 D of the design helicopter, but not more than 35 feet (10.7 m).
For unpaved taxiways at GENERAL AVIATION and HOSPITAL heliports, blue retroreflective markers may be used in lieu of lights.
Ensure retroreflective markers are no more than 8 inches (203 mm) tall.
TRANSPORT heliports cannot use retroreflective markers.
Install taxiway edge lights per AC 150/5340-30.
For straight segments, space taxiway edge lights at 50-foot (15.2 m) longitudinal intervals on straight segments.
Curved taxiway segments require smaller spacing of edge lights. The light spacing is based on the radius of the curve, as described in AC 150/5340-30. Space taxiway edge lights uniformly. On curved edges of more than 30 degrees from point of tangency (PT) of the taxiway section to PT of the intersecting surface, install at least three edge lights. For radii not listed in AC 150/5340-30, determine spacing by linear interpolation.
## 4.13.8 Heliport Identification Beacon.
A heliport identification beacon may be used to provide the pilot with a means of visually locating the heliport. The identification beacon is a flashing white/green/yellow with a rate of 30 to 45 flashes per minute. Install beacons per the guidance below:
Install heliport identification beacons for TRANSPORT heliports.
These beacons are optional for GENERAL AVIATION and HOSPITAL heliports. Beacons at these heliports can be pilot controlled (as an option) such that the beacon is “on” only when needed.
Specify a beacon meeting the guidelines provided by AC 150/5345-12, Specification for Airport and Heliport Beacon.
Locate and install the beacon per AC 150/5340-30.
# Page Intentionally Blank
# CHAPTER 5. Helicopter Facilities on Airports
## 5.1 General.
5.1.1 This chapter addresses design considerations for separate helicopter facilities on airports. Helicopters can operate on airports without interfering with airplane traffic. Operations can occur on existing airport infrastructure (e.g., on airport taxiways) or on dedicated heliport facilities, as shown in Figure 5-1. Separate heliport facilities and approach/departure procedures may be needed when the volume of airplane and/or helicopter traffic affects operations.
5.1.2 At airports with interconnecting passenger traffic between helicopters and airlines, provide gates at the terminal for helicopter boarding. People who use a helicopter to go to an airport generally need convenient access to the airport terminal and the services provided to airplane passengers.
5.1.3 Identify the location of the exclusive-use helicopter facilities, TLOFs, FATOs, safety areas, approach/departure paths, and helicopter taxi routes and taxiways on the ALP. Figure 5-1 shows an example of dedicated heliport facilities located on an airport. Other potential heliport locations are on the roofs of passenger terminals or parking garages serving passenger terminals.
## 5.2 Touchdown and Liftoff Area (TLOF).
Locate the TLOF to provide ready access to the airport terminal or to the helicopter user’s origin or destination. Locate the TLOF away from aircraft movement areas (runways, taxiways, and aircraft parking aprons).
## 5.3 On-Airport Location of Final Approach and Takeoff Area (FATO).
See Table 5-1 for standards of the distance between the centerline of an approach to a runway and the centerline of an approach to a FATO for simultaneous, same direction, VFR operations.
Figure 5-1. Example of Heliport Facilities Located on an Airport
See Table 5-1.
Table 5-1. Recommended Distance between FATO Center to Runway Centerline for VFR Operations
| Airplane Size | Small Helicopter7,000 Ibs (3,175 kg)or less | Medium Helicopter7,001 (3,176 kg) to12,500 Ibs (5,670 kg) | Large Helicopterover 12,500 Ibs(5,670 kg) |
| Small airplane12,500 1bs (5,670 kg)or less | 300 feet(91 m) | 500 feet(152m) | 700 feet(213 m) |
| Large airplane12,500 1bs (5,670 kg)to 300,000 1bs(136,079 kg) | 500 feet(152m) | 500feet(152m) | 700 feet(213 m) |
| Heavy airplaneOver 300,000 1bs(136,079 kg) | 700 feet(213 m) | 700 feet(213 m) | 700 feet(213 m) |
## 5.4 Safety Area.
Apply the safety area dimensions and clearances, described in Chapter 2, to heliport facilities being developed on an airport.
## 5.5 VFR Approach/Departure Paths.
To the extent practical, design helicopter approach/departure paths to be independent of approaches to, and departures from, active runways.
## 5.6 Heliport Protection Zone (HPZ).
Establish an HPZ, where practicable, for the airport owner to acquire the land area. Plan the land uses within the HPZ. Where not practicable, the HPZ standards have recommendation status for that portion of the HPZ the airport owner does not control.
## 5.7 Taxiways and Taxi Routes.
When developing exclusive helicopter taxiways or taxi routes at an airport, locate these routes to minimize interaction and/or conflicts with airplane operations. Consider the rotor wash generated by the largest design helicopter anticipated to operate at the facility when determining helicopter taxiway and taxi route distances from airplane operations.
## 5.8 Helicopter Parking.
Locate helicopter parking positions as close to the intended destination or origination of the passengers as conditions and safety permit. See Chapter 3 for guidance on helicopter parking requirements.
## 5.9 Security.
Unless screening was carried out at the helicopter passengers’ departure location, Transportation Security Administration regulations may require that a screening area and/or screening be provided before passengers re-enter the airport’s secured areas. If necessary, establish multiple helicopter parking positions and/or locations in the terminal area to service helicopter passenger screening and/or cargo interconnecting needs. Find information about passenger screening on the Transportation Security Administration website https://www.tsa.gov/public/.
# CHAPTER 6. Instrument Operations
## 6.1 General.
This chapter provides guidance on heliport markings and lighting for GENERAL AVIATION, TRANSPORT, and HOSPITAL heliports. Ensure that at least one of the following visual references is visible or identifiable before the pilot proceeds visually for departure/approach:
FATO lights.
TLOF lights.
Heliport Instrument Lighting System (HILS).
Heliport Approach Lighting System (HALS) or lead-in lights.
Visual Glideslope Indicator (VGSI).
Windsock or windsock light(s). See note below.
Heliport beacon. See note below.
Other facilities or systems approved by the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division (AFS-400).
Locate windsock lights within 500 ft (152 m) of the TLOF.
6.1.1 Instrument flight procedures permit helicopter operations to continue during periods of low cloud ceilings and reduced visibility. Instrument procedures include approach procedures, departure procedures, and missed approach procedures.
6.1.2 The FAA establishes instrument approach procedures under FAA 8260-series Orders overseen by the FAA Flight Procedures and Airspace Group. When a procedure applies to a private (non-public) heliport, is developed for one specific user, or is developed by a non-FAA service provider using unique FAA-approved instrument criteria, the instrument procedure is a “special” instrument procedure. After approval by the FAA, the special instrument procedure is issued to the operator approved to fly the procedure.
