标准与参考资料库 不需要编辑的参考素材：标准全文、法规条文、定型外部报告。按机构/类型分章，供各项目交叉引用。 中国标准 ICAO ICAO Annex 14 Volume II - Heliports International Standards and Recommended Practices Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation Aerodromes Volume II Heliports This edition incorporates all amendments adopted by the Council prior to 5 March 2009 and supersedes, on 19 November 2009, all previous editions of Annex 14, Volume Il. For information regarding the applicability of Standards and Recommended Practices, see Foreword and the relevant clauses in each chapter. Third Edition July 2009 International Civil Aviation Organization International Standards and Recommended Practices Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation Aerodromes Volume II Heliports This edition incorporates all amendments adopted by the Council prior to 5 March 2009 and supersedes, on 19 November 2009, all previous editions of Annex 14, Volume II. For information regarding the applicability of the Standards and Recommended Practices, see Foreword and the relevant clauses in each' chapter. Third Edition July 2009 International Civil Aviation Organization Published in separate English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish editions by the INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION 999 University Street, Montréal, Quebec, Canada H3C 5H7 For ordering information and for a complete listing of sales agents and booksellers, please go to the ICAO website at www.icao.int First edition 1990 Second edition 1995 Third edition 2009 Annex 14, Volume I, Heliports Order Number: AN14-2 ISBN 978-92-9231-330-2 ©ICAO 2009 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, without prior permission in writing from the International Civil Aviation Organization. AMENDMENTS Amendments are announced in the supplements to the Catalogue of ICAO Publications; the Catalogue and its supplements are available on the ICAO website at www.icao.int. The space below is provided to keep a record of such amendments. RECORD OF AMENDMENTS AND CORRIGENDA AMENDMENTS CORRIGENDA No. Dateapplicable Dateentered Enteredby No. Dateof issue Dateentered Enteredby 1-4 Incorporated in this edition TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abbreviations and symbols; manuals . … …… (vii) FOREWORD.. …… (ix) CHAPTER 1. General.…… 1-1 1.1 Definitions... … …… 1-1 1.2 Appicabiity … 1-3 1.3 Common reference ystem … 1-4 1.3.1 Horizontal reference yst … 1-4 1.3.2 Vertical reference system. 1-4 1.3.3 Temporal reference system. 1-4 CHATE a…… 2-1 2.1 Aeronautical data … ……… 2-1 2.2 Heliport reference point . … …… … 2-2 2.3 Heliport elevation. 2-2 2.4 Heliport dimensions and related information… 2-2 2.5 Declared distances.… 2-3 2.6 Coordination between aeronautical information services and heliport authorities.. 2-4 3-1 3.1 Surface-level heliports …… ……… 3-1 Final approach and take-off areas . 3-1 Helicopter clearways . 3-2 Touchdown and ift-off areas … … 3-2 Safety areas …… 3-2 Helicopter ground taxiways and ground taxi-routes … 3-4 Helicopter air taxiways and air taxi-routes. … 3-5 Air transit route . ………… 3-6 Aprons... 3-6 Location of a final approach and take-off area in relation to a runway or taxiway …… 3-9 3.2 Elevated heliports.. …… 3-9 Final approach and take-off areas and touchdown and lift-off areas …… 3-10 Helicopter clearways.… ……… 3-10 Touchdown and lift-off areas …… … … 3-11 Safety areas … ………… 3-11 Helicopter ground taxiways and ground taxi-route …… 3-12 Helicopter air taxiways and air taxi-routes . 3-13 Aprons.. … 3-13 3.3 Helidecks. …… 3-14 — Final approach and take-off areas and touchdown and ift-off areas …… 3-14 3.4 Shipboard heliports … 3-15 —Final approach and take-off areas and touchdown and ift-off areas …… 3-15 HAPTER 4.Obstacle restriction and removal 4-1 4.1 Obstacle limitation surfaces and sectors …… … 4-1 Approach surface …… 4-1 Transitional surface… 4-1 Inner horizontal surface …… … 4-2 Conical surface … 4-2 Take-off climb surface 4-3 Obstacle-free sector/surface—helidecks … 4-3 Limited obstacle surface—helidecks … 4-4 4.2 Obstacle limitation requirements … …………… 4-4 Surface-eeleipr 4-4 Elevated heliports. 4-5 Helidecks … 4-6 Shipboard heliports . 4-6 Non-purpose-built heliports . 4-7 HAPTER 5. Visual aid …… 5-1 5.1 Indicators. … 5-1 5.1.1 Wind direction indicator… 5-1 5.2 Markings and markers.…… …… 5-2 5.2.1 Winching area marking… … 5-2 5.2.2 Heliport identification marking…… 5-2 5.2.3 Maximum allowable mass marking.… 5-3 5.2.4 Maximum allowable D-value marking… 5-4 5.2.5 Final approach and take-off area marking or marker.… …… 5-4 5.2.6 Final approach and take-off area designation marking … …… 5-6 5.2.7 Aiming point marking…… 5-6 5.2.8 Touchdown and ift-of rea marking… 5-7 5.2.9 Touchdown/positioning marking……… …… 5-8 5.2.10 Heliport name marking…… … 5-8 5.2.11 Helideck obstacle-free sector marking. 5-9 5.2.12 Helideck surface marking ……… … 5-9 5.2.13 Helideck prhibited anding sector marking… 5-9 5.2.14 Marking for taxiways.… 5-10 5.2.15 Air taxiway markers. ………… 5-10 5.2.16 Air transit route markers. 5-10 5.3 Lights… …… 5-12 5.3.1 General.. 5-12 5.3.2 Heliport beacon.…… 5-13 5.3.3 Approach ghting sstem … 5-15 5.3.4 Visual alignment guidance ystem… 5-16 5.3.5 Visual apprach pe indicator…… 5-18 5.3.6 Final approach and take-off area lights . 5-22 5.3.7 Aiming point lights . . 5-22 5.3.8 Touchdown and ift-off area ighting system.… 5-23 5.3.9 Winching area floodlighting.…… 5-25 5.3.10 Taxiway lights .. 5-25 5.3.11 Visual aids for denoting obstacles …. 5-25 5.3.12 Floodighting of obstacles… 5-26 CHAPTER 6. Heliport services … 6-1 6.1 Rescue and fire fighting…… 6-1 General. 6-1 Level of protection to be provided. …………………………………… 6-1 Extinguishing agents.. …… 6-2 Rescue equipment.. 6-3 Response time … 6-3 APPENDIX 1.Aernautical data qality reqirments…… APP 1-1 ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS (used in Annex 14, Volume II) Abbreviations cd Candela RD Diameter of the largest rotor cm Centimetre RTODAH Rejected take-off distance available D Helicopter greatest overall dimension S Second FATO Final approach and take-off area TLOF Touchdown and lift-off area ft Foot TODAH Take-off distance available HAPI Helicopter approach path indicator VMC Visual meteorological conditions Hz Hertz IMC Instrument meteorological conditions kg km/h Kilogram Kilometre per hour Symbols kt Knot L Litre o Degree LDAH Landing distance available = Equals L/min Litre per minute % Percentage m Metre 土 Plus or minus (related to the specifications of this Annex) Aerodrome Design Manual (Doc 9157) Part 1 — Runways Part 2 — Taxiways, Aprons and Holding Bays Part 3 — Pavements Part 4 — Visual Aids Part 5 — Electrical Systems Part 6 — Frangibility Airport Planning Manual (Doc 9184) Part 1 — Master Planning Part 2 — Land Use and Environmental Control Part 3 — Guidelines for Consultant/Construction Services Airport Services Manual (Doc 9137) Part 1 — Rescue and Fire Fighting Part 2 — Pavement Surface Conditions Part 3 — Bird Control and Reduction Part 4 — Fog Dispersal (withdrawn) Part 5 — Removal of Disabled Aircraft Part 6 — Control of Obstacles Part 7 — Airport Emergency Planning Part 8 — Airport Operational Services Part 9 — Airport Maintenance Practices Heliport Manual (Doc 9261) Manual of Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems (SMGCS) (Doc 9476) Manual on the ICAO Bird Strike Information System (IBIS) (Doc 9332) Stolport Manual (Doc 9150) FOREWORD Historical background Standards and Recommended Practices for aerodromes were first adopted by the Council on 29 May 1951 pursuant to the provisions of Aricle 37 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago 1944) and designated as Annex 14 to the Convention. The document containing these Standards and Recommended Practices is now designated as Annex 14, Volume I to the Convention. In general, Volume I addresses planning, design and operations of aerodromes but is not specifically applicable to heliports. Therefore, Volume I is being introduced as a means of including provisions for heliports. Proposals for comprehensive Standards and Recommended Practices covering all aspects of heliport planning, design and operations have been developed with the assistance of the ANC Visual Aids Panel and the ANC Helicopter Operations Panel. Table A shows the origin of the provisions in this volume, together with a ist of the principal subjects involved and the dates on which the Annex was adopted by the Council, when it became effective and when it became applicable. Action by Contracting States Notification of differences. The attention of Contracting States is drawn to the obligation imposed by Article 38 of the Convention by which Contracting States are required to notify the Organization of any differences between their national regulations and practices and the International Standards contained in this Anex and any amendments thereto. Contracting States are invited to extend such notification to any differences from Recommended Practices contained in this Anex and any amendments theretowhen the notfication of uch diferences is iportant for the safey of air navigation.Furter, Contacti States are invited to keep the Organization currently informed of any diferences which may subsequently ocur, or of the withdrawal f any diferences previously noified.A specified request for notifiation of iffrences wil e sent toContacting States immediately after the adoption of each amendment to this Annex. The attention of States is also drawn to the provisions of Annex 15 related to the publication of differences between their national regulations and practices and the related ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices through the Aeronautical Information Service, in addition to the obligation of States under Article 38 of the Convention. Promulgation of information. The establishment and withdrawal of and changes to faciliies, services and procedures affecting airraft operations provided in accordance with the Standards and Recommended Practices specified in this Annex should be notified and take effect in accordance with the provisions of Annex 15. Status of Annex components An Annex is made up of the following component parts, not allof which, however, are necessaril found i every Annex; they have the status indicated: 1.— Material comprising the Annex proper: a) Standards and Recommended Practices adopted by the Council under the provisions of the Convention. They are defined as follows: Standard: Any specification for physical characteristics, configuration, matériel, performance, personnel or procedure, the uniform application of which is recognized as necessary for the safety or regularity of international air navigation and to which Contracting States wil conform in accordance with the Convention; in the event of impossibility of compliance, notification to the Council is compulsory under Article 38. Recommended Practice: Any specification for physical characteristics, configuration, matériel, performance, personnel or procedure, the uniform application of which is recognized as desirable in the interest of safety, regularity or efficiency of international air navigation, and to which Contracting States wil endeavour to conform in accordance with the Convention. b) Appendices comprising material grouped separately for convenience but forming part of the Standards and Recommended Practices adopted by the Council. c) Definitions of terms used in the Standards and Recommended Practices which are not self- explanatory in that they do not have accepted dictionary meanings. A definition does not have independent status but is an essential part of each Standard and Recommended Practice in which the term is used, since a change in the meaning of the term would affect the specifications. d) Tables and Figures which add to or ilustrate a Standard or Recommended Practice and which are referred to therein, form part of the associated Standard or Recommended Practice and have the same status. 2.— Material approved by the Council for publication in association with the Standards and Recommended Practices: a) Forewords comprising historical and explanatory material based on the action of the Council and including an explanation of the obligations of States with regard to the application of the Standards and Recommended Practices ensuing from the Convention and the Resolution of Adoption. b) Introductions comprising explanatory material introduced at the beginning of parts, chapters or sections of the Annex to assist in the understanding of the application of the text. c) Notes included in the text, where appropriate, to give factual information or references bearing on the Standards or Recommended Practices in question, but not constituting part of the Standards or Recommended Practices. d) Attachments comprising material supplementary to the Standards and Recommended Practices, or included as a guide to their application. Selection of language This Annex has been adopted in six anguages— English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Rusian and Spanish. Each Contracting State is requested to select one of those texts for the purpose of national implementation and for other effects provided for i the Convention, either through direct use or through translation into its own national language, and to notify the Organization accordingly. Editorial practices The following practice has been adhered to in order t indicate at a glance the status of each statement: Standards have been printed in light face roman; Recommended Practices have been printed in ight face italics, the status being indicated by the prefix Recommendation; Notes have been printed in ight face italics, the status being indicated by the prefix Note. The following editorial practice has been followed i the writing of specifications: for Standards the operative verb "shal" is used, and for Recommended Practices the operative verb "should' is used. The units of measurement used in this document are in acordance with the International System of Units (SI) as specified in Annex 5 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Where Annex 5 permits the use of non-SI alternative units these are shown in parentheses following the basic units.Where two sets of units are quoted it must not be assumed that te pairs of values are equal and interchangeable.It may, however, be inferred that an equivalent level f safety is achieved when either set of units is used exclusively. Any reference to a portion of this document, which is identified by a number and/or tite, includes ll subdivisions of that portion. Table A. Amendments to Annex 14, Volume II Amendment Source(s) Subject(s) Adopted Effective Applicable 1st Edition Fourth Meeting of the ANC Helicopter Operations Panel; Eleventh Meeting of the ANC Visual Aids Panel and Secretariat Physical characteristics; obstacle limitation surfaces; visual aids for visual meteorological conditions; rescue and fire fighting services. 9 March 1990 30 July 1990 15 November 1990 1 (2nd Edition) Twelfth Meeting of the ANC Visual Aids Panel and Secretariat Standard geodetic reference system (WGS-84); frangibility; visual aids for helicopter non-precision approaches; and visual alignment guidance system. 13 March 1995 24 July 1995 9 November 1995 2 Air Navigation Commission Aeronautical databases and vertical component of the World Geodetic System — 1984 (WGS-84). 21 March 1997 21 July 1997 6 November 1997 3 Fourteenth Meeting of the ANC Visual Aids Panel and Secretariat Definitions of calendar, datum, Gregorian calendar and obstacle; common reference systems; heliport dimensions and related information; touchdown and lift-off area lighting system; Appendix 1 — Aeronautical Data Quality Requirements. 27 February 2004 12 July 2004 25 November 2004 4 (3rd Edition) First Meeting of the Aerodromes Panel Introductory note; definitions of air transit route, declared distances, dynamic load-bearing surface, final approach and take-off area, helicopter air taxiway, helicopter clearway, helicopter ground taxiway, helicopter stand, helideck, obstacle, protection area, rejected take-off area, shipboard heliport, static load-bearing surface, taxi-route, touchdown and lift-off area, winching area; applicability; physical characteristics for surface-level heliports, elevated heliports, helidecks, and shipboard heliports; obstacle limitation surfaces and sectors and requirements for helidecks and shipboard heliports; winching area marking; heliport identification marking; maximum allowable mass marking; maximum allowable D-value marking; touchdown and lift-off area marking; touchdown/positioning marking; helideck obstacle-free sector marking; helideck 4 March 2009 20 July 2009 19 November 2009 INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDED PRACTICES CHAPTER 1. GENERAL Introductory Note.—Annex 14, Volume I, contains Standards and Recommended Practices (specifications) that prescribe the physical characteristics and obstacle limitation surfaces to be provided for at heliports, and certain faciliies and technical services normally provided at a heliport It is not intended that these speifications limit or regulate the operation of an aircraf. When designing a heliport, the critical design helicopter, having the largest set of dimensions and the greatest maximum take-off mass (MTOM) the heliport is intended to serve, would need to be considered. It is to be noted that provisions for helicopter flight operations are contained in Annex 6, Part III. 1.1 Definitions When the follwing terms are used in this volume, they have the meanings given below. Annex 14, Volume I, contains definitions for those terms which are used in both volumes. Accuracy. A degree of conformance between the estimated or measured value and the true value. Note.— For measured positional data, the accuracy is normally expressed in terms of a distance from a stated position within which there is a defined confidence of the true position falling. Air transit route. A defined route for the air transiting of helicopters. Calendar. Discrete temporal reference system that provides the basis for defining temporal position to a resolution of one day (ISO 19108*). Cyclic redundancy check (CRC). A mathematical algorithm applied to the digital expression of data that provides a level of assurance against loss or alteration of data. Data quality. A degree or level of confidence that the data provided mee the requirements of the data user i terms of acuracy, resolution and integrity. Datum. Any quantity or set of quantities that may serve as a reference or basis for the calculation of other quantities (ISO 19104**). Declared distances — heliports. a) Take-of distance available (TODAH). The length of the FATO plus the length of helicopter clearway (if provided) declared available and suitable for helicopters to complete the take-off. b) Rejected take-off distance available (RTODAH). The length of the FATO declared available and suitable for helicopters operated in performance class 1 to complete a rejected take-off. c) Landing distance available (LDAH). The length of the FATO plus any aditional area declared available and suitable for helicopters to complete the landing manoeuvre from a defined height. Dynamic load-bearing surface. A surface capable of supporting the loads generated by a helicopter conducting an emergency touchdown on it. Elevated heliport. A heliport located on a raised structure on land. Ellipsoid height Geodetic height). The height related to the reference ellpsoid, measured along the ellipsoidal outer normal through the point in question. Final approach and take-off area (FATO). A defined area over which the final phase of the approach manoeuvre to hover or landing is completed and from which the take-off manoeuvre is commenced. Where the FATO is to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 1, the defined area includes the rejected take-of area available. Geodetic datum. A minimum set of parameters required to define lcation and orientation of the local reference system with respect to the global reference system/frame. Geoid. The equipotential surface in the gravity field of the Earth which coincides with the undisturbed mean sea level (MSL) extended continuously through the continents. Note.The geoid is irregular in shape because of local gravitational disturbances (wind ides, salinity, current, etc.) and the direction of gravity is perpendicular to the geoid at every point. Geoid undulation. The distance of the geoid above (positive) or below (negative) the mathematical reference ellipsoid. Note.— In respect to the World Geodetic System — 1984 (WGS-84) defined llipsoid, the difference between the WGS-84 ellipsoidal height and orthometric height represents WGS-84 geoid undulation. Gregorian calendar. Calendar in general use; first introduced in 1582 to define a year that more closely approximates the tropical year than the Julian calendar (ISO 19108***). Note.— In the Gregorian calendar, common years have 365 days and leap years 366 days divided into twelve sequential months. Helicopter air taxiway. A defined path on the surface established for the air taxing of helicopters. Helicopter clearway. A defined area on the ground or water, selected and/or prepared as asuitable area over which a helicopter operated in performance class 1 may accelerate and achieve a specific height. Helicopter ground taxiway. A ground taxiway intended for the ground movement of wheeled undercarriage helicopters. Helicopter stand. An aircraft stand which provides for parking a helicopter and where ground taxi operations are completed or where the helicopter touches down and lifts off for air taxi operations. Helideck.A heliport located on an offshore structure such as an exploration or production platform used for the exploitation of oil or gas. Heliport. An aerodrome or a defined area on a structure intended to be used wholly or in part for the arrival, departure and surface movement of helicopters. Integrity (aeronautical ata).A degree of assurance that an aeronautical data and its value has not been lost nor ltered since the data origination or authorized amendment. Obstacle. All fixed (whether temporary or permanent) and mobile objects, or parts thereof, that: a) are located on an area intended for the surface movement of aircraft; or b) extend above a defined surface intended to protect aircraft in flight; or c) stand outside those defined surfaces and that have been assessed as being a hazard to air navigation. Orthometric height. Height of a point related to the geoid, generally presented as an MSL elevation. Protection area. An area within a taxi-route and around a helicopter stand which provides separation from objects, the FATO, other taxi-routes and helicopter stands, for safe manoeuvring of helicopters. Rejected take-of area. A defined area on a heliport suitable for helicopters operating in performance class 1 to complete a rejected take-off. Safety area. A defined area on a heliport surrunding the FATO which is free of obstacles, other than those required for air navigation purposes, and intended to reduce the risk of damage to helicopters accidentally diverging from the FATO. Shipboard heliport. A heliport located on a ship that may be purpose or non-purpose-built. A purpose-buit shipboard heliport is one designed specifically for helicopter operations.A non-purpose-built shipboard heliport s one that utilizes an area of the ship that is capable of supporting a helicopter but not designed specifically for that task. Static load-bearing surface. A surface capable of supporting the mass of a helicopter situated upon it. Station declination. An alignment variation between the zero degreeradial of a VOR and true north, determined at the time the VOR station is calibrated. Surface-level heliport. A heliport located on the ground or on the water. Taxi-route. A defined path established for the movement of helicopters from one part of a heliport to another. A taxi-route includes a helicopter air or ground taxiway which is centred on the taxi-route. Touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF). An area on which a helicopter may touch down or lift off. Winching area. An area provided for the transfer by helicopter of personnel or stores to or from a ship. 1.2Applicability Note — The dimensions discused in this Annex are based on consideration of single-main-rotor helicopters. For tandem-rotor helicopters the heliport design wil be based on a case-by-case review of the specific models using the basic requirement for a safety area and protection areas specified in this Annex. 1.2.1 The interpretation of some of the specifications in the Annex expresly requires the exercising of discretion, the taking of a decision or the performance of a function by the appropriate authority. In other specifications, the expression appropriate authority does not actually appear although it inclusion is implied. In both cases, the responsibility for whateer determination or action is necessary shall rest with the State having jurisdiction over the heliport. 1.2.2 The specifications in Annex 14, Volume I, shall apply to all heliports intended to be used by helicopters in international civil aviation. They shall apply equally to areas for the exclusive use of helicopters at an aerodrome primarily meant for the use of aeroplanes. Where relevant, the provisions of Annex 14, Volume I, shll apply to the helicopter operations being conducted at such an aerodrome. 1.2.3 Unless otherwise specified, the specification for a colour referred to within this volume shall be that contained in Appendix 1 to Annex 14, Volume I. 1.3 Common reference systems 1.3.1 Horizontal reference system 1.3.1.1 World Geodetic System —1984 (WGS-84) shal be used as the horizontal (geodetic) reference system. Reported aeronautical geographical cordinates (indicating latitude and longitude) shall be expressed in terms of the WGS-84 geodetic reference datum. Note.— Comprehensive guidance material concerning WGS-84 is contained in the World Geodetic System — 1984 (WGS-84) Manual (Doc 9674). 1.3.2 Vertical reference system 1.3.2.1 Mean sea level (MSL) datum, which gives the relationship of gravity-related height (elevation) to a surface known as the geoid, shall be used as the vertical reference system. Note 1.— The geoid globally most losely approximates MSL. It is defined as the equipotential urface in the gravity feld of the Earth which coincides with the undisturbed MSL extended continuously through the continents. Note 2.—Gravity-related heights (elevations) are also referred to as orthometric heights while distances of points above the ellipsoid are referred to as ellipsoidal heights. 1.3.3 Temporal reference system 1.3.3.1 The Gregorian calendar and Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) shall be used as the temporal reference system. 1.3.3.2 When a diffrent temporal reference system is used, this shal be indicated in GEN 2.1.2 of the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP). CHAPTER 2. HELIPORT DATA 2.1Aeronautical data 2.1.1 Determination and reporting of heliport-related aeronautical data shall be in accordance with the accuracy and integrity requirements set forth in Tables A1-1 to A1-5 contained in Appendix 1 while aking into account the established quality system procedures. Accuracy equirements for aeronautical data are based upon a 95 per cent confidence level and in that espect, three types of positional data shall be identified: surveyed points (e.g. FATO threshold), calculated points (mathematical calculations f thekw sureyed points of points in space, fixes) and declared pints e. figh iforation region bundary points). Note. — Specifications governing the quality system are given in Annex 15, Chapter 3. 2.1.2 Contracting States shal ensure that integrity of aeronautical data is maintained throughout the data process from survey/origin to the next intended user. Aeronautical data integrity requirements shall be based upon the potential risk resulting from the coruption of data and upon the use to which the data item is put. Consequently, the following clasifications and ata integrity levels shall apply: a) critical data, integrity level $I \times I O ^ { - 8 . }$ there is a high probability when using corrupted critical data that the continued safe flight and landing of an aircraft would be severely at risk with the potential for catastrophe; b) essential data, integrity level $I \times I O ^ { - 5 } ;$ there is a low probability when using corrupted essential data that the continued safe flight and landing of an aircraft would be severely at risk with the potential for catastrophe; and c) routine data, integrity level $I \times I O ^ { - 3 } ;$ there is a very low probability when using corrupted routine data that the continued safe flight and landing of an aircraft would be severely at risk with the potential for catastrophe. 2.1.3 Protection of electronic aeronautical data while stored or in transit shall be totally monitored by the cyclic redundany check CRC). To achieve protection of the integrity level of critical and essential aeronautical data as claified in 2.1.2, a 32- or 24-bit CRC algorithm shall apply respectively. 2.1.4 Recommendation.—To achieve protection of the integrity level of routine aeronautical data as clasified in 2.1.2 a 16-bit CRC algorithm should apply. Note.— Guidance material on the aeronautical data quality requirements (accuracy, resolution, integrity, protection and traceability) is contained in the World Geodetic System — 1984 (WGS-84) Manual (Doc 9674). Supporting material in respect of the provisions of Appendix 1 related t accuracy and integrity of aeronautical data is contained in RTCA Document DO-201A and European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment (EUROCAE) Document ED-77— Industry Requirements for Aeronautical Information. 2.1.5 Geographical cordinates indicating lattude and longitude shall be determined and reported to the aeronautical information services authority in terms of the World Geodetic System—1984 (WGS-84) geodetic reference datum, identifying those geographical coordinates which have been transformed into WGS-84 coordinates by mathematical means and whose accuracy of original field work does not meet the requirements in Appendix 1, Table A1-1. 2.1.6 The order of accuracy of the field work shall be such that the resulting operational navigation data for the phases of flight wil e within te maximum deviations, with respect to an appropriate referenceframe, as indicated in the tables contained in Appendix 1. 2.1.7 In addition to the elevation (referenced to mean sea level) of the specific surveyed ground positions at heliports, geoid undulation (referenced to the WGS-84 elipsoid) for those positions as indicated in Appendix 1 shall be determined and reported to the aeronautical information services authority. Note 1.—An appropriate reference frame is that which enables WGS-84 to be realized on a given heliport and with respect to which all coordinate data are related. Note 2.— Specifications governing the publication of WGS-84 coordinates are given in Annex 4, Chapter 2, and Annex 15, Chapter 3. 2.2 Heliport reference point 2.2.1 A heliport reference point shall be established for a heliport not collocated with an aerodrome. Note.— When the heliport is collocated with an aerodrome, the established aerodrome reference point serves both aerodrome and heliport. 2.2.2 The heliport reference point shall be located near the initial or planned geometric centre of the heliport and shall normally remain where first established. 2.2.3 The position of the heliport reference point shal e measured and reported to the aeronautical information services authority in degrees, minutes and seconds. 2.3 Heliport elevation 2.3.1 The heliport elevation and geoid undulation at the heliport elevation position shall be measured and reported to the aeronautical information services authority to the accuracy of one-half metre or foot. 2.3.2 For a heliport used by international civil aviation, the elevation of the TLOF and/or the elevation and geoid undulation of each threshold of the FATO (where appropriate) shal e measured and reported to the aeronautical information services authority to the accuracy of: a) one-half metre or foot for non-precision approaches; and b) one-quarter metre or foot for precision approaches. Note.— Geoid undulation must be measured in accordance with the appropriate system of coordinates. 2.4 Heliport dimensions and related information 2.4.1 The following data shall be measured or described, as appropriate, for each facility provided on a heliport: a) heliport type — surface-level, elevated or helideck; b) TLOF — dimensions to the nearest metre or foot, slope, surface type, bearing strength in tonnes (1 00 kg); c) final approach and take-off area — type of FATO, true bearing to one-hundredth of a degree, designation number (where appropriate), length, width to the nearest metre or foot, slope, surface type; d) safety area — length, width and surface type; e) helicopter ground taxiway, air taxiway and air transit route —designation, width, surface type; f) apron — surface type, helicopter stands; g) clearway — length, ground profile; h) visual aids for approach procedures, marking and lighting of FATO, TLOF, taxiways and aprons; and i) distances to the nearest metre or foot of localizer and glide path elements comprising an instrument anding system (ILS) or azimuth and elevation antenna of a microwave landing system (MLS) in relation to the associated TLOF or FATO extremities. 2.4.2 The geographical coordinates of the geometric centre of the TLOF and/or of each threshold of the FATO (where appropriate) sha be measured and reported t the aeronautical nformation serices authorit in degrees, minutes, seconds and hundredths of seconds. 2.4.3 The geographical cordinates of appropriate centre line points of helicopter ground taxiways, air taxiways and air transit rutes shall be measured and reported to the eronautical inforation services authority in degrees, inutes seconds and hundredths of seconds. 2.4.4 The geographical coordinates of each helicopter stand shall be measured and reported to the aeronautical information services authority in degrees, minutes, seconds and hundredths of seconds. 2.4.5 The geographical cordinates of obstacles in Area 2 (the part within the heliport boundary) and in Area 3 shall be measured and reported to the aernautical information services authority in degrees, minutes, seconds and tenths of seconds. In addition, the top elevation, type, marking and lighting (if any) of obstacles shall be reported to the aeronautical information services authority. Note 1.— See Annex 15, Appendix 8, for graphical ilustrations of obstacle data collection surfaces and criteria used to identify obstacles in Areas 2 and 3. Note 2.— Appendix 1 to this Annex provides requirements for obstacle data determination in Areas 2 and 3. Note 3.— Implementation of Annex 15, provision 10.6.1.2, concerning the availability, as of 18 November 2010, of obstacle data according to Area 2 and Area 3 specifications would be facilitated by appropriate advance planning for the collection and processing of such data. 2.5 Declared distances The following distances to the nearest metre or foot shal be declared, where relevant, for a heliport: a) take-off distance available; b) rejected take-off distance available; and c) landing distance available. 