6.1.3 See Table 6-1 for instrument approach procedure requirements for precision approaches, non-precision approaches, and approaches to point-in-space.
Table 6-1. Standards for Instrument Approach Procedures
| Precisionapproachto IFRheliport | Precisionapproachto IFRheliport | Non-precisionapproach to IFRheliport | Approach topoint-in-space, proceed|space, proceedvisually | Approach topoint-in-space, proceed|space, proceedVFR |
| Visibilityminimums | 1/4 statuemile(0.4 km) | 1/2 statuemile(0.8 km) 1 | HAL=250-600:1/2statute mile (0.8 km)HAL=601-800: 3/4statute mile (1.2 km)HAL>800: 1 statutemile (1.5 km) | 3/4 statute mile(i(1.2 km) day 6 | 3/4 statute mile(1.2 km) day,1 statute mile(1.5 km) night |
| Authorizedminima | ≥200 ft(61 m) AGL|i | ≥200(i61 m) AGL | ≥250(76 m) AGL | ≥250(76 m) AGL | ≥250(76 m) AGL |
| Heliport type | IFR | IFR | IFR | VFR | VFR |
| ocs | 34:1 Clear 2i | 34:1 Clear2 | Standard Non-precision ROC | 8:1 | 8:1 |
| Heliport size 5 | Depends ondesignhelicopter | Depends ondesignhelicopter | Depends on designhelicopter | Depends ondesignhelicopter | Depends ondesignhelicopter |
| Heliportmarkings | SeeChapter 4 | SeeChapter 4 | SeeChapter 4 | SeeChapter 4 | SeeChapter 4 |
| Heliport lights 3 | Required | Required | Required | Required | Required |
| Survey required | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Approach lights(HALS) | Yes | No | No | No | No |
| HPZ helicopterprotection | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Final approachreference area | Yes | Yes4 | No | No | No |
1/4 statute mile (0.4 km) reduction authorized with HALS aligned to approach angle and course.
Minimum glidepath angle of 3 degrees.
Either TLOF or FATO must be lit at night.
FARA only required for instrument landing system/localizer-only approaches (ILS/LOC) approaches.
Minimum heliport size dependent on type of heliport (GENERAL, HOSPITAL, TRANSPORT).
Proceed visually minimum visibility is 3/4 statute mile (1.2 km) maximum visibility based on distance from missed approach point/descent altitude (MAP/DA) to landing location.
If HAL greater than 800 ft (244 m) MSL visibility day and night 1 statute mile (1.6 km).
## 6.2 Planning.
This chapter addresses issues that heliport owners consider before requesting the development of instrument approach/departure/missed approach procedures. The standards and recommendations in this AC are not intended to be sufficient to design an instrument procedure. A heliport sponsor should initiate early contact with the appropriate FAA Flight Standards Office to plan for and establish instrument procedures.
## 6.3 Airspace.
Those who design instrument approach/departure/missed approach procedures have some flexibility in the design of such procedures. For this and other reasons, the airspace required to support helicopter instrument approach/departure operations is complex, and it does not lend itself to simple descriptions or the use of figures. Refer to the latest revision of FAA 8260-series Orders for more detailed information on criteria for developing helicopter instrument approach/departure/missed approach procedures.
## 6.4 Final Approach Reference Area (FARA).
For precision instrument procedures only, a certificated helicopter precision approach procedure terminates with the helicopter coming to a hover or touching down within a 150-foot-wide (46 m) by at least 150-foot long (46 m) FARA. The FARA is located at the far end of a 300-foot-wide by 1,225-foot-long (91 m by 373 m) FATO required for a precision instrument procedure. For the purposes of requirements for LBA and lighting, substitute the FARA for the FATO. Figure 6-1 illustrates the FARA/FATO relationship.
Figure 6-1. FARA/FATO Relationship: Precision Instrument Procedure
The illustrated FARA-FATO relationship is appropriate for a heliport located at an elevation up to 1,000 ft (305 m) above mean sea level.
## 6.5 Improved Instrument Lighting System.
The FAA has not established heliport lighting or helicopter approach lighting standards. Installing lighting systems similar to systems described below may result in lower visibility minimums. Coordinate these systems with Flight Standards and Air Traffic Control (ATC) for all low visibility operations. See Figure 6-2 and Figure 6-3.
## 6.5.1 FATO Perimeter Lighting Enhancement.
Insert an additional elevated green light meeting the standards of Appendix G between each light in the front and rear rows of the elevated perimeter lights to enhance the definition of the FATO.
## 6.5.2 Heliport Instrument Lighting System (HILS).
The HILS consists of 24 unidirectional PAR 56, 200-watt white lights that extend the FATO perimeter lights. The system extends both the right and left edge lights as edge bars and both the front and rear edge lights as wing bars, as shown in Figure 6-2.
## 6.5.2.1 Edge Bars.
Place edge bar lights at 50-foot (15.2 m) intervals, measured from the front and rear row of the FATO perimeter lights.
## 6.5.2.2 Elevated FATO Wing Bars.
Space wing bar lights at 15-foot (4.6 m) intervals, measured from the line of FATO perimeter (side) lights.
## 6.5.2.3 Optional TLOF Lights.
A line of seven white in-pavement lights meeting the standards of Appendix G is optional. Space the lights at 5-foot (1.5 m) intervals in the TLOF pavement. Align the lights on the centerline of the approach course to provide close-in directional guidance and improve TLOF surface definition. These lights are illustrated in Figure 6-2.
## 6.5.3 Heliport Approach Lighting System (HALS).
The HALS depicted in Figure 6-3 is a distinctive approach lighting configuration designed to prevent it from being mistaken for an airport runway approach lighting system.
Figure 6-2. Heliport Instrument Lighting System (HILS): Non-precision
The illustrated HILS installation is appropriate for a minimally sized heliport at an elevation up to 1,000 ft (305 m) above MSL.
Figure 6-3. Heliport Approach Lighting System
The illustrated heliport approach lighting system (HALS) relationship is appropriate for a heliport located at an elevation up to 1,000 ft (305 m) above mean sea level.
The illustrated HILS has elevated FATO edge lights. In-pavement FATO edge lights, which are also an option, would be placed just inside the FATO.
## 6.6 Obstacle Evaluation Surfaces.
The instrument procedure developer considers the specific heliport location, its physical characteristics, the terrain, surrounding obstructions, etc., in designing the helicopter instrument approach procedure. Upon development of the instrument procedure, protect the obstacle evaluation surfaces from penetrations. See paragraph 1.1 for additional guidance.
## 6.7 Visual Glideslope Indicators (VGSI).
A VGSI provides pilots with visual vertical course and descent cues. Install the VGSI such that the lowest on-course visual signal provides a minimum of one degree of clearance over any object that lies within ten degrees of the approach course centerline.