2.6 Coordination between aeronautical information services and heliport authorities 2.6.1 To ensure that aeronautical information services units obtain information to enable them to provide up-to-date pre-flight information and to meet the need for in-fight information, arrangements shall be made between aeronautical information services and heliport authorities responsible for heliport services to report to the responsible aeronautical information services unit, with a minimum of delay: a) information on heliport conditions; b) the operational status of associated faciliies, services and navigation aids within their area of responsibility; c) any other information considered to be of operational significance. 2.6.2 Before introducing changes to the air navigation system, due account shall be taken by the services responsible for such changes of the time needed by the aeronautical information service for the preparation, production and issue of relevant material for promulgation. To ensure timely provision of the information to the aeronautical information service, close coordination between those services concerned is therefore required. 2.6.3 Of a particular importance are changes to aeronautical information that affect charts and/or computer-based navigation systems which qulify to be notified by the aeronautical information regulation and control (AIRAC) system, as specifie in Aex 15, Chapter and Appendix4. The predetermined, iternationll agreed ARAC efective dates i dition to 14 days postage time shall be observed by the responsible heliport services when submiting the raw information/data to aeronautical information services. 2.6.4 The heliport services responsible for the provision of raw aeronautical information/data to the aeronautical information services shall do that while taking into account accuracy and integrity requirements for aeronautical data as specified in Appendix 1 to this Annex. Note 1.— Specifications for the issue of a NOTAM and SNOWTAM are contained in Annex 15, Chapter 5, and Appendices 6 and 2, respectively. Note 2.—The AIRAC information is distributed by the AIS at least 42 days in advance of the AIRAC effective dates with the objective of reaching recipients at least 28 days in advance of the effective date. Note 3.— The schedule of the predetermined internationally agreed AIRAC common effective dates at intervals of 28 days, including 19 November 2009, and guidance for the AIRAC use are contained in the Aeronautical Information Services Manual (Doc 8126, Chapter 2, 2.6). CHAPTER 3. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 3.1 Surface-level heliports Note 1.—The following specifications are for land-based heliports only. Where a water helipor is being considered, the appropriate authority may establish suitable criteria. Note 2.— The dimensions of the taxi-routes and helicopter stands include a protection area. Final approach and take-off areas 3.1.1 A surface-level heliport shall be provided with at least one final approach and take-off area (FATO). Note.—A FATO may be located on or near a runway strip or taxiway strip. 3.1.2 A FATO shall be obstacle free. 3.1.3 The dimensions of a FATO shall be: a) where intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance clas 1, as prescribed in the helicopter fight manual (HFM) except that, in the absence of width specifications, the width shall be not less than the greatest overall dimension (D) of the largest helicopter the FATO is intended to serve; b) where intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 2 or 3, of sufficient size and shape to contain an area within which can be drawn a circle of diameter not less than: 1 D of the largest helicopter when the maximum take-off mass (MTOM) of helicopters the FATO is intended to serve is more than 3 175 kg; 0.83 D of the largest helicopter when the MTOM of helicopters the FATO is intended to serve is 3 175 kg or less. Note.— Where the term FATO is not used in the HFM, the minimum landing/take-off area specified i the HFM for the appropriate flight profile is used. 3.1.4 Recommendation.— Where intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 2 or 3 with MTOM of 3 175 kg or less, the FATO should be of suficient size and shape to contain an area within which can be drawn a circle of diameter not less than 1 D. Note.—Local conditions, such as elevation and temperature, may need to be considered when determining the size of a FATO. Guidance is given in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261). 3.1.5 The mean slope in any direction on the FATO shall not exceed 3 per cent. No portion of a FATO shal have a local slope exceeding: a) 5 per cent where the heliport is intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 1; and b) 7 per cent where the heliport is intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 2 or 3. 3.1.6 The surface of the FATO shall: a) be resistant to the effects of rotor downwash; b) be free of irregularities that would adversely affect the take-off or landing of helicopters; and c) have bearing strength ufficient to accommodate a rejected take-off by helicopters operated in performance class 1. 3.1.7 The surface of a FATO surrounding a touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) intended for use by helicopters operated in performance classes 2 and 3 shall be static load-bearing. 3.1.8 Recommendation.— The FAT0 should provide ground effect. Helicopter clearways 3.1.9 When a helicopter clearway is provided, it shall be located beyond the end of the rejected take-of area available. 3.1.10 Recommendation.— The width of a helicopter clearway should not be les than that of the associated safety area. 3.1.11 Recommendation.— The ground in a helicopter clearway should not project above a plane having an upward slope of 3 per cent, the lower limit of this plane being a horizontal ine which is located on the periphery of the FATO. 3.1.12 Recommendation.— An object situated on a helicopter clearway which may endanger helicopters in the air should be regarded as an obstacle and should be removed. Touchdown and lift-off areas 3.1.13 At least one TLOF shall be provided at a heliport. Note 1.— The TLOF may or may not be located within the FATO. Note 2.— Additional TLOFs may be collocated with helicopter stands. 3.1.14 The TLOF shall be of sufficient size to contain a circle of diameter of at least 0.83 D of the largest helicopter the area is intended to serve. Note.— A TLOF may be any shape. 3.1.15 Slopes on a TLOF shal be sufficient to prevent accumulation of water on the surface of the area, but shall not exceed 2 per cent in any direction. 3.1.16 Where the TLOF is within the FATO, the TLOF shall be dynamic load-bearing. 3.1.17 Where a TLOF is collocated with a helicopter stand, the TLOF shall be static load-bearing and be capable of withstanding the traffic of helicopters that the area is intended to serve. 3.1.18 Where the TLOF is within the FATO, the centre of the TLOF shall be located not less than 0.5 D from the edge of the FATO. Safety areas 3.1.19 A FATO shall be surrounded by a safety area which need not be solid. 3.1.20 A safety area surrounding a FATO intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 1 in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) shall extend outwards from the periphery of the FATO for a distance of at last 3 m or 0.25 D, whichever is greater, of the largest helicopter the FATO is intended to serve and: a) each external side of the safety area shall be at least 2 D where the FATO is quadrilateral; or b) the outer diameter of the safety area shall be at least 2 D where the FATO is circular. 3.1.21 A safety area surrounding a FATO intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 2 or 3 in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) shallextend outwards from te periphery of the FATO for a distance of at least 3 m or 0.5 D, whichever is greater, of the largest helicopter the FATO is intended to serve and: a) each external side of the safety area shall be at least 2 D where the FATO is quadrilateral; or b) the outer diameter of the safety area shall be at least 2 D where the FATO is circular. 3.1.22 There shal be a protected side slope rising at 45 degrees from the edge of the safety area to a distance of 10 m, whose surface shall not be penetrated by obstacles, except that when obstacles are located to one side of the FATO only, they may be permitted to penetrate the side slope surface. 3.1.23 A safety area surrounding a FATO intended to be used by helicopter operations in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) shall extend: a) laterally to a distance of at least 45 m on each side of the centre line; and b) longitudinally to a distance of at least 60 m beyond the ends of the FATO. (See Figure 3-1.) 3.1.24 No fixed object shall be permited on a safety area, except for frangible objects, which, because of their function, must be located on the area. No mobile object shall be permitted on a safety area during helicopter operations. 3.1.25 Objects whose functions require them to be located on the safety area shll not exceed a height of 25 cm when located along the edge of the FATO nor penetrate a plane originating at a height of 25 cm above the edge of the FATO and sloping upwards and outwards from the edge of the FATO at a gradient of 5 per cent. 3.1.26 Recommendation.— In the case of a FATO of diameter less than 1 D, the maximum height of the objects whose functions require them to be located on the safety area should not exceed a height of 5 cm. Figure 3-1. Safety area for instrument FATO 3.1.27 The surface of the safety area, when solid, shallnot exceed an upward slope of 4 per cent outwards from the edge of the FATO. 3.1.28 Where applicable, the surface of the safety area sha be treated to prevent flying debris caused by rotor downwash. 3.1.29 The surface of the safety area abutting the FATO shall be continuous with the FATO. Helicopter ground taxiways and ground taxi-routes Note 1.—A helicopter ground taxiway is intended to permit the surface movement of a wheeled helicopter under its own power. Note 2.— The following specifications are intended for the safety of simultaneous operations during the manoeuvring of helicopters. However, the wind velocity induced by the rotor downwash might have to be considered. Note 3.— When a taxiway is intended for use by aeroplanes and helicopters, the provisions for taxiways for aeroplanes and helicopter ground taxiways will be taken into consideration and the more stringent requirements will be applied. 3.1.30 The width of a helicopter ground taxiway shall not be les than 1.5 times the largest width of the undercarrige (UCW) of the helicopters the ground taxiway is intended to serve (see Figure 3-2). 3.1.31 The longitudinal slope of a helicopter ground taxiway shall not exceed 3 per cent. 3.1.32 A helicopter ground taxiway shall be static load-bearing and be capable of withstanding the traffic of the helicopters the helicopter ground taxiway is intended to serve. Figure 3-2. Ground taxi-route 3.1.33 A helicopter ground taxiway shall be centred on a ground taxi-route. 3.1.34 A helicopter ground taxi-route shall extend symmetrically on each side of the centre line for at least 0.75 times the largest overall width of the helicopters it is intended to serve. 3.1.35 No objects shall be permitted on a helicopter ground taxi-route, except for frangibl objects, which, because of their function, must be located there. 3.1.36 The helicopter ground taxiway and the ground taxi-route shall provide rapid drainage but the helicopter ground taxiway transverse slope shall not exceed 2 per cent. 3.1.37 The surface of a helicopter ground taxi-route shal be resistant to the effect of rotor downwash. Helicopter air taxiways and air taxi-routes Note.—A helicopter air taxiway is intended to permit the movement of a helicopter above the surface at a height normally associated with ground effect and at ground speed less than 37km/h (20 kt). 3.1.38 The width of a helicopter air taxiway shall be at least two times the largest width of the undercarriage (UCW) of the helicopters that the air taxiway is intended to serve (see Figure 3-3). 3.1.39 The surface of a helicopter air taxiway shall be suitable for an emergency landing. 3.1.40 Recommendation.— The surface of a helicopter air taxiway should be static load-bearing. Figure 3-3. Air taxi-route 3.1.41 Recommendation.— The transverse slope of the surface of a helicopter air taxiway should not exceed 10 per cent and the longitudinal slope should not exceed 7 per cent. In any event, the slopes should not exceed the slope landing limitations of the helicopters the air taxiway is intended to serve. 3.1.42 A helicopter air taxiway shall be centred on an air taxi-route. 3.1.43 A helicopter air taxi-route shall extend symmetrically on each side of the centre line for a distance at least equal to the largest overall width of the helicopters it is intended to serve. 3.1.44 No objects shall be permitted on an air taxi-route, except for frangible objects, which, because of their function, must be located thereon. 3.1.45 The surface of an air taxi-route shall be resistant to the effect of rotor downwash. 3.1.46 The surface of an air taxi-route shall provide ground effect. Air transit route Note.—An air transit route is intended to permit the movement of a helicopter above the surface, normally at heights not above 30 m (100 ft) above ground level and at ground speeds exceeding 37 km/h (20 kt). 3.1.47 The width of an air transit route shall not be less than: a) 7.0 times the argest overall width of the helicopters the air ransit route is intended to serve when the air transit route is intended for use by day only; and b) 10.0 times the largest overall width of the helicopters the air transit route is intended to serve when the air transit route is intended for use at night. 3.1.48 Any variation in the direction of the centre line of an air transit route shal not exced 120 degrees and be designed so as not to necessitate a turn of radius less than 270 m. Note.—It is intended that air transit routes be selected so as to permit autorotative or one-engine-inoperative landings such that, as a minimum requirement, injury to persons on the ground or water, or damage to property are minimized. Aprons 3.1.49 The slope in any direction on a helicopter stand shall not exceed 2 per cent. 3.1.50 A helicopter tand shal be of sufficient size to contain a circle of diameter of at least 1.2 D of the largest helicopter the stand is intended to serve. 3.1.51 If a helicopter stand is used for taxi-through, the minimum width of the stand and associated protection area shall be that of the taxi-route (see Figure 3-4). 3.1.52 When a helicopter stand is used for turning, the minimum dimension of the stand and protection area shall be not less than 2 D (see Figure 3-5). 3.1.53 When a helicopter stand s used for turming, t shal be surrounded by a protection area which extends for a distance of 0.4 D from the edge of the helicopter stand. Figure 3-4. Helicopter stand Figure 3-5. Helicopter stand protection area 3.1.54 For simultaneous operations, the protection area of helicopter stands and their associated taxi-routes shall not overlap (see Figure 3-6). Note.— Where non-simultaneous operations are envisaged, the protection area of helicopter stands and their associated taxi-routes may overlap (see Figure 3-7). 3.1.55 When intended to be used for ground taxi operations by wheeled helicopters, the dimensions of a helicopter stand shall take into account the minimum turn radius of wheeled helicopters the stand is intended to serve. 3.1.56 A helicopter stand and associated protection area intended to be used for air taxing shall provide ground effet. 3.1.57 No fixed objects shall be permitted on a helicopter stand and the associated protection area. 3.1.58 The central zone of the stand sha be capable of withstanding the traffic of helicopters that it is intended to sere and have a static load-bearing area: a) of diameter not less than 0.83 D of the largest helicopter it is intended to serve; or b) for a helicopter stand intended to be used for ground taxi-through, the same width as the ground taxiway. Note.—For a helicopter stand intended to be used for turning on the ground, the dimension of the central one may need to be increased. Figure 3-6. Helicopter stands designed for hover turns with air taxi-routes/taxiways — simultaneous operations Figure 3-7. Helicopter stands designed for hover turns with air taxi-routes/taxiways — non-simultaneous operations Location of a final approach and take-off area in relation to a runway or taxiway 3.1.59 Where a FATO is located near a runway or taxiway, and simultaneous VMC operations are planned, the separation distance between the edge of a runway or taxiway and the edge of a FATO shall not be less than the appropriate dimension in Table 3-1. 3.1.60 Recommendation.— A FATO should not be located: a) near taxiway intersections or holding points where jet engine eflux is ikely to cause high turbulence; or b) near areas where aeroplane vortex wake generation is likely to exist. 3.2 Elevated heliports Note 1.— The dimensions of the taxi-routes and helicopter stands include a protection area. Note 2 — Guidance on structural design for elevated heliports is given in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261). 3.2.1 In the case of elevated heliports, design considerations of the different elements of the heliport shall take into account additional loading resulting from the presence of personnel, snow, freight, refuelling, fire fighting equipment, t. Final approach and take-off areas and touchdown and lift-off areas Note.— On elevated heliports it is presumed that the FATO and one TLOF will be coincidental. 3.2.2 An elevated heliport shal be provided with one FATO. 3.2.3 A FATO shall be obstacle free. 3.2.4 The dimensions of the FATO shall be: a) where intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance clas 1, as prescribed in the helicopter flight manual (HFM) except that, in the absence of width specifications, the width shall be not les than 1 D of the largest helicopter the FATO is intended to serve; b) where intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance clas 2 or 3, of sufficient size and shape to contain an area within which can be drawn a circle of diameter not less than: 1 D of the largest helicopter when the MTOM of helicopters the FATO is intended to serve is more than 3 175 kg; 0.83 D of the largest helicopter when the MTOM of helicopters the FATO is intended to serve is 3 175 kg or less. 3.2.5 Recommendation.— Where intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 2 or 3 with MTOM of 3 175 kg or less, the FATO should be of suficient size and shape to contain an area within which can be drawn a circle of diameter not less than 1 D. Note.— Local conditions, such as elevation and temperature, may need to be considered when determining the size of a FATO. Guidance is given in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261). 3.2.6 Slopes on a FATO at an elevated heliport shall be sufficient to prevent accumulation of water on the surface of the area, but shall not exceed 2 per cent in any direction. 3.2.7 The FATO shall be dynamic load-bearing. 3.2.8 The surface of the FATO shall be: a) resistant to the effects of rotor downwash; and b) free of irregularities that would adversely affect the take-off or landing of helicopters. 3.2.9 Recommendation.— The FATO should provide ground effect. Helicopter clearways 3.2.10 When a helicopter clearway is provided, it shall be located beyond the end of the rejected take-off area available. 3.2.11 Recommendation.— The width of a helicopter learway should not be les than that of the associated safety area. 3.2.12 Recommendation. When solid, the surface of the helicopter clearway should not project above a lane having an upward slope of 3 per cent, the lower limit of this plane being a horizontal ine which is located on the periphery of the FATO. Table 3-1. FATO minimum separation distance If aeroplane mass and/or helicopter mass are Distance between FATO edge and runway edge or taxiway edge up to but not including 3 175 kg 60m 3 175 kg up to but not including 5 760 kg 120m 5 760 kg up to but not including 100 000 kg 180m 100 000 kg and over 250m 3.2.13 Recommendation.— An object situated on a helicopter clearway which may endanger helicopters in the air should be regarded as an obstacle and should be removed. Touchdown and lift-off areas 3.2.14 One TLOF shall be coincidental with the FATO. Note.— Additional TLOFs may be collocated with helicopter stands. 3.2.15 For a TLOF coincidental with the FATO, the dimensions and the characteristics of the TLOF shall be the same as those of the FATO. 3.2.16 When the TLOF is collocated with a helicopter stand, the TLOF shall be of sufficient size to contain a circle of diameter of at least 0.83 D of the largest helicopter the area is intended to serve. 3.2.17 Slopes on a TLOF collocated with a helicopter stand shall be sufficient to prevent accumulation of water on the surface of the area, but shall not exceed 2 per cent in any direction. 3.2.18 When the TLOF is collocated with a helicopter stand and intended to be used by ground taxing helicopters only, the TLOF shallat least be static lad-bearing and be capable of withstanding te traffic of the helicopters the area s intended to serve. 3.2.19 When the TLOF is collocated with a helicopter stand and intended to be used by air taxing helicopters, the TLOF shall have a dynamic load-bearing area. Safety areas 3.2.20 The FATO shall be surrounded by a safety area which need not be solid. 3.2.21 A safety area surrounding a FATO intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 1 in visual meteorolgical conditions (VMC) shall extend outwards from the periphery of the FATO for a distance of at least 3 m or 0.25 D, whichever is greater, of the largest helicopter the FATO is intended to serve and: a) each external side of the safety area shall be at least 2 D where the FATO is quadrilateral; or b) the outer diameter of the safety area shall be at least 2 D where the FATO is circular. 3.2.22 A safety area surrounding a FATO intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 2 or 3 in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) hallextend outwards from te periphery of the FATO for adistance of at least 3 m or 0.5 D, whichever is the greater, of the largest helicopter the FATO is intended to serve and: a) each external side of the safety area shall be at least 2 D where the FATO is quadrilateral; or b) the outer diameter of the safety area shall be at least 2 D where the FATO is circular. 3.2.23 There shal be a protected side slope rising at 45 degrees from the edge of the safety area to a distance of 10 m, whose surface shall not be penetrated by obstacles, except that when obstacles are located to one side of the FATO only, they may be permitted to penetrate the side slope surface. 3.2.24No fixed object shall be permited on a safety area, except for frangible objects, which, because of their function, must be located on the area. No mobile object shall be permitted on a safety area during helicopter operations. 3.2.25 Objects whose function require them to be located on the safety area shall not exceed a height of 25 cm when located along the edge of the FATO nor penetrate a plane originating at a height of 25 cm above the edge of the FATO and sloping upwards and outwards from the edge of the FATO at a gradient of 5 per cent. 3.2.26 Recommendation.— In the case of a FATO of diameter less than 1 D, the maximum height of the objects whose functions require them to be located on the safety area should not exceed a height of 5 cm. 3.2.27 The surface of the safety area, when solid, shallnot exceed an upward lope of 4 per cent outwards from the edge of the FATO. 3.2.28 Where applicable, the surface of the safety area shall be prepared in a manner to prevent flying debris caused by rotor downwash. 3.2.29 The surface of the safety area abutting the FATO shall be continuous with the FATO. Helicopter ground taxiways and ground taxi-routes Note.— The following specifications are intended for the safety of simultaneous operations during the manoeuvring of helicopters. However, the wind velocity induced by the rotor downwash might have to be considered. 3.2.30 The width of a helicopter ground taxiway shall not be less than 2 times the largest width of the undercarige (UCW) of the helicopters the ground taxiway is intended to serve. 3.2.31 The longitudinal slope of a helicopter ground taxiway shall not exceed 3 per cent. 3.2.32 A helicopter ground taxiway shall be static load-bearing and be capable of withstanding the traffic of the helicopters the helicopter ground taxiway is intended to serve. 3.2.33 A helicopter ground taxiway shall be centred on a ground taxi-route. 3.2.34 A helicopter ground taxi-route shall xtend symmetrically on each ide of the centre line to a distance not ess than the largest overall width of the helicopters it is intended to serve. 3.2.35 No objects shall be permitted on a helicopter ground taxi-route, except for frangible objects, which, because of their function, must be located there. 3.2.36 The helicopter ground taxiway and the ground taxi-route shall provide rapid drainage but the helicopter ground taxiway transverse slope shall not exceed 2 per cent. 3.2.37 The surface of a helicopter ground taxi-route shall be resistant to the effect of rotor downwash. Helicopter air taxiways and air taxi-routes Note.—A helicopter air taxiway is intended to permit the movement of a helicopter above the surface at a height normally associated with ground effect and at ground speed less than 37 km/h (20 kt). 3.2.38 The width of a helicopter air taxiway shal e at least three times the largest width of the undercarriage (UCW) of the helicopters the air taxiway is intended to serve. 3.2.39 The surface of a helicopter air taxiway shal be dynamic load-bearing. 3.2.40 The transverse slope of the surface of a helicopter air taxiway shall not exceed 2 per cent and the longitudinal slope shal not exceed 7 per cent. In any event, the slopes shall not exceed the slope landing limitations of the helicopters the air taxiway is intended to serve. 3.2.41 A helicopter air taxiway shall be centred on an air taxi-route. 3.2.42 A helicopter air taxi-route shal extend symmetrically on each ide of the centre line to a distance not les than the largest overall width of the helicopters it is intended to serve. 3.2.43 No objects shall be permited on an air taxi-route, except for frangible objects, which, because of their function, must be located thereon. 3.2.44 The surface of an air taxi-route shall be resistant to the effect of rotor downwash. 3.2.45 The surface of an air taxi-route shall provide ground effect. Aprons 3.2.46 The slope in any direction on a helicopter stand shall not exceed 2 per cent. 3.2.47 A helicopter stand shall be of suficient size to contain a circle of diameter of at least 1.2 D of the largest helicopters the stand is intended to serve. 3.2.48 If a helicopter stand is used for taxi-through, the minimum width of the stand and associated protection area shall be that of the taxi-route. 3.2.49 When a helicopter stand is used for turning, the minimum dimension of the stand and protection area shall be not less than 2 D. 3.2.50 When a helicopter stand is used for turning, it shall be surounded by a protection area which extends for a distance of 0.4 D from the edge of the helicopter stand. 3.2.51 For simultaneous operations, the protection area of helicopter stands and their associated taxi-routes shal not overlap. Note.— Where non-simultaneous operations are envisaged, the protection area of helicopter stands and their associated taxi-routes may overlap. 3.2.52 When intended to be used for ground taxi operations by wheeled helicopters, the dimensions of a helicopter tand shal take into account the minimum turn radius of the wheeled helicopters the stand is intended to serve. 3.2.53 A helicopter stand and associated protection area intended to be used for air taxing shallprovide ground effect. 3.2.54 No fixed objects shall be permitted on a helicopter stand and the associated protection area. 3.2.55 The central zone of te helicopter stand shall e capable of withstanding the traffic of the helicopters it s intended to serve and have a load-bearing area: a) of diameter not less than 0.83 D of the largest helicopter it is intended to serve; or b) for a helicopter stand intended to be used for ground taxi-through, the same width as the ground taxiway. 3.2.56 The central zone of a helicopter stand intended to be used for ground taxing only shal be static load-bearing. 3.2.57 The central one of a helicopter stand intended to be used for air taxing shall be dynamic load-bearing. Note.—For a helicopter stand intended to be used for turning on the ground, the dimension of the central one might have to be increased. 3.3 Helidecks Note.— The following specifications are for helidecks located on structures engaged in such actiies as mineral exploitation, research or construction. See 3.4 for shipboard heliport provisions. Final approach and take-off areas and touchdown and lift-off areas Note.— On helidecks it is presumed that the FATO and the TLOF will e coincidental. Reference to FATO within the helideck section of this Annex is asumed to include the TLOF. Guidance on the efets of aifow direction and turbulence, prevailing wind velocity and high temperatures from gas turbine exhausts o flare radiated heat on the location of the FATO is given in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261). 3.3.1 The specifications in 3.3.9 and 3.3.10 shall be applicable for helidecks completed on or after 1 January 2012. 3.3.2 A helideck shall be provided with at least one FATO. 3.3.3 A FATO may be any shape but shall be of sufficient size to contain: a) for helicopters with an MTOM of more than 3 175 kg, an area within which can be accommodated a circle of diameter not less than 1.0 D of the largest helicopter the helideck is intended to serve; and b) for helicopters with an MTOM of 3 175 kg or less, an area within which can be accommodated a circle of diameter not less than 0.83 D of the largest helicopter the helideck is intended to serve. 3.3.4 Recommendation.— For helicopters with an MTOM of 3 175 kg or less, the FATO should be of suficient size to contain an area within which can be accommodated a circle of diameter not less than 1.0 D of the largest helicopter the helideck is intended to serve. 3.3.5 A FATO shall be dynamic load-bearing. 3.3.6 A FATO shall provide ground effect. 3.3.7 No fixed object shall be permited around the edge of the FATO, except for frangible objects, which, because of their function, must be located thereon. 3.3.8 Objects whose function require them to be located on the edge of the FATO shall not exceed a height of 25 cm, except that in the case of a FATO of diameter les than 1 D, the maximum height of uch objects shall not exceed a height of 5cm. 3.3.9 Objects whose function requires them to be located within the FATO (such as lighting or nets) shal not exceed a height of 2.5 cm. Such objects may be present only if they do not represent a hazard to helicopters. Note.— Examples of potential hazards include nets or raised fitings on the deck that might induce dynamic rollover for helicopters equipped with skids. 3.3.10 Safety net or safety shelves shall be located around the edge of a helideck but shal not exceed the helideck height. 3.3.11 The surface of the FATO shall be skid-resistant to both helicopters and persons and be sloped to prevent pooling of water. Note.— Guidance on rendering the surface of the FATO skid-resistant is contained in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261). 3.4 Shipboard heliports 3.4.1 The specifications in 3.4.11 shall be applicable to shipboard heliports completed on or after 1 January 2012. 3.4.2 When helicopter operating areas are provided in the bow or stern of a ship or are purpose-built above the ship's structure, they shall be regarded as purpose-built shipboard heliports. Final approach and take-off areas and touchdown and lift-off areas Note.— On shipboard heliports, it is presumed that the FATO and the TLOF will be coincidental. Reference to FATO within the shipboard heliport section of this Anex is asumed to include the TLOF. Guidance on the effects of irflow direction and turbulence, prevailing wind velocity and high temperature from gas turbine exhausts orflare radiated heat on the location of the FATO is given in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261). 3.4.3 Shipboard heliports shall be provided with at least one FATO. 3.4.4 The FATO of a shipboard heliport shal be dynamic load-bearing. 3.4.5 The FATO of a shipboard heliport shall provide ground effect. 3.4.6 For purpose-built shipboard heliports provided in a location other than the bow or stern, the FATO shall be of sufficient size to contain a circle witha diameter not less than 1.0D of the largest helicopter the heliport is intended to serve. 3.4.7 For purpose-built shipboard heliports provided in the bow or sterm of a ship, the FATO shal e of sufficient size to: a) contain a circle with a diameter not less than 1 D of the largest helicopter the heliport is intended to serve; or b) for operations with limited touchdown directions, contain an area within which can be accommodated two opposing arcs of a circle with a diameter not less than 1 D in the helicopter's longitudinal direction The minimum width of the heliport shall be not less than 0.83 D (see Figure 3-8). Figure 3-8. Shipboard permitted landing headings for limited heading operations Note 1 — The ship willneed to be manoeuvred to ensure that the relative wind is appropriate to the direction of the helicopter touchdown heading. Note 2 — The touchdown heading of the helicopter is limited to the angular distance subtended by the 1 D arc headings, minus the angular distance which corresponds to 15 degrees at each end of the arc. 3.4.8 For non-purpose-built shipboard heliports, the FATO shall be of sufficient size to contain a circle with a diameter not less than 1 D of the largest helicopter the helideck is intended to serve. 3.4.9 No fixed object shall be permited around the edge of the FATO, except for frangible objects, which, because of their function, must be located thereon. 3.4.10 Objects whose function require them to be located on the edge of the FATO shall not exceed a height of 25 cm. 3.4.11 Objects whose function requires them to be located within the FATO (such as ighting or nets) shall not exceed a height of 2.5 cm. Such objects may be present only if they do not represent a hazard to helicopters. 3.4.12 The surface of the FATO shall be skid-resistant to both helicopters and persons. CHAPTER 4. OBSTACLE RESTRICTION AND REMOVAL Note.—The objectives of the specifications i this chapter are to define the airspace around heliports to be maintained free from obstacles so as to permit the intended helicopter operations at the heliports to be conducted safely and to prevent the heliports becoming unusable by the growth of obstacles around them. This is achieved by establishing a series of obstacle limitation surfaces that define the limits to which objects may project into the airspace. 4.1 Obstacle limitation surfaces and sectors Approach surface 4.1.1 Description. An inclined plane or a combination of planes sloping upwards from the end of the safety area and centred on a line passing through the centre of the FATO (see Figure 4-1). 