## 6.7.1 Siting.
The optimum location of a VGSI is on the extended centerline of the approach path at a distance that brings the helicopter to a hover with the undercarriage between 3 and 8 feet (0.9 to 2.4 m) above the TLOF.
See Figure 6-4 for an illustration of VGSI clearance criteria.
To properly locate the VGSI, estimate the vertical distance from the undercarriage to the pilot’s eye.
## 6.7.2 Control of the VGSI.
Design the VGSI to be pilot controllable such that it is “on” only when needed as an option.
## 6.7.3 VGSI Needed.
A VGSI is an optional feature. However, install a VGSI if one or more of the following conditions exist, especially at night:
Obstacle clearance, noise abatement, or traffic control procedures necessitate a slope to be flown.
The environment of the heliport provides few visual surface cues.
## 6.7.4 Additional Guidance.
Additional guidance is provided in AC 150/5345-52, Generic Visual Glideslope Indicators (GVGI), and AC 150/5345-28, Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) Systems.
Figure 6-4. Visual Glideslope Indicator (VGSI) Siting and Clearance Criteria
# Page Intentionally Blank
## CHAPTER 7. Heliport Site Safety Elements
## 7.1 General.
This chapter provides guidance on heliport site safety elements which provide enhanced safety for heliport operations.
## 7.2 Marking and Lighting of Difficult-To-See Objects.
Helicopter flight operations require maneuvering near the surface, where nearby obstacles can be a factor whether or not they actually penetrate any approach/departure or transitional surfaces. Objects such as poles, wires, and the high points of buildings are often difficult for a helicopter pilot to identify even in the best daylight conditions, making it difficult to take timely evasive action. Mark and light difficult-to-see objects near any approach/departure surface in accordance with the recommendations provided in AC 70/7460–1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting. Where it is not practical to mark or light an object (such as a tree), consider use of marked and lighted witness poles or low intensity solar obstruction lights.
## 7.2.1 Airspace.
Mark difficult-to-see objects to make them more conspicuous if they penetrate the applicable object identification surfaces, as illustrated in Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-2. Light difficult-to-see objects if a heliport supports operations between dusk and dawn. The object identification surfaces in these two figures are described as follows:
In all directions from the safety area, except under the approach/departure paths, the object identification surface starts at the safety area perimeter and extends out horizontally for 100 feet (30.5 m).
The object identification surface starts from the outside edge of the FATO and extends horizontally out for 800 feet (244 m) along the approach path under the approach/departure surface. The object identification surface extends out for an additional distance of 3,200 feet (975 m) along the approach path while rising on an 8:1 slope (8 units horizontal in 1 unit vertical) from this point. The object identification surface is 100 feet (30.5 m) beneath the approach/departure surface from the point 800 feet (244 m) from the FATO perimeter.
The width of this object identification surface under the approach/departure surface increases as a function of distance from the safety area. The object identification surface extends laterally to a point 100 feet (30.5 m) outside the safety area perimeter from the safety area perimeter. The object identification surface extends laterally 200 feet (61 m) on either side of the approach/departure path at the upper end of the surface.
Figure 7-1. Airspace Where Heliport Marking and Lighting are Recommended: Straight Approach
Figure 7-2. Airspace Where Heliport Marking and Lighting are Recommended: Curved Approach
## 7.2.2 Shielding of Objects.
Section 77.9, Construction or Alteration Requiring Notice, provides that if there are several objects close together, it may not be necessary to mark all of them if they are shielded. Note that shielding does not apply to objects located on a public-use airport or heliport. Shielding applies only to off-airport objects.
To meet the shielding guidelines, Part 77 requires that an object “be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and substantial nature or by natural terrain or topographic features of equal or greater height and will be located in the congested area of a city, town, or settlement where the shielded structure will not adversely affect safety in air navigation.”
## 7.2.3 Equipment/Object Marking.
Make heliport maintenance and servicing equipment, as well as other objects used in the airside operational areas, conspicuous with paint, reflective paint, reflective tape, or other reflective markings. Reference AC 150/5210-5, Painting, Marking, and Lighting of Vehicles Used on an Airport.
## 7.3 Safety Considerations.
Consider the following safety enhancements in the design of a heliport, as described below. Address other areas, such as the effects of rotor downwash, based on site conditions and the design helicopter.
## 7.3.1 Security.
Provide a heliport with the appropriate means of keeping the operational areas clear of people, animals, and vehicles. Use a method to control access depending upon the helicopter location, type of operation, and types of potential intruders. Follow the guidelines below for use of safety barriers and access control measures:
For ground-level heliports, erect a safety barrier around the helicopter operational areas in the form of a fence or a wall. Other types of safety barriers may be used if they provide adequate positive deterrent to persons inadvertently entering an operational area.
Construct the safety barrier outside of the safety area and below the elevation of the approach/departure and transitional surfaces.
If necessary, near the approach/departure paths, install the barrier well outside the outer perimeter of the safety area.
Ensure any safety barrier is high enough to present a positive deterrent to persons inadvertently entering an operational area but low enough to be non-hazardous to helicopter operations. If the barrier is located under the approach/departure surface, consider lighting the barrier for enhanced visibility for pilots.
For TRANSPORT heliports, control access to airside areas with adequate security measures.
For GENERAL AVIATION and HOSPITAL heliports, control access to airside areas in a manner commensurate with the barrier (for example, build fences with locked gates).
Display a heliport caution sign similar to that shown in Figure 7-3 at all access points.
As an option at HOSPITAL heliports, secure operational areas via the use of security guards and a mixture of fixed and movable barriers.
Figure 7-3. Heliport Caution Sign
## 7.3.2 Rescue and Fire Fighting Services.
Heliports are subject to state and local rescue and fire fighting regulations. Provide a fire hose cabinet or extinguisher at each access gate/door and each fueling location. Locate fire hose cabinets, fire extinguishers, and other fire fighting equipment adjacent to, but below the level of, the TLOF (and below the level of the FATO for elevated FATOs at TRANSPORT heliports). See additional guidance in NFPA publications listed in Appendix E.
## 7.3.3 Communications.
Use a Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) radio to provide arriving helicopters with heliport and traffic advisory information but do not use this radio to
control air traffic. Contact the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for information on CTAF licensing.
## 7.3.4 Weather Information.
An automated weather observing system (AWOS) measures and automatically broadcasts current weather conditions at the heliport site. When installing an AWOS, locate it at least 100 feet (30.5 m) and not more than 700 feet (213 m) from the TLOF and such that its instruments will not be affected by rotor wash from helicopter operations. Find guidance on AWOS systems in AC 150/5220-16, Automated Weather Observing Systems (AWOS) for Non-Federal Applications, and FAA Order 6560.20, Siting Criteria for Automated Weather Observing Systems (AWOS). Other weather observing systems will have different siting criteria.