4.1.2 Characteristics. The limits of an approach surface shall comprise: a) an inner edge horizontal and equal in length to the minimum specified width of the FATO plus the safety area, perpendicular to the centre line of the approach surface and located at the outer edge of the safety area; b) two side edges originating at the ends of the inner edge and: for other than a precision approach FATO, diverging uniformly at a specified rate from the vertical plane containing the centre line of the FATO; for a precision approach FATO, diverging uniformly at a specified rate from the vertical plane containing the centre line of the FATO, to a specified height above FATO, and then diverging uniformly at a specified rate to a specified final width and continuing thereafter at that width for the remaining length of the approach surface; and c) an outer edge horizontal and perpendicular to the centre line of the apprach surface and at a specified height above the elevation of the FATO. 4.1.3 The elevation of the inner edge shall be the elevation of the safety area at the point on the inner edge that is intersected by the centre line of the approach surface. 4.1.4 The slope(s) of the approach surface shal be measured in the vertical plane containing the centre line of the surface. Note.—For heliports used by performance class 2 and 3 helicopters, t is intended that approach paths be selected so as to permit safe forced landing or one-engine-inoperative landings such that, as a minimum requirement, injury to persons on the ground or water or damage to property are minimized. Provisions for forced landing areas are expected to minimize risk of injury to the occupants of the helicopter The most critical helicopter type for which the heliport is intended and the ambient conditions will be factors in determining the suitability of such areas. Transitional surface 4.1.5 Description. A complex surface along the side of the safety area and part of the side of the approach surface, that slopes upwards and outwards to the inner horizontal surface or a predetermined height (see Figure 4-1). 4.1.6 Characteristics. The limits of a transitional surface shall comprise: a) a lower edge beginning at the intersection of the side of the approach surface with the inner horizontal surface, or beginning at a specified height above the lwer edge when an inner horizontal surface is not provided, and extending down the side of the approach surface to the inner edge of the approach surface and from there along the length of the side of the safety area parallel to the centre line of the FATO; and b) an upper edge located in the plane of the iner horizontal urface, or at a specified height above the lower edge when an inner horizontal surface is not provided. 4.1.7 The elevation of a point on the lower edge shall be: a) along the side of the approach surface — equal to the elevation of the approach surface at that point; and b) along the safety area — equal to the elevation of the centre line of the FATO opposite that point. Note.—As a result of b) the transitional urface along the safety area willbe curved if the profile of the FATO is curved, or a plane if the profile is a straight line. The intersection of the transitional surface with the inner horizontal surface, or upper edge when an inner horizontal surface is not provided, wil also be a curved or a straight line depending on the profil of the FATO. 4.1.8 The slope of the transitional surface shall be measured in a vertical plane at right angles to the centre line of the FATO. Inner horizontal surface Note.— The intent of the inner horizontal surface is to allow safe visual manoeuvring. 4.1.9 Description. A circular surface located in a horizontal plane above a FATO and its environs (see Figure 4-1). 4.1.10 Characteristics. The radius of the iner horizontal surface shall be measured from the midpoint of the FATO. 4.1.11 The height of the inner horizontal surface shal be measured above an elevation datum established for such purpose. Note.— Guidance on determining the elevation datum is contained in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261). Conical surface 4.1.12 Description. A surface sloping upwards and outwards from the periphery of the inner horizontal surface, or from the outer limit of the transitional surface if an inner horizontal surface is not provided (see Figure 4-1). 4.1.13 Characteristics. The limits of the conical surface shall comprise: a) a lower edge coincident with the periphery of the inner horizontal surface, or outer limit of the transitional surface if an inner horizontal surface is not provided; and b) an upper edge located at a specified height above the iner horizontal surface, or above the elevation of the lowest end of the FATO if an inner horizontal surface is not provided. 4.1.14 The slope of the conical surface shall be measured above the horizontal. Take-off climb surface 4.1.15 Description. An inclined plane, a combination of planes or, when a turn is involved, a complex surface sloping upwards from the end of the safety area and centred on a line passing through the centre of the FATO (see Figure 4-1). 4.1.16 Characteristics. The limits of a take-off climb surface shall comprise: a) an inner edge horizontal and equal in length to the minimum specified width of the FATO plus the safety area, perpendicular to the centre line of the take-off climb surface and located at the outer edge of the safety area or clearway; b) two side edges originating at the ends of the inner edge and diverging uniformly at a specified rate from the vertical plane containing the centre line of the FATO; and c) an outer edge horizontal and perpendicular to the centre line of the take-off climb surface and at a specified height above the elevation of the FATO. 4.1.17 The elevation of the iner edge sha be the elevation of the safety area at the point on the inner edge that is intersected by the centre line of the take-ff climb surface, xcept that when a clearway is provided, the elevation shall be equal to the highest point on the ground on the centre line of the clearway. 4.1.18 In the case of a straight take-off climb surface, the slope shall be measured in the vertical plane containing the centre line of the surface. 4.1.19 In the case of a take-off climb surface involving a turn, the surface shall be a complex surface containing the horizontal norals to its cente line, nd the slope of the cente line shal be the sme as that for strigh take-of climb surface. That portion of the surface between the inner edge and 30 m above the inner edge shall be straight. 4.1.20 Any variation in the direction of the centre line of a take-off climb surface shal be designed so as not to necessitate a turn of radius less than 270 m. Note.—For heliports used by performance class 2 and 3 helicopters, t is intended that departure paths be selected so as to permit safe forced landings or one-engineinoperative landings such that, as a minimum requirement, njury to persons on the ground or water or damage to property are minimized. Provisions for forced landing areas are expected to minimize risk of injury to the occupants of the helicopter The most critical helicopter type for which the heliport is intended and the ambient conditions will be factors in determining the suitability of such areas. Obstacle-free sector/surface — helidecks 4.1.21 Description. A complex surface originating at and extending from a reference point on the edge of the FATO of a helideck. In the case of a FATO of less than 1D, the reference point shall be located not les than 0.5 D from the centre of the FATO. 4.1.22 Characteristics. An obstacle-free sector/surface shall subtend an arc of specified angle. 4.1.23 A helideck obstacle-free sector shal comprise two components, one above and one below helideck level (see Figure 4-2): a) Above helideck level. The surface shall be a horizontal plane level with the elevation of the helideck surface that subtends an arc of at least 210 degrees with the apex located on the periphery of the D reference circle extending outwards to a distance that wil allow for an unobstructed departure path appropriate to the helicopter the helideck is intended to serve. b) Below helideck level. Within the (minimum) 210-degree arc, the surface shall dditionally extend downward from the edge of the FATO below the elevation of the helideck to water level for an arc of not less than 180 degrees that passes through the centre of the FATO and outwards to a distance that wil allow for safe clearance from the obstacles below the helideck in the event of an engine failure for the type of helicopter the helideck is intended to serve. Note.—For both the above obstacle-fre sectors for helicopters operated in performance class1 or 2, the horizontal extent of these distances from the helideck wil be compatible with the one-engine-inoperative capability of the helicopter ype to be used. Limited obstacle surface — helidecks Note.— Where obstacles are necessarily located on the structure, a helideck may have a limited obstacle sector. 4.1.24 Description. A complex surface originating at the reference point for the obstacle-free sector and extending over the arc not covered by the obstacle-free sector within which the height of obstacles above the level of the FATO will be prescribed. 4.1.25 Characteristics. A limited obstacle sector shall not subtend an arc greater than 150 degrees. Its dimensions and location shall be as indicated in Figure 4-3. 4.2 Obstacle limitation requirements Note.— The requirements for obstacle limitation surfaces are specified on the basis of the intended use of a FATO, ie. approach manoeuvre to hover or landing, or take-of manoeuvre and type of approach, and are intended to be applied when such use is made of the FATO.In cases where operations are conducted to or from both directions of a FATO, then the function of certain surfaces may be nullified because of more stringent requirements of another lower surface. Surface-level heliports 4.2.1 The following obstacle limitation surfaces shall be established for a precision approach FATO: a) take-off climb surface; b) approach surface; c) transitional surfaces; and d) conical surface. 4.2.2 The following obstacle limitation surfaces shall be established for a non-precision approach FATO: a) take-off climb surface; b) approach surface; c) transitional surfaces; and d) conical surface if an inner horizontal surface is not provided. 4.2.3 The following obstacle limitation surfaces shal be established for a non-instrument FATO: a) take-off climb surface; and b) approach surface. 4.2.4 Recommendation.— The following obstacle limitation surfaces should be established for a non-precision approach FATO: a) inner horizontal surface; and b) conical surface. Note.—An inner horizontal surface may not be required if a straight-in non-precision approach is provided at both ends. 4.2.5 The slopes of the surfaces shal not be greater than, and their other dimensions not less than those specified in Tables 4-1 to 4-4 and shall be located as shown in Figures 4-4 to 4-8. 4.2.6 New objects or extensions of existing objects shall not be permitted above any of the surfaces in 4.2.1 to 4.2.4 except when, in the opinion of the appropriate authority, the new object or extension would be shielded by an existing immovable object. Note.— Circumstances in which the shielding principle may reasonably be applied are described in the Airport Services Manual, Part 6 (Doc 9137). 4.2.7 Recommendation.— Existing objects above any of the surfaces in 4.2.1 to 4.2.4 should, as far as practicable, be removed except when, in the opinion of the appropriate authority, the object is shielded by an existing immovable object, or after aeronautical study it is determined that the object would not adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of operations of helicopters. Note.— The application of curved take-off climb surfaces as specfied in 4.1.19 may alleviate the problems created by objects infringing these surfaces. 4.2.8 A surface-level heliport shall have at least two take-of climb and approach surfaces, separated by not less than 150 degrees. 4.2.9 Recommendation.— The number and orientation of take-of climb and approach surfaces should be such that the usability factor of a heliport is not less than 95 per cent for the helicopters the heliport is intended to serve. Elevated heliports 4.2.10 The obstacle limitation requirements for elevated heliports shall conform to the requirements for surface-level heliports specified in 4.2.1 to 4.2.7. 4.2.11 An elevated heliport shall have at least two take-off limb and approach surfaces separated by not less than 150 degrees. Helidecks Note.— The following specifications are for helidecks located on a structure and engaged in such actities as mineral exploitation, research, or construction, but excluding heliports on ships. 4.2.12 A helideck shall have an obstacle-free sector. Note.— A helideck may have a limited obstacle sector (see 4.1.25). 4.2.13 There shal be no fixed obstacles within the obstacle-free sector above the obstacle-free surface. 4.2.14 In the immediate vicinity of the helideck, obstacle protection for helicopters shall be provided below the heliport level. This protection shall extend over an arc of at least 180 degrees with the origin at the centre of the FATO, with a descending gradient having a ratio of one unit horizontally to five units vertically from the edges of the FATO within the 180-degree sector. This descending gradient may be reduced t a ratio of one unit horizontaly to three within the 180-dgree sector for multi-engine helicopters operated in performance class 1 or 2 (see Figure 4-2). 4.2.15 Where a mobile obstacle or combination of obstacles within the obstacle-free sector is essential for the operation of the installation, the obstacle(s) shall not subtend an arc exceeding 30 degrees, s measured from the centre of the FATO. 4.2.16 Within the 150-degre limited obstacle surface/sector out to a distance of 0.62 D, measured from the centre of the FATO, objects shall not exceed a height of 0.05 D above the FATO. Beyond tat arc, out to an overal distance of 0.83 D the limited obstacle surface rises at a rate of one unit vertically for each two units horizontally (see Figure 4-3). Shipboard heliports Purpose-built heliports located forward or aft 4.2.17 The specifications in 4.2.20 and 4.2.22 shal be applicable for shipboard heliports completed on or after 1 January 2012. 4.2.18 When helicopter operating areas are provided in the bow or stern of a ship, they shall aply the obstacle criteria given in 4.2.12, 4.2.14 and 4.2.16. Amidships location 4.2.19 Forward and aft of the FATO shall be two symmetrically located sectors, each covering an arc of 150 degrees, with their apexes on the periphery of the FATO D reference circle. Within the area enclosed by these two sectors, there shall be no objects ising above the level of the FATO, xcept those ids essential for the safe operation of a helicopter and then only up to a maximum height of 25 cm. 4.2.20 Objects whose function requires them to be located within the FATO (such as lighting or nets) shallnot exceed a height of 2.5 cm. Such objects may be present only if they do not represent a hazard to helicopters. Note.— Examples of potential hazards include nets or raised fitings on the deck that might induce dynamic rollover for helicopters equipped with skids. 4.2.21 To provide further protection from obstacles fore and aft of the FATO, rising surfaces with gradients of one unit vertically to five units horizontally shall extend from the entire length of the edges of the two 150-degree sectors. These surfaces shal extend for a horizontal distance equal to at last 1 D of the largest helicopter te FATO is intended t sere and shall not be penetrated by any obstacle (see Figure 4-9). Non-purpose-built heliports Ship's side location 4.2.22 No objects shal be located within the FATO, except those aids essential for the safe operation of a helicopter (such as nets or lighting) and then only up to a maximum height of 2.5 cm. Such objects shall be present only if they do not represent a hazard to helicopters. 4.2.23 From the fore and aft midpoints of the D reference circle, an area shall extend to the ship's rail to a fore and aft distance of 1.5 times the diameter of the FATO, lcated symmetrically about the athwartships bisector of the reference circle. Within this sector there shall be no objects rising above the level of the FATO, except those aids essential to the safe operation of the helicopter and then only up to a maximum height of 25 cm (see Figure 4-10). 4.2.24 A horizontal surface sha be provided, at least 0.25 times the diameter of the D reference circle, which shall surround the FATO and the obstacle-freesector, at a height of 0.05 times the diameter of the reference circle, which no object shall penetrate. Winching areas 4.2.25 An area designated for winching on-board ships shall comprise a circular clear zone of diameter 5 m and extending from the perimeter of the clear zone, a concentric manoeuvring zone of diameter 2 D (see Figure 4-11). 4.2.26 The manoeuvring zone shall comprise 2 areas: a) the inner manoeuvring zone extending from the perimeter of the clear zone and of a circle of diameter not less than 1.5 D; and b) the outer manoeuvring zone extending from the perimeter of the inner manoeuvring zone and of a circle of diameter not less than 2 D. 4.2.27 Within the clear zone of a designated winching area, no objects shall be located above the level of ts surface. 