## 7.3.5 Winter Operations.
Swirling snow dispersed by a helicopter’s rotor wash can cause the pilot to lose sight of the intended landing point and/or hide objects that need to be avoided.
Design the heliport to accommodate the methods and equipment to be used for snow removal.
Design the heliport to allow the snow to be removed sufficiently so it will not present an obstruction hazard to the tail rotor, main rotor, or undercarriage.
For heliports subject to winter weather and ice/snow, an optional dark TLOF surface can be used to absorb more heat from the sun and melt residual ice and snow. See paragraph 4.3.4 for guidance on markings for winter operations.
Find guidance on winter operations in AC 150/5200-30, Airport Field Condition Assessments and Winter Operations Safety.
# APPENDIX A. EMERGENCY HELICOPTER LANDING FACILITIES (EHLF)
## A.1 General.
Preplanning emergency landing areas will result in safer and more effective air-support operations. These facilities comprise rooftop emergency facilities and medical emergency sites and are not for routine helicopter operations. Use the following as a guide for developing EHLF facilities.
## A.2 Notification and Coordination.
In addition to any requirements to provide notice under Part 157, advise the local Terminal Approach Radar Control or the local ATC facility manager in writing of the EHLF.
## A.3 Rooftop Emergency Facilities.
Review local building codes to determine if they require structures over a specified height to provide a clear area on the roof capable of accommodating a helicopter to facilitate fire fighting or emergency evacuation operations.
## A.3.1 Building Code Requirements.
State and local building code requirements apply to rooftop facilities. Develop the landing surface to the local fire department requirements based on the size and weight of the helicopter(s) expected to engage in fire or rescue operations (see Figure A-1). Find additional information in various NFPA publications. For additional reference material, see Appendix E.
## A.3.2 TLOF.
Design the TLOF per the following guidelines:
A.3.2.1 Size. Design the TLOF to be square, rectangular, or circular in configuration and centered within the EHLF. Design the length and width or diameter to be at least the controlling dimension D of the largest aircraft expected to use the EHLF.
A.3.2.2 Weight Capacity. Design the TLOF to accommodate the maximum takeoff weight of the design helicopter expected to use the EHLF.
A.3.2.3 Access. Provide two pedestrian access points to the TLOF at least 90 degrees apart with a minimum of 60 feet (18.3 m) TLOF perimeter separation.
## A.3.2.4 Drainage.
Design the surface so drainage flows away from pedestrian access points, with a maximum slope of 1.5 to 2.0 percent.
Figure A-1. Rooftop Emergency Landing Facility
The example shown in the illustration indicates a 9,000 lb (4,082 kg) weight limitation in the center of circle.
## A.3.3 FATO.
Design the FATO to be at the same level as the TLOF.
## A.3.3.1 Size.
Design the FATO to extend a distance of at least 45 feet (13.7 m) in all directions from the center of the EHLF. For safe operation, provide clearance of 0.28 D of the largest helicopter expected but not less than 20 feet (6.1 m) between the helicopter’s main and tail rotor blades and any object that could be struck by these blades.
## A.3.3.2 Obstructions.
As an option, design the FATO to be an imaginary surface outside the TLOF and extending beyond the structure edge. Design the FATO to be unobstructed and without penetration of obstacles such as parapets, window washing equipment, penthouses, handrails, antennas, vents, etc.
## A.3.4 Safety Area.
Provide a clear, unobstructed area, a minimum of 12 feet (3.7 m) wide, on all sides, outside and adjacent to the FATO.
## A.3.5 Safety Net.
If the platform is elevated 4 feet (1.2 m) or more above its surroundings, 29 CFR Section 1910.23, Duty to Have Fall Protection and Falling Object Protection, requires the provision of fall protection. The FAA recommends such protection for all platforms elevated 30 inches (0.8 m) or more. However, do not use permanent railings or fences since they would be safety hazards during helicopter operations. As an option, install a safety net, meeting state and local regulations, but not less than 5 feet (1.5 m) wide. Design the safety net to have a load carrying capability of 25 lbs/sq ft (122 kg/sq m). The net does not project above the level of the TLOF. Fasten both the inside and outside edges of the safety net to a solid structure. Construct nets of materials that are resistant to environmental effects.
## A.3.6 Markings.
## A.3.6.1 TLOF Perimeter.
## A.3.6.2 Touchdown/Positioning Circle (TDPC) Marking.
Center a 12-inch (0.3 m) wide red or orange circular marking, 30 feet (9.1 m) in diameter, within the TLOF. Use a contrasting color for the background within the circle.
## A.3.6.3 Weight Capacity.
Mark the TLOF with the maximum takeoff weight of the design helicopter, in units of thousands of pounds (for example, a number “9”
indicating 9,000 lbs (4,082 kg) GW), with each numeral ten feet (3 m) in height, centered within the TLOF.
## A.3.6.4 Markings for Pedestrians.
Clearly mark rooftop access paths, EHLF access paths, and assembly zone(s) with surface paint and instructional signage.
## A.3.7 Access.
## A.3.7.1 Stairs.
Provide a minimum of two rooftop access stairs, with no less than 150 degrees separation, connecting to the top floor of the structure, with at least one providing access to the structure’s emergency staircase.
## A.3.7.2 Doors.
Always keep the penthouse and stairwell rooftop access doors unlocked to provide access to the EHLF. As an option, equip doors with “panic bar” hardware and/or alarm them.
## A.3.8 Wind Cone.
Install a wind cone assembly conforming to AC 150/5345-27 to show the direction and magnitude of the wind. Ensure it is an orange wind cone within the line-of-sight from the EHLF and outside the approach/departure path(s).
## A.3.9 Lighting.
Shield ambient rooftop lighting to avoid affecting the pilot’s vision.
## APPENDIX B. PRE-DESIGNATED EMERGENCY LANDING AREAS (PELAS)
Pre-designated emergency landing areas (PELAs) are clear and level areas near the scene of an accident or incident that the local emergency response team designates as the place where the helicopter air ambulance is directed to land to transport an injured person to a hospital. Provide such sites in various locations within a jurisdiction to support fast response to medical emergencies and accidents. Pre-designating these areas provides the opportunity to inspect potential sites in advance and to select sites that have adequate clear approach/departure airspace and adequate clear ground space. See the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), Chapter 10, for guidance on setting up offsite scene or PELA landing sites.
## Page Intentionally Blank
## APPENDIX C. HELICOPTER DATA
This appendix contains selected helicopter data needed by a heliport designer. These data represent the most critical weight, dimensional, or other data entry for that helicopter model, recognizing that specific versions of the model may weigh less, be smaller in some features, carry fewer passengers, etc.
Various helicopter manufacturers have provided this information. Confirm data by contacting the manufacturer(s) of the specific helicopter(s) of interest.
Legend for Figure C-1 and Table C-1: Helicopter Dimensions and Data
| A | Manufacturer name and helicopter model |
| B | Maximum takeoff weight in pounds |
| D | Controlling dimension |
| E | Number of blades |
| F | Rotor plane clearance in feet |
| H | Overall height in feet (usually at tail rotor) |
| I | Tail rotor diameter (in feet) |
| J | Number of tail rotor blades |
| K | Tail rotor ground clearance in feet |
| L | Type of undercarriage |
| M | Number and type of engines |
| N | Number of crew and passengers |
| OL | Overall helicopter length in feet (rotors at their maximum extension) |
| oW | Overall aircraft width in feet |
| RD | Rotor diameter in feet |
| TR | Distance from rotor hub to tip of tail rotor in feet |
| UCL | Undercarriage length in feet |
| UCW | Undercarriage width in feet (the distance between the outside edges ofthe tires or the skids) |
Figure C-1. Helicopter Dimensions
Table C-1. Helicopter Data
| Design Characteristics | Criteria |
| Propulsion | Electric battery driven, utilizing distributed electric propulsion |
| Propulsive units | 2 or more |
| Battery systems | 2 or more |
| Maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) | 12,500 pounds (5,670 kg) or less |
| Aircraft length | 50 feet (15.2 m) or less |
| Aircraft width | 50 feet (15.2 m) or less |
| |
| Operating Conditions Operation location | Criteria Land-based (ground or elevated) – no |
| amphibian or float operations |
| Pilot Flight conditions | On board |
| VFR |
| Performance | Criteria |
| Hover | Hover out of ground effect (HOGE) in |
| normal operations |
| Takeoff Landing | Vertical Vertical |
| Downwash/Outwash | Must be considered in TLOF/FATO sizing and ingress/egress areas to ensure |
| no endangerment to people/property in the vicinity, and no impact to safety critical navigational aids and surfaces, supporting equipment, nearby aircraft, and overall safety |
Further research is needed to understand VTOL taxiing and parking needs. In future guidance, parking and taxiway guidance will be included. If necessary in the interim, vertiports designed for ground taxiing can follow AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, taxiway guidelines for Group 1 aircraft. For hover taxi, vertiport design should follow taxiway guidance in AC 150/5390-2, Heliport Design, for the Transport Category. For parking, vertiport design should follow guidance in AC 150/5390-2 for the Transport Category.
For vertiport facilities that will also accommodate helicopter operations, the proponent should follow the recommendations in this EB and mark the facility as a vertiport unless the facility is built to the Transport Category heliport design standard, as described in paragraph 3.0.
This EB provides guidance on marking, lighting, and visual aids that identify the facility as a vertiport. This guidance applies to new vertiports or to heliports that are altered to vertiports.
Vertiport facilities that are intended to serve aircraft that do not meet the performance criteria and design characteristics of the Reference Aircraft included in this EB should begin coordination with the applicable FAA Regional or Airports District Office early in the planning and design process for the takeoff and landing area and will be subject to review on a case-by-case basis.
## V Questions.
Contact the FAA Airport Engineering Division, AAS-100, for any questions about this EB.
## VI Effective Date.
This EB becomes effective as of the date the associated memorandum is signed by the Manager, FAA Airport Engineering Division, AAS-100.
## Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction...... ............................................... 8
1.1. Engineering Brief (EB) Guideline Justification.. ...................... ..... 8
1.2. Explanation of Terms...... .................................................. 9
1.3. Airspace Approval Process and Coordination. ..................................................... 11
1.4. State/Local Role... .............................. ..... 12
1.5. Reference Aircraft... .... 12
2.0 Vertiport Design and Geometry. ............................................................................ ...... 14
2.1. Overview..... .............................................................................. ..... 14
2.2. TLOF Guidance. ... ........................................................................... .... 15
2.3. FATO Guidance....... ........................................................................................... 17
2.4. Safety Area Guidance. ................................................................................. ........ 19
2.5. VFR Approach/Departure Guidance.............................................................. ..... 20
3.0 Marking, Lighting, and Visual Aids..................................................................... ....... 24
3.1. General... ..... 24
3.2. Identification Symbol.. .... 26
3.3. TLOF Size/Weight Limitation Box. ... 27
3.4. Flight Path Alignment Optional Marking and Lighting. .................... ...... 31
3.5. Lighting. .... … ...... 33
3.6. Identification Beacon. . ................................ ...... 40
3.7. Wind Cone. .. ..... 40
4.0 Charging and Electric Infrastructure......... ...... 41
4.1. Standards.. ..... 41
5.0 On-Airport Vertiports. . .... 44
5.1. On-Airport Location of TLOF. . ... 44
5.2. On-Airport Location of FATO... .... 44
6.0 Site Safety Elements....... ............................................................................ 46
6.1. Fire Fighting Considerations... .......................................... .... 46
6.2. Security and Safety. ...................................................................................... ........ 46
6.3. Downwash/Outwash. . ..................................................................... ....... 48
6.4. Turbulence. ... ............ ..... 48
6.5. Weather Information.. ... 49
6.6. Winter Operations. .. ... 49
6.7. Access to Vertiports by Individuals with Disabilities... .. 49
Acronym List.. . 50
## Figures
Figure 2-1: Relationship and Dimensions of TLOF, FATO, and Safety Area . . 14
Figure 2-2: Vertiport Gradients and Rapid Runoff Shoulder . . 17
Figure 2-3: VFR Vertiport Approach/Departure Surfaces.. .... 22
Figure 3-1: Standard Vertiport Marking . .. 25
Figure 3-2: Vertiport Identification Symbol . ... 26
Figure 3-3: TLOF Size/Weight Limitation Box .. 28
Figure 3-4: Form and Proportions of 36-inch (914 mm) Numbers for Marking Size and Weight
Limitations .. ... 29
Figure 3-5: Form and Proportions of 18-inch (457 mm) Numbers for Marking Size and Weight
Limitations .. .... 30
Figure 3-6: Flight Path Alignment Marking and Lighting.. .. 32
Figure 3-7: TLOF/FATO Perimeter Lighting.... ... 36
Figure 3-8: Elevated Vertiport Configuration Example . ... 37
Figure 3-9: Elevated FATO Perimeter Lighting. ... 38
Figure 5-1: Example of an On-airport Vertiport. . 45
Figure 6-1: Vertiport Caution Sign .... . 48
## Tables
Table 1-1: Reference Aircraft . . 4
Table 2-1: Takeoff and Landing Area Dimensions . . 14
Table 3-1: Perimeter Lighting Intensity and Distribution. . 34
Table 5-1: Recommended Minimum Distance between Vertiport FATO Center to Runway
Centerline for VFR Operations.. . 45
## 1.0 Introduction.
## 1.1. Engineering Brief (EB) Guideline Justification.
Information collected through a literature review and original equipment manufacturer (OEM) coordination indicates that emerging VTOL aircraft will demonstrate similar performance characteristics to helicopters. However, limited data is available on VTOL aircraft operational characteristics, performance, maneuverability, downwash/outwash impacts, and vertiport obstacle information needs. Consequently, this EB is limited to pilot-on-board, visual flight rule (VFR) operations, and VTOL aircraft that have the characteristics and performance of the Reference Aircraft described in paragraph 1.5.