4.2.28 Objects located within the iner manoeuvring zone of a designated winching area shal not exceed a height of 3 m. 4.2.29 Objects located within the outer manoeuvring zone of a designated winching area shal not exceed a height of 6 m. Figure 4-1. Obstacle limitation surfaces Figure 4-2. Helideck obstacle-free sector Figure 4-3. Helideck obstacle limitation sectors Figure 4-4. Take-off climb/approach surface (non-instrument FATO) Figure 4-5. Take-off climb surface for instrument FATO Figure 4-6. Approach surface for precision approach FATO Figure 4-7. Approach surface for non-precision approach FATO Figure 4-8. Transitional, inner horizontal and conical obstacle limitation surfaces Figure 4-9. Midship non-purpose-built heliport obstacle imitation surfaces Figure 4-10. Ship's side non-purpose-built heliport obstacle limitation surfaces Figure 4-11. Winching area of a ship Table 4-1. Dimensions and slopes of obstacle limitation surfaces NON-INSTRUMENT AND NON-PRECISION FATO Non-instrument (visual) FATO Non-precision (instrument approach) Helicopter performance class Surface and dimensions 2 3 FATO APPROACH SURFACE Width of safety area Width of safety area Width of inner edge Location of inner edge Boundary Boundary First section 10% 10% 10% 16% Divergence day 15% 15% 15% night $2 4 5 \mathrm { m } ^ { \mathrm { a } }$ $2 4 5 \mathrm { m ^ { a } }$ $2 4 5 \mathrm { m ^ { a } }$ 2500m Length day $2 4 5 \mathrm { m ^ { a } }$ $2 4 5 \mathrm { m ^ { a } }$ $2 4 5 \mathrm { m ^ { a } }$ night $4 9 \mathrm m ^ { \mathrm b }$ $4 9 \mathrm m ^ { \mathrm b }$ $4 9 \mathrm m ^ { \mathrm b }$ 890m Outer width day $7 3 . 5 \mathrm { m } ^ { \mathrm { b } }$ $7 3 . 5 \mathrm { m } ^ { \mathrm { b } }$ $7 3 . 5 \mathrm { m } ^ { \mathrm { b } }$ Slope (maximum) night $8 \% ^ { \mathrm { a } }$ $8 \% ^ { \mathrm { a } }$ $8 \% ^ { \mathrm { a } }$ 3.33% Second section Divergence day 10% 10% 15% 10% 15% Length night 15% c day c c c c c Outer width night d d d day d d d Slope (maximum) night 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% Third section Divergence Length parallel parallel parallel day e e e e e Outer width night e d d d day d d d night 15% 15% 15% Slope (maximum) INNER HORIZONTAL Height 45m Radius 2000m CONICAL Slope 5% 55m Height TRANSITIONAL Slope 20% Height 45m a. Slope and length enables helicopters to decelerate for landing while observing "avoid" areas. b. The width of the inner edge shall be added to this dimension. . diameters for night operations. d. Seven rotor diameters overall width for day operations or 10 rotor diameters overall width for night operations. e.Deterneb the istance fr ner ee towhere te apprch urfce reaches heig of 150 abve e elation f te ier . Table 4-2. Dimensions and slopes of obstacle imitation surfaces INSTRUMENT (PRECISION APPROACH) FATO 3° approach 6°approach Height above FATO Height above FATO Surface and dimensions 90m (300 ft) 60m (200 ft) 45m (150 ft) 30m (100 ft) 90m (300 ft) 60m (200 ft) 45m (150 ft) 30m (100 ft) APPROACH SURFACE Length of inner edge 90m 90m 90m 90m 90m 90m 90m 90m Distance from end of FATO 60m 60m 60m 60m 60m 60m 60m 60m Divergence each side to height above FATO 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% Distance to height above FATO 1745m 1163m 872m 581m 870m 580m 435m 290m Width at height above FATO 962m 671m 526m 380m 521m 380m 307.5m 235m Divergence to parallel section 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Distance to parallel section 2793m 3763m 4246m 4733m 4250m 4733m 4975m 5217m Width of parallel section 1800m 1800m 1800m 1800m 1800m 1800m 1800m 1800m Distance to outer edge 5462m 5074m 4882m 4686m 3380m 3187m 3090m 2993m Width at outer edge 1800m 1800m 1800m 1800m 1800m 1800m 1800m 1800m Slope of first section 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Length of first section (1:40) 3000m (1:40) 3000m (1:40) 3000m (1:40) 3000m (1:20) 1500m (1:20) 1500m (1:20) 1500m (1:20) 1500m Slope of second section 3% 3% 3% 3% 6% 6% 6% 6% Length of second section (1:33.3) 2500m (1:33.3) 2500m (1:33.3) 2500m (1:33.3) 2500m (1:16.66) 1250m (1:16.66) 1250m (1:16.66) 1250m (1:16.66) 1250m Total length of surface 10 000m 10 000m 10 000 m 10000m 8500m 8500m 8500m 8500m CONICAL Slope 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Height 55m 55m 55m 55m 55m 55m 55m 55m TRANSITIONAL Slope 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% Height 45m 45m 45m 45m 45m 45m 45m 45m Table 4-3. Dimensions and slopes of obstacle limitation surfaces STRAIGHT TAKE-OFF Non-instrument (visual) Helicopter performance class Surface and dimensions 2 3 Instrument TAKE-OFF CLIMB Width of inner edge Width of safety area 90m Location of inner edge Boundary or end of clearway Boundary or end of clearway First section Divergence day 10% 10% 10% 30% night 15% 15% 15% Length day a $2 4 5 ~ \mathrm { m } ^ { \mathrm { b } }$ $2 4 5 \mathrm { m } ^ { \mathrm { b } }$ 2850m night a $2 4 5 ~ \mathrm { m } ^ { \mathrm { b } }$ $2 4 5 \mathrm { m } ^ { \mathrm { b } }$ Outer width day C $4 9 \mathrm { m ^ { d } }$ $4 9 \mathrm { m ^ { d } }$ 1800m night c $7 3 . 5 \mathrm { m } ^ { \mathrm { d } }$ $7 3 . 5 \mathrm { m } ^ { \mathrm { d } }$ Slope (maximum) 4.5%* $8 \% ^ { \mathrm { b } }$ $8 \% ^ { \mathrm { b } }$ 3.5% Second section Divergence day parallel 10% 10% parallel night parallel 15% 15% Length day e a a 1510m night e a a Outer width day C c c 1800m night C C C Slope (maximum) 4.5%* 15% 15% 3.5%* Third section parallel Divergence Length day parallel e e parallel 7640m e e Outer width night c C 1800m day c c Slope (maximum) night 15% 15% 2% diameters for night operations. b. Slope and length provides helicopters with an area to accelerate and climb while observing "avoid'" areas. c. Seven rotor diameters overall width for day operations or 10 rotor diameters overall width for night operations. d. The width of the inner edge shall be added to this dimension. e.Determined by th distance from the inner ege to where the surface reaches a height of 150 m above the elevation f th iner edge. *This slope exceeds the maximum mass one-engine-inoperative cimb gradient of many helicopters which are curently operating. Table 4-4. Criteria for curved take-off climb/approach area NON-INSTRUMENT FINAL APPROACH AND TAKE-OFF Facility Requirement Directional change Radius of turn on centre line Distance to inner gate* (a) For performance class 1 helicopters — not less than 305 m from the end of the safety area or helicopter clearway. (b) For performance class 2 and 3 helicopters — not less than 370 m from the end of the FATO. Width of inner gate —day Width of the inner edge plus 20% of distance to inner gate. night Width of the inner edge plus 30% of distance to inner gate. Width of outer gate e — day Width of inner edge plus 20% of distance to inner gate out to minimum width of 7 rotor diameters. — night Width of inner edge plus 30% of distance to inner gate out to a minimum width of 10 rotor diameters. Elevation of inner and outer gates Determined by the distance from the inner edge and the designated gradient(s). As given in Tables 4-1 and 4-3. As given in Tables 4-1 and 4-3. Slopes Divergence Total length of area As given in Tables 4-1 and 4-3. * This is the minimu * This is the minimum distance required prior to initiating a turn after take-of or completing a turn in the final phase. Note.— More than one turn may be necessary in the total length of the take-off climb/approach area. The same criteria wil apply for each subsequent turn, except that the widths of the inner and outer gates will normally be the maximum width of the area. CHAPTER 5. VISUAL AIDS 5.1 Indicators 5.1.1 Wind direction indicators Application 5.1.1.1 A heliport shall be equipped with at least one wind direction indicator. Location 5.1.1.2 A wind direction indicator shallbe located so as to indicate the wind conditions over the FATO and in such a way as to be fre from the effects of airflow disturbances caused by nearby objects or rotor downwash. It shall be visible from a helicopter in flight, in a hover or on the movement area. 5.1.1.3 Recommendation.— Where a TLOF may be subject to a disturbed airflow, then additional wind direction indicators located close to the area should be provided to indicate the surface wind on the area. Note.— Guidance on the location of wind direction indicators is given in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261). Characteristics 5.1.1.4 A wind direction indicator sha be constructed so that t gives a clear indication of the direction of the wind and a general indication of the wind speed. 5.1.1.5 Recommendation.— An indicator should be a truncated cone made of lightweight fabric and should have the following minimum dimensions: Surface-level heliports Elevated heliports and helidecks Length 2.4m 1.2 m Diameter (larger end) 0.6 m 0.3m Diameter (smaller end) 0.3 m 0.15 m 5.1.1.6 Recommendation.— The colour of the wind direction indicator should be so selected as to make it clearly visible and understandable from a height of at least 200 m (650 ft) above the heliport, having regard to background. Where practicable, a single colour, preferably white or orange, should be used. Where a combination of two colours is required to give adequate conspicuity against changing backgrounds, they shoul preferably be orange and white, red and white, or black and white, and should be arranged in five alternate bands the first and last band being the darker colour. 5.1.1.7 A wind direction indicator at a heliport intended for use at night shall be illuminated. 5.2 Markings and markers Note.— See Annex 14, Volume I, 5.2.1.4, Note 1, concerning improving conspicuity of markings. 5.2.1 Winching area marking Application 5.2.1.1 Winching area markings shall be provided at a designated winching area (see Figure 4-11). Location 5.2.1.2 Winching area markings shall be located so that their centre(s) coincides with the centre of the clear zone of the winching area. Characteristics 5.2.1.3 Winching area markings shall comprise a winching area clear zone marking and a winching area manoeuvring zone marking. 5.2.1.4 A winching area clear zone marking shall consist of a solid circle of not less than 5 m in diameter and of a conspicuous colour. 5.2.1.5 A winching circle manoeuvring zone shall consist of a broken circle of ine of 0.2 m in width and of a diameter not less han 2 D and be marked in a conspicuus colour. Within it WINCH ONLY' shall be marked to be easily visible t the pilt. 5.2.2 Heliport identification marking Application 5.2.2.1 A heliport identification marking shall be provided at a heliport. Location 5.2.2.2 A heliport identification marking shall be located within the FATO, at or near the centre of the area or, when used in conjunction with runway designation markings, at each end of the area. Characteristics 5.2.2.3 A heliport identification marking, except for a heliport at a hospital, shal onsist of a letter H, white in colour. The dimensions of the marking shal e no les than those shown in Figure 5-1 and where the marking is used in conjunction with the FATO designation marking specified in 5.2.5, its dimensions shall be increased by a factor of 3. 5.2.2.4 A heliport identification marking for a heliport at a hospital shall consist of a letter H, red in colour, on a white cross made of squares adjacent to each of the sides of a square containing the H as shown in Figure 5-1. Figure 5-1. Heliport identification marking (shown with hospital cross and orientation with obstacle-free sector) 5.2.2.5 A heliport identification marking shall be oriented with the crossarm of the H at right angles to the preferred final approach direction. For a helideck the cross arm shal e on or parallel to the bisector of the obstacle-free sector as shown in Figure 5-1. 5.2.2.6 Recommendation.— On a helideck, the size of the heliport identification “H" marking should have a height of 4 m with an overall width not exceeding 3 m and a stroke width not exceeding 0.75 m. 5.2.3 Maximum allowable mass marking Application 5.2.3.1 Recommendation.—A maximum allowable mass marking should be displayed at an elevated heliport and at a helideck. Location 5.2.3.2 Recommendation.—A maximum allowable mass marking should be located within the TLOF and so arranged as to be readable from the preferred final approach direction. Characteristics 5.2.3.3 A maximum allowable mass marking shallconsist of a one-, two- or three-digit number. The marking shall be expressed in tonnes (1 00 kg) rounded to the nearest 1000 kg followed by a lettr '". Where States use mass in pounds, the maximum allowable mass marking shall indicate the allowable helicopter mass in thousands of pounds rounded to the nearest 1 000 1b. Note.— Where States express the maximum allowable mass in pounds, it is not appropriate to suffix with the letter t”" which is used only to indicate metric tonnes. Guidance on markings where States use imperial units is given in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261). 5.2.3.4 Recommendation.— The allwable mass marking should be expressed to the nearest 100 kg. The marking should be presented to one decimal place and rounded to the nearest 100 kg followed by the letter "t". Where States use mass in pounds, the maximum allowable mass marking should indicate the allowable helicopter mass in hundreds of ounds rounded to the nearest 100 Ib. 5.2.3.5 Recommendation.— The numbers and the letter of the marking should have a colour contrasting with the background and should be in the form and proportion shown in Figure 5-2, except that where space is imited, such as on an off shore helideck or shipboard heliport, t may be necessary to reduce the size of the marking to characters with an overall height of not less than 90 cm with a corresponding reduction in the width and thickness of the figures. 5.2.4 Maximum allowable D-value marking Application 5.2.4.1 Recommendation.— The D-value marking should be displayed at an elevated heliport and at a helideck. Location 5.2.4.2 Recommendation.— A maximum allowable D-value marking should be located within the FATO and so arranged as to be readable from the preferred final approach direction. Characteristics 5.2.4.3 The D-value shall be marked on the FATO in a contrasting colour to it, preferably white. The D-value shall be rounded to the nearest whole number with 0.5 rounded down, e.g. 19.5 becomes 19 and 19.6 becomes 20. 5.2.5 Final approach and take-off area marking or marker Application 5.2.5.1 FATO marking or markers shal be provided at a surface-level heliport on ground where the extent of the FATO is not self-evident. Figure 5-2. Form and proportions of numbers and letter for maximum allowable mass marking Location 5.2.5.2 FATO marking or markers shall be located on the boundary of the FATO. Characteristics 5.2.5.3 FATO marking or markers shall be spaced: a) for a square or rectangular area, at equal intervals of not more than 50 m with at last three markings or markers on each side including a marking or marker at each corner; and b) for any other shaped area, including a circular area, at equal intervals of not more than 10 m with a minimum number of five markings or markers. 5.2.5.4 A FATO marking shal be a rectangular stripe with a length of 9 m or one-fifth of the side of the FATO which it defines and a width of 1 m. Where a marker is used its characteristis shall conform to those specified in Annex 14, Volume I, 5.5.8.3, except that the height of the marker shall not exceed 25 cm above ground or snow level. 5.2.5.5 A FATO marking shal be white. 5.2.6 Final approach and take-off area designation marking Application 5.2.6.1 Recommendation.—A FATO designation marking should be provided where it is necessary to designate the FATO to the pilot. Location 5.2.6.2 A FATO designation marking shall be located at the beginning of the FATO as shown in Figure 5-3. Characteristics 5.2.6.3 A FATO designation marking shall consist of a runway designation marking described in Annex 14, Volume I, 5.2.2.4 and 5.2.2.5, supplemented by an H, specified in 5.2.2 above, and as shown in Figure 5-3. 5.2.7 Aiming point marking Application 5.2.7.1 Recommendation.—An aiming point marking should be provided at a heliport where it is necessary for a pilot to make an approach to a particular point before proceeding to the TLOF. Location 5.2.7.2 The aiming point marking shall be located within the FATO. Characteristics 5.2.7.3 The aiming point marking shall be an equilateral triangle with the bisector of one of the angles aligned with the preferred approach direction. The marking shall consist of continuous white lines, and the dimensions of the marking shall conform to those shown in Figure 5-4. Figure 5-3. FATO designation marking Figure 5-4. Aiming point marking 5.2.8 Touchdown and lift-off area marking Application 5.2.8.1 TLOF marking shall be provided on a heliport if the perimeter of the TLOF is not self-evident. Location 5.2.8.2 The TLOF marking shall be located along the perimeter of the TLOF. Characteristics 5.2.8.3 A TLOF marking shall consist of a continuous white line with a width of at least 30 cm. 5.2.9 Touchdown/positioning marking Application 5.2.9.1 A touchdown/positioning marking shall be provided where it is necesary for a helicopter to touch down or be accurately placed in a specific position. Location 5.2.9.2 A touchdown/positioning marking shall be located so that when the pilot's seat is over the marking, the undercarriage wil be inside the load-bearing area, and al parts of the helicopter wil e clear of any obstacle by a safe margin. 5.2.9.3 On a helideck the centre of the touchdown marking shall be located at the centre of the FATO, except that the marking may be fset away from the origin of the obstacle-free sector by no more than 0.1 D where an aeronautical study indicates such offsetting to be necessary and that a marking so offset would not adversely affect the safety. Note.—It is not considered appropriate to offset a touchdown marking on a heliport located on the bow of a vessel, or for any helideck where the D-value is 16 m or less. Characteristics 5.2.9.4 A touchdown/positioning marking shal be a yellow circle and have a line width of at east 0.5 m. For a helideck, the line width shall be at least 1 m. 5.2.9.5 The inner diameter of the circle shall be 0.5 D of the largest helicopter the TLOF is intended to serve. 5.2.9.6 When a net is located on the surface of a FATO, it shall be large enough to cover the whole of the touchdown/positioning marking and shall not obscure other essential markings. 5.2.10 Heliport name marking Application 5.2.10.1 Recommendation.—A heliport name marking should be provided at a heliport where there is insufficient alternative means of visual identification. Location 5.2.10.2 Recommendation.— The heliport name marking should be placed on the heliport so as to be visible, as far as practicable, at all angles above the horizontal. Where an obstacle sector exists the marking should be located on the obstacle side of the H identification marking. Characteristics 5.2.10.3 A heliport name marking shall consist of the name or the alphanumeric designator of the heliport as used in radiotelephony communications. 5.2.10.4 Recommendation.— The characters of the marking should be not less than 3 m in height at surface-level heliports and not less than 1.2 m on elevated heliports and helidecks. The colour of the marking should contrast with the background. 5.2.10.5 A heliport name marking intended for use at night or during conditions of poor visibility shal be iluminated, either internally or externally. 5.2.11 Helideck obstacle-free sector marking Application 5.2.11.1 Recommendation.—A helideck obstacle-free sector marking should be provided at a helideck. Location 5.2.11.2 A helideck obstacle-fre sector marking shal be located on the FATO perimeter or on the TLOF marking. Characteristics 5.2.11.3 The helideck obstacle-freesector marking shall indicate the origin of the obstacle-free sector and the directions of the limits of the sector. Note.— Example figures are given in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261). 5.2.11.4 The height of the chevron shall equal the width of the TLOF marking but shall be not less than 30 cm. 5.2.11.5 The chevron shall be marked in a conspicuous colour. 5.2.12 Helideck surface marking Characteristics 5.2.12.1 Recommendation.— The helideck surface bounded by the FATO should be of a dark colour using a high friction coating. Where the surface coating may have a degrading effect on friction qualitis it may be necessary to leave the helideck surface untreated. In such cases, the conspicuity of the markings should be enhanced by outlining the deck markings with a contrasting colour. 5.2.13 Helideck prohibited landing sector marking Application 5.2.13.1 Recommendation.— Helideck prohibited landing sector marking should be provided where it is necessary to prevent the helicopter from landing within specified headings. Location 5.2.13.2 Recommendation.— The prohibited landing sector markings should be located on the touchdown/positioning marking to the edge of the FATO, within the relevant headings as shown in Figure 5-5. Characteristics 5.2.13.3 The prohibited landing sector markings shall be indicated by white and red hatched markings as shown in Figure 5-5. 5.2.14 Marking for taxiways Note.—The specifications for taxiway centre line marking and taxi-holding position markings in Annex 14, Volume I, 5.2.8 and 5.2.9, are equally applicable to taxiways intended for ground taxing of helicopters. 5.2.15 Air taxiway markers Application 5.2.15.1 Recommendation.— An air taxiway should be marked with air taxiway markers. Note.— These markers are not meant to be used on helicopter ground taxiways. Location 5.2.15.2 Air taxiway markers shall be located along the centre line of the air taxiway and shall be spaced at intervals of not more than 30 m on straight sections and 15 m on curves. Characteristics 5.2.15.3 An air taxiway marker shall be frangible and when installed shl not exceed 35 cm above ground or snow level. The surface of the marker as viewed by the pilot shal e a rectangle with a height to width ratio of approximately 3 to 1 and shall have a minimum area of 150 cm2 as shown in Figure 5-6. 5.2.15.4 An air taxiway marker sha be divided into three equal, horizontal bands coloured yellow, green and yellow, respectively.If the air taxiway is to be used at night, the markers shall be internally illuminated or retroreflective. 5.2.16 Air transit route markers Application 5.2.16.1 Recommendation. When established an air transit route should be marked with air transit route markers. Location 5.2.16.2 Air transit route markers sha be located along the centre line of the air transit route and shall be spaced at intervals of not more than 60 m on straight sections and 15 m on curves. Figure 5-5. Helideck prohibited landing sector marking Figure 5-6. Air taxiway marker Characteristics 5.2.16.3 An air transit route marker shall be frangible and when installed shall not exceed 1 m above ground or snow level. The surface of the marker as viewed by the pilot shal be a rectangle with a height to width ratio of approximately 1 to 3 and shall have a minimum area of 1 500 cm2 as shown in the examples in Figure 5-7. 5.2.16.4 An air transit route marker shall be divided into three equal, vertical bands coloured yellow, green and yellow, respectively. If the air transit route is to be used by night, the marker shall be internll illuminated or retroreflective. 5.3 Lights 5.3.1 General Note 1.— See Annex 14, Volume I1, 5.3.1, concerning specifications on screening of non-aeronautical ground lights, and design of elevated and inset lights. Note 2.—In the case of helidecks and heliports lcated near navigable waters, consideration needs to be given to ensuring that aeronautical ground lights do not cause confusion to mariners. Note 3.—As helicopters will generally come very close to extraneous light sources,it is particularly important to ensure that, unless such lights are navigation ights exhibited in accordance with international regulations, they are screened or located so as to avoid direct and reflected glare. Note 4.— The following specifications have been developed for systems intended for use in conjunction with a non-instrument or non-precision FATO. Figure 5-7. Air transit route marker 5.3.2 Heliport beacon Application 5.3.2.1 Recommendation.—A heliport beacon should be provided at a heliport where: a) long-range visual guidance is considered necessary and is not provided by other visual means; or b) identification of the heliport is difficult due to surrounding lights. Location 5.3.2.2 The heliport beacon shal be located on or adjacent to the heliport preferably at an elevated position and s that it does not dazzle a pilot at short range. Note.—Where a heliport beacon is likely to dazzle pilots at short range,it may be switched of during th final stages of the approach and landing. Characteristics 5.3.2.3 The heliport beacon shal emit repeated series of equispaced short duration white flashes in the format in Figure 5-8. 5.3.2.4 The light from the beacon shall show at all angles of azimuth. 5.3.2.5 Recommendation. The effective light intensity distribution of each flash should be as shown in Figure 5-9, illustration 1. Note.— Where brilliancy control is desired, settings of 10 per cent and 3 per cent have been found to be satisfactory. In addition, shielding may be necessary t ensure that pilots are not dazzled during the final stages of the approach and landing. Figure 5-8. Heliport beacon flash characteristics san nl saued uaosauun o eo pue ye — s p0000 6 a (bl1 uao) 008L+ ynwzy 。08L- 08L+ ynwzy PO1 P300L 。0 。ε 8 p30ε 。08L- 9535。 00L 08 (l uaab) ynwzV 008L- po gl 。0>3>。g 。3>。01 。0L 。S 09 0 7 08l+ 2po g 。0 p8 0>3> 1 po 00L p09 。02 。6 。9 po 。0l pε 。06>3> 。07 pOL 。92 。08 ynu.zy ▲ 。02 () M 08 2p08 p 。0ε 9 p30006 2/po09 。0t buung peans gg 。09 (4l al) (al a) 。08L+ 002 ynuizy 。08L- 。08l+ ynwzy 。08L- (al a) 。08L+ yunwzy 。08L- 2po gg 。06 p00 。0 。0 P000L1 。0 。2 00 。0 p0009 02 009 。g 。9 0009 P200L 022 xp2009ε 。9 。9 。 xP009 p0009 。6 00 。6 。L 009 00 。0L 。S1 。L ea Figure 5-9. Isocandela diagrams of lights meant for helicopter non-instrument and non-precision approaches 5.3.3 Approach lighting system Application 5.3.3.1 Recommendation.— An approach lighting system should be provided at a heliport where it is desirable and practicable to indicate a preferred approach direction. Location 5.3.3.2 The approach lighting system shall be located in a straight line along the preferred direction of approach. Characteristics 5.3.3.3 Recommendation.—An approach lighting system should consist of a row of three lights spaced uniformly at 30 m intervals and of a crossbar 18 m in length at a distance of 90 m from the perimeter of the FATO as shown in Figure 5-10. The lights forming the crossbar should be as nearly as practicable in a horizontal straight line at right angles to, and bisected by, the line of the centre lin lights and spaced at 4.5 m intervals.Where there is the need to make the final aproach course more conspicuous additional lights spaced uniformly at 30 m intervals should be added beyond the crossbar. The ights beyond the crossbar may be steady or sequenced flashing, depending upon the environment. Note.— Sequenced flashing lights may be useful where identification of the approach ighting system is difficult due to surrounding lights. 5.3.3.4 Recommendation.— Where an approach lighting system is provided for a non-precision FATO, the system should not be less than 210 m in length. 5.3.3.5 The steady lights shall be omnidirectional white lights. 5.3.3.6 Recommendation.— The light distribution of steady lights should be as indicated in Figure 5-9,Ilustration 2, except that the intensity should be increased by a factor of 3 for a non-precision FATO. 5.3.3.7 Sequenced flashing lights shall be omnidirectional white lights. 5.3.3.8 Recommendation.— The flashing lights should have a flash frequency of one per second and their light distribution should be as shown in Figure 5-9, Ilustration 3. The flash sequence should commence from the outermost ight and progress towards the crossbar. Figure 5-10. Approach lighting system 5.3.3.9 Recommendation.— A suitable brilliancy control should be incorporated to allow for adjustment of light intensity to meet the prevailing conditions. Note.— The following intensity settings have been found suitable: a) steady lights — 100 per cent, 30 per cent and 10 per cent; and b) flashing lights — 100 per cent, 10 per cent and 3 per cent. 5.3.4 Visual alignment guidance system Application 5.3.4.1 Recommendation.—A visual alignment guidance system should be provided to serve the approach to a heliport where one or more of the following conditions exist especially at night: a) obstacle clearance, noise abatement or trafi control procedures require a particular direction to be flown; b) the environment of the heliport provides few visual surface cues; and c) it is physically impracticable to install an approach lighting system. Location 5.3.4.2 The visual aligment guidance system sha be located such that a helicopter is guided along the prescribed track towards the FATO. 5.3.4.3 Recommendation.— The system should be located at the downwind edge of the FATO and aligned along the preferred approach direction. 5.3.4.4 The light units shall be frangible and mounted as low as possible. 5.3.4.5 Where the lights of the system need to be seen as discrete sources, light units shall be lcated such that at the extremes of system coverage the angle subtended between units as seen by the pilot shal not be less than 3 minutes of arc. 5.3.4.6 The angles subtended between light units of the system and other units of comparable or greater intensities shall also be not less than 3 minutes of arc. Note.—Requirements of 5.3.4.5 and 5.3.4.6 can be met for ights on a line normal o the line of sight f the light units are separated by 1 m for every kilometre of viewing range. Signal format 5.3.4.7 The signal format of the alignment guidance system shall include a minimum of three discrete signal sectors providing "offset to the right", "on track" and "offset to the left" signals. 5.3.4.8 The divergence of the "on track" sector of the system shall be as shown in Figure 5-11. 5.3.4.9 The signal format shall be such that there is no possibility of confusion between the system and any associated visual approach slope indicator or other visual aids. Figure 5-11. Divergence of the “on track'"' sector 5.3.4.10 The system shall avoid the use of the same coding as any associated visual approach slope indicator. 5.3.4.11 The signal format shall be such that the system is unique and conspicuous in all operational environments. 5.3.4.12 The system shall not significantly increase the pilot workload. Light distribution 5.3.4.13 The usable coverage of the visual alignment guidance system shall be equal to or better than that of the visual approach slope indicator system with which it is associated. 5.3.4.14 A suitable intensity control hall be provided so as to allow adjustment to meet the prevailig conditions and to avoid dazzling the pilot during approach and landing. Approach track and azimuth setting 5.3.4.15 A visual alignment guidance system shall be capable of adjustment in azimuth to within ±5 minutes of arc of the desired approach path. 5.3.4.16 The angle of the azimuth guidance system shall be such that during an approach the pilot of a helicopter a the boundary of the "on track" signal will clear all objects in the approach area by a safe margin. 5.3.4.17 The characteristics of the obstacle protection surface specified in 5.3.5.23, Table 5-1 and Figure 5-12 shall equally apply to the system. Characteristics of the visual alignment guidance system 5.3.4.18 In the event of the failure of any component affecting the signal format the system shall be automatically switched off. Table 5-1. Dimensions and slopes of the obstacle protection surface SURFACE AND DIMENSIONS NON-INSTRUMENT FATO NON-PRECISION FATO Length of inner edge Width of safety area Width of safety area Distance from end of FATO 3 m minimum 60m Divergence 10% 15% Total length 2500m 2 500m Slope PAPI $\mathrm { A } ^ { \mathrm { a } } - 0 . 5 7 ^ { \circ }$ $\mathrm { A } ^ { \mathrm { a } } - 0 . 5 7 ^ { \mathrm { o } }$ HAPI $\mathbf { A } ^ { \mathrm { b } } - 0 . 6 5 ^ { \circ }$ $\mathrm { A } ^ { \mathrm { b } } - 0 . 6 5 ^ { \circ }$ APAPI $\mathrm { A } ^ { \mathrm { a } } - 0 . 9 ^ { \circ }$ $\mathrm { A } ^ { \mathrm { a } } - 0 . 9 ^ { \circ }$ a. As indicated in Annex 14, Volume I, Figure 5-13.b. The angle of the upper boundary of the "below slope'"' signal. 5.3.4.19 The light units shal e so designed that deposits of condensation, ice, dirt,etc., on opticall transmitting or reflecting surfaces wil nterfere t the least possible extent with the ight sigal and wil not cause spurius o alse signals tbe generated. 5.3.5 Visual approach slope indicator Application 5.3.5.1 Recommendation.—A visual approach slope indicator should be provided to serve the approach to a heliport, whether or not the heliport is served by other visual approach aids or by non-visual aids, where one or more of the following conditions exist especially at night: a) obstacle clearance, noise abatement or traffic control procedures require a particular slope to be flown; b) the environment of the heliport provides few visual surface cues; and c) the characteristics of the helicopter require a stabilized approach. 5.3.5.2 The standard visual approach slope indicator systems for helicopter operations shallconsist of the following: a) PAPI and APAPI systems conforming to the specifications contained in Annex 14, Volume I, 5.3.5.23 to 5.3.5.40 inclusive, except that the angular size of the on-slope sector of the systems shal be increased to 45 minutes; or b) helicopter approach path indicator (HAPI) system conforming to the specifications in 5.3.5.6 to 5.3.5.21 inclusive. Location 5.3.5.3 A visual approach slope indicator shall be located such that a helicopter is guided to the desired position within the FATO and so as to avoid dazzling the pilt during final approach and landing. Figure 5-12. Obstacle protection surface for visual approach slope indicator systems 5.3.5.4 Recommendation.—A visual approach slope indicator should be located adjacent t the nominal aiming point and aligned in azimuth with the preferred approach direction. 5.3.5.5 The light unit(s) shall be frangible and mounted as low as possible. HAPI signal format 5.3.5.6 The signal format of the HAPI shal include four discrete signal sectors, providing an "above slope', an “"on slope", a "slightly below" and a "below slope'"' signal. 5.3.5.7 The signal format of the HAPI shall be as shown in Figure 5-13, Illustrations A and B. Note.— Care is required in the design of the unit to minimize spurious signals between the signal sectors and at the azimuth coverage limits. Figure 5-13. HAPI signal format 5.3.5.8 The signal repetition rate of the flashing sector of the HAPI shall be at least 2 Hz. 5.3.5.9 Recommendation.— The on-to-off ratio of pulsing signals of the HAPI should be 1 to 1 and the modulation depth should be at least 80 per cent. 5.3.5.10 The angular size of the "on-slope"” sector of the HAPI shall be 45 minutes. 5.3.5.11 The angular size of the "slightly below' sector of the HAPI shall be 15 minutes. Light distribution 5.3.5.12 Recommendation.— The light intensity distribution of the HAPI in red and green colours should be as shown in Figure 5-9, Illustration 4. Note.— A larger azimuth coverage can be obtained by installing the HAPI system on a turntable. 5.3.5.13 Colour transition of the HAPI in the vertical plane shall be such as to appear to an observer at a distance of not less than 300 m to occur within a vertical angle of not more than three minutes. 