Heliports provide the most analogous present-day model for vertiports. However, despite the similarities between the two types of aircraft, there are design differences between traditional helicopters and VTOL aircraft. VTOL aircraft have varied configurations and propulsion systems, with and without wings, and with varied landing configurations. As a result, the conversion ratio in AC 150/5390-2 of 0.83 the overall length being used to calculate the main rotor diameter of the design helicopter is not representative of the diverse characteristics associated with the various VTOL aircraft being developed. In addition, there persists a lack of validated data on the performance capabilities of VTOL aircraft.
The limited tangible data available to validate OEM performance, especially in failure conditions, recommends a wider touchdown and liftoff area (TLOF) and load bearing final approach and takeoff area (FATO) than currently required for a general aviation heliport in AC 150/5390-2. Due to these performance data gaps, including downwash, the larger physical dimensions would accommodate a potentially wider landing scatter and decreased climb performance in different scenarios
The anticipated Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) density, frequency, and complexity of operations is expected to be high in some cases. These operations are also anticipated to include commercial and air carrier operators, and will require certain safety levels and infrastructure requirements most analogous to the predetermined level of safety set in the Transport Category heliport design guidelines in AC 150/5390-2.
Preliminary data garnered from the VTOL aircraft manufacturers to support the development of this EB claims no need by the aircraft for effective transitional lift (ETL) to fly and an ability to hover out of ground effect (HOGE). Therefore, the minimum sizing standards that accommodate the need for ETL per the Transport Category heliport criteria (e.g., 100 feet (30.5 m) by 200 feet (61 m) FATO) is not specified in this EB. As such, this EB is intended for aircraft that have HOGE capability. If the vertiport design VTOL aircraft is proven not to perform HOGE, this EB is not applicable, and the sponsor must work directly with the FAA to determine alternative vertiport sizing for that design VTOL aircraft.
## 1.2. Explanation of Terms.
Terms used in this EB:
1. Approach/Departure Path: The approach/departure path is the flight track that VTOL aircraft follow when landing at or taking off from a vertiport.
2. Battery: One or more electrically connected cells, assembled in a single container having positive and negative terminals. A battery may include inter-cell connectors and other devices.
3. Battery pack: Two or more battery systems.
4. Battery system: Comprised of the battery, the battery charger and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging.
5. Controlling dimension (D): The diameter of the smallest circle enclosing the VTOL aircraft projection on a horizontal plane, while the aircraft is in the takeoff or landing configuration, with rotors/propellers turning, if applicable. See Figure 1-1.
6. Design VTOL aircraft: The design VTOL aircraft is the largest electric, hydrogen, or hybrid VTOL aircraft that is expected to operate at a vertiport. This design VTOL aircraft is used to size the TLOF, FATO and Safety Area. Note that the design VTOL aircraft is different from the Reference Aircraft used to define the performance and design criteria in this EB.
7. Downwash/Outwash: The downward and outward movement of air caused by the action of rotating rotor blade, propeller, or ducted fan. When this air strikes the ground or some other surface, it causes a turbulent outflow of air from the aircraft.
8. Elevated vertiport: A vertiport is considered elevated if it is located on a rooftop or other elevated structure where the TLOF and FATO are at least 30 inches (0.8 m) above the surrounding surface (a ground level vertiport with the TLOF on a mound is not an elevated vertiport).
9. Effective transitional lift (ETL): The pronounced increase in translational lift during transition to forward flight due to the rotor/propeller experiencing a significantly decreased induced airflow.
10. Failure condition (FC): FC is generally defined as an occurrence of any likely event, caused or contributed to by one or more failures, which affects the aircraft’s ability to generate lift or thrust and results in a consequential state that has an impact for a given flight phase.
Figure 1-1: Controlling Dimension
11. Final approach and takeoff area (FATO): The FATO is a defined, load-bearing area over which the aircraft completes the final phase of the approach, to a hover or a landing, and from which the aircraft initiates takeoff.
12. Ground Effect: A condition of usually improved performance encountered when the aircraft is operating very close to the ground or a surface. It results from a reduction in upwash, downwash, and/or blade tip vortices, which provide a corresponding decrease in induced drag.
13. Hover: The word “hover” applies to an aircraft that is airborne and remaining in one place at a given altitude over a fixed geographical point regardless of wind. Pure hover is accomplished only in still air. For the purpose of this EB, the word “hover” will mean pure hover.
14. Hover out of ground effect (HOGE): The ability to achieve hover without the benefit of the ground or a surface.
15. Imaginary surface(s): The imaginary planes defined in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace, centered about the FATO and the approach/departure paths, which are used to identify the objects where notice to and evaluation by the FAA is required.
16. Obstruction to air navigation: Any fixed or mobile object, including a parked aircraft, of greater height than any of the heights or surfaces presented in subpart C of 14 CFR Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace.
17. Reference Aircraft: The Reference Aircraft represents a VTOL aircraft that integrates certain performance and design characteristics of nine emerging aircraft currently in development. This Reference Aircraft is used to specify certain performance and design characteristics that informed the vertiport design guidance in this EB.
18. Safety Area: The Safety Area is a defined area surrounding the FATO intended to reduce the risk of damage to aircraft accidentally diverging from the FATO.
19. Translational Lift: Translational lift is the improved rotor/propeller efficiency resulting from directional flight.
20. Touchdown and liftoff area (TLOF): The TLOF is a load bearing, generally paved area centered in the FATO, on which the aircraft performs a touchdown or liftoff.
21. Vertiport: An area of land, or a structure, used or intended to be used, for electric, hydrogen, and hybrid VTOL aircraft landings and takeoffs and includes associated buildings and facilities.
22. Vertiport elevation: The highest elevation of all usable TLOFs within the vertiport expressed in feet above mean sea level (MSL).
23. Vertistop: A vertistop is a term generally used to describe a minimally developed vertiport for boarding and discharging passengers and cargo (i.e., no fueling, defueling, maintenance, repairs, or storage of aircraft, etc.). The design standards and recommendations in this EB apply to all vertiports, which includes vertistops.
## 1.3. Airspace Approval Process and Coordination.
For vertiport development on federally obligated airports, the infrastructure or equipment must be depicted on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and a Form 7460-1 submitted for an airspace determination prior to development. The FAA’s review of the ALP and airspace determination must be completed prior to the start of operations.
For development on non-federally obligated airports or heliports or for non-federally funded standalone vertiport sites, and in compliance with 14 CFR Part 157, Notice of Construction, Alteration, Activation, and Deactivation of Airports, the proponent must submit FAA Form 7480-1, Notice for Construction, Alteration and Deactivation of Airports, at least 90 days in advance of the day that construction work is to begin on the takeoff and landing area. Note: Airspace determination is not tied to this 90-day advance notice. Given the nascence of the AAM industry, the FAA highly encourages that engagement with the appropriate FAA regional or district office begin before the submission of the Form 7480-1, but an FAA evaluation is predicated on the submitted Form 7480-1.
Heliport facilities that are being altered in geometry in accordance with the design criteria in this EB, if non-federally funded, the sponsor will need to submit a new Form 7480-1 to re-designate the facility as a vertiport before VTOL operations should commence at the site. The Form 7480-1 can be submitted electronically as a Landing Area Proposal (LAP) at OEAAA.faa.gov. The FAA’s Flight Standards Service Office will determine when to do an onsite evaluation using risk-based analysis.
## 1.4. State/Local Role.
Many state departments of transportation, aeronautics commissions, or similar authorities require prior approval and, in some instances, a license or permit to establish and operate landing facilities. Those seeking to establish a vertiport should first contact their respective state or local transportation or aeronautics departments or commissions for specifics on applicable licensing or permitting. Several states and municipalities also administer a financial assistance program like the federal program and are staffed to provide technical advice. Contact information for state aviation agencies is available at https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/state\_aviation/.
In addition to state requirements, many local communities have enacted zoning ordinances, building and fire codes, and conditional use permitting requirements that can affect the establishment and operation of landing facilities. Some communities have developed codes or ordinances regulating environmental issues such as noise and air pollution. Therefore, communities, proponents, or sponsors seeking to establish a publicor private-use vertiport should make early contact with:
local officials or agencies representing the local zoning board;
the fire, police, or sheriff's department; and
stakeholders who represent the area where the vertiport is to be located.
State regulators, departments of transportation, and local communities can also use the guidance and best practices outlined in this EB when reviewing a proposed vertiport facility or developing independent standards.
In addition to state and local coordination, vertiport proponents are encouraged to coordinate potential sites with any nearby airports or aviation stakeholders. Lack of early coordination can cause airspace, operational, safety, capacity, and financial impacts. While the FAA will review all new vertiport proposals for the safe and efficient utilization of navigable airspace by aircraft and the safety of persons and property on the ground, early coordination with these entities may offer early insights into airspace and capacity conflicts before investments are made.
## 1.5. Reference Aircraft.
The Reference Aircraft represents a VTOL aircraft that integrates certain performance and design features of nine emerging aircraft currently in development. This Reference Aircraft is used to specify the performance and design characteristics for the purposes of vertiport design in this EB.
Emerging VTOL aircraft models are evolving rapidly with OEMs approaching aircraft certification from a wide range of different designs. While aircraft classifications are useful in takeoff and landing area design and airspace analysis, new VTOL aircraft concepts vary significantly in terms of design, aircraft dimensions, performance, and operational characteristics. Furthermore, these new VTOL aircraft do not have an established safety record and have not yet received FAA airworthiness certification. This makes it impractical to categorize VTOL aircraft as the FAA has traditionally done with FAA certificated fixed wing and rotor aircraft. However, OEM engagement has revealed some common characteristics among VTOL aircraft prototypes including multiple propulsion systems, HOGE capability, and helicopter performance similarities.
The vertiport design guidance in this EB relies on design characteristics, expected performance capabilities, and preliminary assumptions regarding takeoff and landing area design until there is adequate research on these emerging aircraft to develop a performance-based vertiport design AC. Accordingly, the aircraft features and performance capabilities listed in Table 1-1 create a Reference Aircraft type to inform this EB. The design characteristics, performance, and operating conditions that make up this reference VTOL aircraft will be reviewed in the future as the FAA continues to engage with emerging VTOL aircraft manufacturers.
## 2.0 Vertiport Design and Geometry.
## 2.1. Overview.
The takeoff and landing area design and geometry contained in this EB includes the TLOF, the FATO, and the Safety Area. The dimensions for these areas are presented in Table 2-1 and are based on the controlling dimension (D) of the design VTOL aircraft as defined for each vertiport facility. The D is the diameter of the smallest circle enclosing the VTOL aircraft projection on a horizontal plane, while the aircraft is in the takeoff or landing configuration, with rotors/propellers turning, if applicable. See Figure 1-1. 1D is equal to the longest distance described above. The following sections provide specific details about these areas. See Figure 2-1 for the relationship among the TLOF, FATO, and Safety Area.
Table 2-1: Takeoff and Landing Area Dimensions
| ReferenceVTOL AircraftMTOW | Airplane Size | Distance FromVertiport FATO Centerto Runway Centerline |
| 12,500 pounds(5,670 kg) or less | Small Airplane (12,500 pounds (5,670 kg) or less) | 300 feet (91 m) |
| 12,500 pounds(5,670 kg) or less | Large Airplane (12,500-300,000 pounds (5,670-136,079 kg)) | 500 feet (152 m) |
| 12,500 pounds(5,670 kg) or less | Heavy Airplane (Over 300,000 pounds (136,079kg)) | 700 feet (213 m) |
Figure 5-1: Example of an On-airport Vertiport
Note: See Table 5-1.
Note: Figure does not reflect every type of configuration.
## 6.0 Site Safety Elements.
## 6.1. Fire Fighting Considerations.
The procedures to put out a battery system fire on an aircraft may differ from one VTOL to another. Previous FAA research with small lithium battery cells found that water and other foam fire extinguishing agents were more effective for suppressing lithium battery fires and preventing thermal runaway than gas or dry powder extinguishing agents during experiments within a 4-foot (1.2 m) by 4-foot (1.2 m) by 4-foot (1.2 m) test chamber§§. The cooling effect of the extinguishing agent was the key factor in preventing the fire from spreading. Although this method was found to be effective for small battery packs, it is yet to be determined if similar results would be achieved with large battery packs.
The firefighting techniques for VTOL aircraft are still unknown and may differ from model to model. Providing adequate fire protection for VTOL aircraft on vertiports will require a full understanding of the hazards related to the specific aircraft that will be using the vertiport. This also applies to the utility infrastructure needed to charge the VTOL aircraft.
Vertiport operators may need to comply with applicable local fire, environmental, and zoning regulations. Vertiport operators will need the means to control VTOL aircraft fires. Firefighting personnel, including local first responders, should be trained and equipped to manage the specific needs associated with electric aircraft such as lithium battery fires, electrical fires, toxic gas emissions, and high voltage electrical arcing.
Firefighting equipment should be adjacent to, but outside, the TLOF and FATO area. Fire safety equipment should be clearly marked for conspicuousness from anywhere within or outside the FATO. For elevated sites, fire equipment may be located below the level of the FATO but must be fully accessible under all circumstances and clearly marked to anyone on the TLOF and FATO.
The current NFPA 418, Standard for Heliports (2021), is based on conventional liquid fuel and its dangers and risks. This standard is currently under revision to account for electrical hazards and fire safety standards for vertiports, which is expected to be published on or before January 2024. NFPA 855-2020, Standard for Stationary Energy Storage Systems, provides safety standards for stationary and mobile energy storage systems. Chapters on emergency response provide relevant guidance for fire protection engineers, system designers, code officials, and emergency responders.
## 6.2. Security and Safety.
For vertiports located in secured airport environments, unless screening was carried out at the VTOLs passengers’ departure location, Transportation Security Administration regulations may require that a screening area and/or screening be provided before passengers enter the airport’s secured areas. If necessary, airports should establish multiple VTOL parking positions and/or locations in the terminal area to service VTOL passenger screening and/or cargo needs. General information about passenger screening is available on the Transportation Security Administration website, www.tsa.gov/public/.
Controlling vertiport access and keeping operational areas clear of people, animals, equipment, debris, and vehicles is important for safety and security. The following guidance apply to safety barriers and access control measures:
1. For ground-level vertiports, erect a safety barrier around the VTOL aircraft operational areas in the form of a fence or a wall outside of the Safety Area and below the 8:1 elevation of the approach/departure surface.
2. If necessary, near the approach/departure paths, install the barrier well outside the outer perimeter of the Safety Area and below the elevation of the approach/departure and transitional surfaces described in paragraph 2.5.
3. Safety barriers must be high enough to present a positive deterrent to persons inadvertently or maliciously entering an operational area, but at a low enough elevation to be non-hazardous to all aircraft operations.
4. Provide control access to airport airside areas with adequate security measures as required or recommended by the Transportation Security Administration.
5. Display a vertiport caution sign like that shown in Figure 6-1 at all vertiport access points.
For on-airport vertiports, proponents should work with their local Transportation Security Administration security representative.
## 6.3. Downwash/Outwash.
The downwash and outwash impacts of VTOL are still being researched. However, the impacts of the ground geometry, surrounding infrastructure, and the re-circulatory flow impact on rotor/propeller aerodynamics performance and vehicle flight dynamics should still be considered in vertiport siting.
If downwash and outwash of the VTOL will create safety issues for people or property, other aircraft operators, or if the VTOL aircraft aerodynamic performance will be impacted by how the downwash and outwash interacts with the surrounding ground or infrastructure, then the TLOF, FATO, and Safety Areas should be adjusted appropriately, or alternative mitigations should be taken.
## 6.4. Turbulence.
Air (e.g., wind) flowing around and over buildings, stands of trees, terrain irregularities, and elsewhere can create turbulence on ground-level and rooftop vertiports that may affect VTOL operations. The following guidelines apply to turbulence:
1. When possible, locate the TLOF away from buildings, trees, and terrain to minimize air turbulence near the FATO and the approach/departure paths.
2. Assess the turbulence and airflow characteristics near and across the surface of the FATO to determine if a turbulence mitigating design measures are necessary (e.g., air gap between the roof, roof parapet, or supporting structure).
3. A minimum six-foot (1.8 m) unobstructed air gap on all sides above the level of the top of a structure (e.g., roof) and the elevated vertiport will reduce the turbdulent effect of air flowing over it.
4. Where an air gap or other turbulence-mitigating design measures are not taken on elevated structures, operational limitations may be necessary under certain wind conditions.
## 6.5. Weather Information.
An optional automated weather observing system (AWOS) measures and automatically broadcasts current weather conditions at the vertiport site. When installing an AWOS, locate it at least 100 feet (30.5 m) and not more than 700 feet (213 m) from the TLOF and such that its instruments will not be affected by rotor/propeller wash from VTOL operations. Find guidance on AWOS systems in AC 150/5220-16, Automated Weather Observing Systems (AWOS) for Non-Federal Applications, and FAA Order 6560.20, Siting Criteria for Automated Weather Observing Systems (AWOS). Other weather observing systems will have different siting criteria.
## 6.6. Winter Operations.
Swirling snow dispersed by an VTOL’s rotor/propeller wash can cause the pilot to lose sight of the intended landing point and/or obscure objects that need to be avoided. Elevated heliports may use a resistive heating system.
1. Design the vertiport to accommodate the methods and equipment to be used for snow removal.
2. Design the vertiport to allow the snow to be removed sufficiently so it will not present an obstruction hazard.
3. For vertiports in winter weather, an optional dark TLOF surface can be used to absorb more heat from the sun and melt residual ice and snow.
4. Find guidance on winter operations in AC 150/5200-30, Airport Field Condition Assessments and Winter Operations Safety.
## 6.7. Access to Vertiports by Individuals with Disabilities.
Congress has passed various laws concerning access to airports. Since vertiports are a type of airport, these laws are similarly applicable. Find guidance in AC 150/5360-14, Access to Airports by Individuals with Disabilities.
## Acronym List
| AAM | advanced air mobility |
| AC | Advisory Circular |
| AC | alternating current |
| AGL | above ground level |
| ALP | Airport Layout Plan |
| AWOS | automated weather observing system |
| CCS | combined charging standard |
| CFR | Code of Federal Regulations |
| D | controlling dimension |
| DC | direct current |
| EB | Engineering Brief |
| ESS | energy storage system |
| ETL | effective translational lift |
| EV | electric vehicle |
| eVTOL | electric vertical takeoff and landing |
| FAA | Federal Aviation Administration |
| FATO | final approach and takeoff area |
| FC | failure condition |
| GA | general aviation |
| HOGE | hover out of ground effect |
| IEC | International Electrotechnical Commission |
| IEEE | Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers |
| IFC | International Fire Code |
| IFR | instrument flight rules |
| ISO | International Organization for Standardization |
| LAP | Landing Area Proposal |
| LDR | landing distance required |
| LED | light emitting diode |
| LOB | line of business |
| MCS | megawatt charging system |
| MSL | mean sea level |
| MTOW | maximum takeoff weight |
| NEC | National Electric Code |
| NEPA | National Environmental Policy Act |
| NEMSPA | National EMS Pilots Association |
| NFPA | National Fire Protection Association |
| OEM | original equipment manufacturer |
| OFA | object free area |
| RTODR | rejected takeoff distance required |
| SAE | SAE International |
| TDP | takeoff decision point |
| TLOF | touchdown and liftoff area |
| TODR | takeoff distance required |
| TSA | Transportation Security Administration |
| UL | Underwriters Laboratories |
| VFR | visual flight rule |
| VGSI | Visual Glideslope Indicator |
| VMC | visual meteorological conditions |
| VTOL | vertical takeoff and landing |