5.3.5.14 The transmission factor of a red or greenfiter shal be not less than 15 per cent at the maximum intensit setting. 5.3.5.15 At full intensity the red light of the HAPI shall have a Y-coordinate not exceeding 0.320, and the green light shall be within the boundaries specified in Annex 14, Volume I, Appendix 1, 2.1.3. 5.3.5.16 A suitable intensity control hall be provided so as to allow adjustment to meet the prevailig conditions and to avoid dazzling the pilot during approach and landing. Approach slope and elevation setting 5.3.5.17 A HAPI system shall be capable of adjustment in elevation at any desired angle between 1 degree and 12 degrees above the horizontal with an accuracy of ±5 minutes of arc. 5.3.5.18 The angle of elevation setting of HAPI shall be such that during an approach, the pilot of a helicopter observing the upper boundary of the “below slope'" signal will clear all objects in the approach area by a safe margin. Characteristics of the light unit 5.3.5.19 The system shall be so designed that: a) in the event the vertical misalignment of a unit exceeds ±0.5 degrees (±30 minutes), the system will switch off automatically; and b) if the flashing mechanism fails, no light will be emitted in the failed flashing sector(s). 5.3.5.20 The light unit of the HAPI shall be so designed that deposits of condensation, ice, dirt, etc., on optically transmiting or reflecting surfaces wil interfere to the least possiblextent with th light ignal and wil not cause spurious or false signals to be generated. 5.3.5.21 Recommendation.— A HAPI system intended for installation on a floating helideck should afford a stabilization of the beam to an accuracy of ±1/4 degree within ± 3-degree pitch and roll movement of the helipor. Obstacle protection surface Note.— The following specifications apply to PAPI, APAPI and HAPI. 5.3.5.22 An obstacle protection surface shall be established when it is intended to provide a visual approach slope indicator system. 5.3.5.23 The characteristics of the obstacle protection surface, .e. origin, divergence, length and slope, hall corespond to those specified in the relevant column of Table 5-1 and in Figure 5-12. 5.3.5.24 New objects or extensions of existing objects shall not be permited above an obstacle protection surface except when, in the opinion of the appropriate authority, the new object or extension would be shielded by an existing immovable object. Note.— Circumstances in which the shielding principle may reasonably be applied are described in the Airport Services Manual, Part 6 (Doc 9137). 5.3.5.25 Existing objects above an obstacle protection surface shall be removed except when, in the opinion of the appropriate authority, the objec s shielded by an existing mmovable object, or ater aeronautical study it is determined that the object would not adversely affect the safety of operations of helicopters. 5.3.5.26 Where an aeronautical study indicates that an existing object extending above an obstacle protection surface could adversely affect the safety of operations of helicopters, one or more of the following measures shall be taken: a) suitably raise the approach slope of the system; b) reduce the azimuth spread of the system so that the object is outside the confines of the beam; c) displace the axis of the system and its associated obstacle protection surface by no more than 5 degrees; d) suitably displace the FATO; and e) install a visual alignment guidance system specified in 5.3.4. Note.— Guidance on this issue is contained in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261). 5.3.6 Final approach and take-off area lights Application 5.3.6.1 Where a FATO is established at a surface-level heliport on ground intended for use at night, FATO lights shall be provided except that they may be omited where the FATO and th TLOF are nearly coincidental or the extent of the FATO is self-evident. Location 5.3.6.2 FATO lights shall be placed along the edges of the FATO. The lights shall be uniformly spaced as follows: a) for an area in the form of a square or rectangle, at intervals of not more than 50 m with a minimum of four lights on each side including a light at each corner; and b) for any other shaped area, including a circular area, at intervals of not more than 5 m with a minimum of ten lights. Characteristics 5.3.6.3 FATO lights shall be fixed omnidirectional lights showing white. Where the intensity of the lights is to be varied the lights shall show variable white. 5.3.6.4 Recommendation.— The light distribution of FATO lights should be as shown in Figure 5-9, Ilustration 5. 5.3.6.5 Recommendation.—The lights should not exceed a height of 25 cm and should be inset when a light extending above the surface would endanger helicopter operations. Where a FATO is not meant for iftof or touchdown, the lights should not exceed a height of 25 cm above ground or snow level. 5.3.7 Aiming point lights Application 5.3.7.1 Recommendation.— Where an aiming point marking is provided at a heliport intended for use at night, aiming point lights should be provided. Location 5.3.7.2 Aiming point lights shal be collocated with the aiming point marking. Characteristics 5.3.7.3 Aiming point lights shal form a pattern of at least six omnidirectional whitelights as shown in Figure 5-4. The lights shall be inset when a light extending above the surface could endanger helicopter operations. 5.3.7.4 Recommendation.— The light istribution of aiming point lights should be as shown in Figure 5-9, Ilustration 5. 5.3.8 Touchdown and lift-off area lighting system Application 5.3.8.1 A TLOF lighting system shall be provided at a heliport intended for use at night. 5.3.8.2 The TLOF lighting system for a surface-level heliport shall consist of one or more of the following: a) perimeter lights; or b) floodlighting; or c) arrays of segmented point source lighting (ASPSL) or luminescent panel (LP) ighting to identify the TLOF when a) and b) are not practicable and FATO lights are available. 5.3.8.3 The TLOF lighting system for an elevated heliport or helideck shall consist of : a) perimeter lights; and b) ASPSL and/or LPs to identify the touchdown marking where it is provided and/or floodlighting to iluminate the TLOF. Note. —At elevated heliports and helidecks, surface texture cues within the TLOF are essential for helicopter positioning during the final approach and landing. Such cues can be provided using various forms of lighting (ASPSL, LP, floodights or a combination of these lights, etc.) in adition to perimeter lights. Best results have been demonstrated by the combination of perimeter lights and ASPSL in the form of encapsulated strips of light emiting diodes (LEDs) to identify the touchdown and heliport identification markings. 5.3.8.4 Recommendation.— TLOF ASPSL and/or LPs to identify the touchdown marking and/ or floodighting should be provided at a surface-level heliport intended for use at night when enhanced surface texture cues are required. Location 5.3.8.5 TLOF perimeter lights shall be placed along the edge of the area designated for use as the TLOF or within a distance of 1.5 m from the edge. Where the TLOF is a circle the lights shall be: a) located on straight lines in a pattern which will provide information to pilots on drift displacement; and b) where a) is not practicable, evenly spaced around the perimeter of the TLOF at the appropriate interval, except that over a sector of 45 degrees the lights shall be spaced at half spacing. 5.3.8.6 TLOF perimeter lights shall be uniformly spaced at intervals of not more than 3 m for elevated heliports and helidecks and not more than 5 m for surface-level heliports. There shall be a minimum number of four lights on each side including a light at each corer. For a circular TLOF, where lights are installed in accordance with 5..8.5 b) there shall be a minimum of fourteen lights. Note.— Guidance on this issue is contained in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261). 5.3.8.7 The TLOF perimeter lights shall be instaled at an elevated heliport o fixed helideck such that the pattern cannot be seen by the pilot from below the elevation of the TLOF. 5.3.8.8 The TLOF perimeter lights shall be installed at a floating helideck, such that the pattern canot be seen by the pilot from below the elevation of the TLOF when the helideck is level. 5.3.8.9 On surface-level heliports, ASPSL or LPs, if provided to identify the TLOF, shal be placed along the marking designating the edge of the TLOF. Where the TLOF is a circle, they shall be located on straight lines circumscribing the area. 5.3.8.10 On surface-level heliports the minimum number of LPs on a TLOF shall be nine. The total ength of LPs in a pattern shall not be les than 50 per cent of the length of the patter. There shall be an odd number wit a minimum number of three panels on each side of the TLOF including a panel at each corer. LPs shall be uniformly spaced with a distance between adjacent panel ends of not more than 5 m on each side of the TLOF. 5.3.8.11 Recommendation.— When LPs are used on an elevated heliport or helideck to enhance surface texture cues, the panels should not be placed adjacent to the perimeter ights. They should be placed around a touchdown marking where it is provided or coincident with heliport identification marking. 5.3.8.12 TLOF floodights shall be located so as to avoid glare to pilots i fight or to personnel working on the area. The arrangement and aiming of floodlights shall be such that shadows are kept to a minimum. Note.— ASPSL and LPs used to designate the touchdown and/or heliport identification marking have been shown to provide enhanced surface texture cues when compared t low-level floodights. Due to the risk of misalignment, if flodlights are used, there wil be a need for them to be checked periodicall to ensure they remain within the specifications contained within 5.3.8. Characteristics 5.3.8.13 The TLOF perimeter lights shall be fixed omnidirectional lights showing green. 5.3.8.14 At a surface-level heliport, ASPSL or LPs shal emit green light when used to define the perimeter of the TLOF. 5.3.8.15 The provisions of 5.3.8.13 and 5.3.8.14 shall not require the replacement of existing installations before 1 January 2009. 5.3.8.16 Recommendation.— The chromaticity and luminance of colours of LPs should conform to Annex 14, Volume I, Appendix 1, 3.4. 5.3.8.17 An LP shal have a minimum width of 6 cm. The panel housing shall be the same colour as the marking it defines. 5.3.8.18 Recommendation.— The perimeter lights should not exceed a height of 25 cm and should be inset when a light extending above the surface could endanger helicopter operations. 5.3.8.19 Recommendation.— When located within the safety area of a heliport or within the obstacle-fre sector of a helideck, the TLOF floodlights should not exceed a height of 25 cm. 5.3.8.20 The LPs shall not extend above the surface by more than 2.5 cm. 5.3.8.21 Recommendation.— The light distribution of the perimeter ights should be as shown in Figure 5-9, Illustration 6. 5.3.8.22 Recommendation.— The light distribution of the LPs should be as shown in Figure 5-9, Ilustration 7. 5.3.8.23 The spectral disribution of TLOF area floodlights shall be such that the surface and obstacle marking can be correctly identified. 5.3.8.24 Recommendation.— The average horizontal illuminance of the floodighting should be at least 10 lux, with a uniformity ratio (average to minimum) of not more than 8:1 measured on the surface of the TLOF. 5.3.8.25 Recommendation.— Lighting used to identify the touchdown marking should comprise a segmented circle of omnidirectional ASPSL strips showing yellow. The segments should consist of ASPSL strips, and the total length of the ASPSL strips should not be less than 50 per cent of the circumference of the circle. 5.3.8.26 Recommendation.—If utilized, the heliport identification marking lighting should be omnidirectional showing green. 5.3.9 Winching area floodlighting Application 5.3.9.1 Winching area floodlighting shal be provided at a winching area intended for use at night. Location 5.3.9.2 Winching area floodlights shall be located so as to avoid glare to pilots in flight or to personnel working on the area. The arrangement and aiming of floodlights shall be such that shadows are kept to a minimum. Characteristics 5.3.9.3 The spectral distribution of winching area flodlights shall be such that the surface and obstacle markings can be correctly identified. 5.3.9.4 Recommendation.— The average horizontal iluminance should be at least 10 lux, measured on the surface of the winching area. 5.3.10 Taxiway lights Note.—The specifications for axiway centre line lights and taxiway edge lights in Annex 14, Volume I, 5.3.16 and 5.3.17, are equally applicable to taxiways intended for ground taxing of helicopters. 5.3.11 Visual aids for denoting obstacles Note.— The specifications for marking and lighting of obstacles included in Annex 14, Volume I, Chapter 6, are equally applicable to heliports and winching areas. 5.3.12 Floodlighting of obstacles Application 5.3.12.1 At a heliport intended for use at night, obstacles shall be floodighted if it is not possible to display obstacle lights on them. Location 5.3.12.2 Obstacle floodlights shal be arranged so as t illuminate the entire obstacle and as far as practicable in a manner so as not to dazzle the helicopter pilots. Characteristics 5.3.12.3 Recommendation.— Obstacle floodlighting should be such as to produce a luminance of at least 10cd/m². CHAPTER 6. HELIPORT SERVICES 6.1 Rescue and fire fighting General Introductory Note.— These specifications apply to surface-level heliports and elevated heliports only. The specifications complement those in Annex 14, Volume I, 9.2, concerning rescue and fire fighting requirements at aerodromes. The principal objective of a rescue and fire fighting service is to save lives. For this reason, the provision of means of dealing with a helicopter accident or incident occurring at or in the immediate vicinity of a heliport assumes primary importance because it is within his area that there are the greatest opportunitis for saving lives.This must assume at al imes the possibility of, and need for, extinguishing a fire which may occur either immediately fllwing a helicopter accident or incident or at any time during rescue operations. The most important factors bearing on effective rescue in a survivable helicopter accident are the training received, the effectiveness of the equipment and the speed with which personnel and equipment designated for rescue and fire fighting purposes can be put into use. For an elevated heliport, requirements to protect any building or structure on which the heliport is located are not taken into account. Rescue and fire fighting requirements for helidecks may be found in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261). Level of protection to be provided 6.1.1 Recommendation.— The level of protection to be provided for rescue and fire fighting should be based on the overallength of the longest helicopter normally using the heliport and in accordance wit the heliport fire fighting category determined from Table 6-1, except at an unattended heliport with a low movement rate. Note.— Guidance to assist the appropriate authority in providing rescue and fire fighting equipment and services at surface-level and elevated heliports is given in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261). Table 6-1. Heliport fire fghting category Category Helicopter overall lengtha H1 up to but not including 15 m H2 from 15 m up to but not including 24 m H3 from 24 m up to but not including 35 m a. Helicopter length, including the tail boom and the rotors. 6.1.2 Recommendation.— During anticipated periods of operations by smaller helicopters, the heliport fire fighting category may be reduced to that of the highest category of helicopter planned to use the heliport during that time. Extinguishing agents 6.1.3 Recommendation.— The principal extinguishing agent should be a foam meting the minimum performance level B. Note.— Information on the required physical properties and fire extinguishing performance criteria needed for a foam to achieve an acceptable performance level B rating is given in the Airport Services Manual, Part 1 (Doc 9137). 6.1.4 Recommendation.— The amounts of water for foam production and the complementary agents to be provided should be in accordance with the heliport firefighting category determined under6.1.1 and Table 6-2 or Tabl 6-3 as appropriate. Note.—The amounts of water specified for elevated heliports do not have to be stored on or adjacent to the heliport f there is a suitable adjacent pressurized water main system capable of sustaining the required discharge rate. Table 6-2. Minimum usable amounts of extinguishing agents for surface-level heliports Foam meeting performance level B Complementary agents Water (L) Discharge rate foam solution (L/min) Dry chemical powders (kg) Halons (kg) CO2 (kg) Category (1) (2) (3) (4) or or (5) (6) H1 500 250 23 23 45 H2 1000 500 45 45 90 H3 1600 800 90 90 180 Table 6-3. Minimum usable amounts of extinguishing agents for elevated heliports Foam meeting performance level B Complementary agents Category Water (L) Discharge rate foam solution (L/min) Dry chemical powders (kg) Halons (kg) CO2 (kg) (1) (2) (3) (4) or or (5) (6) H1 2500 250 45 45 90 H2 5000 500 45 45 90 H3 8000 800 45 45 90 6.1.5 Recommendation.—At a surface-lvel heliport it is permissible to replace allor part of the amount of water for foam production by complementary agents. 6.1.6 Recommendation.— The discharge rate of the foam solution should not be less than the rates shown in Table 6-2 or Table 6-3 as appropriate. The discharge rate of complementary agents should be selected for optimum effectivenessof the agent used. 6.1.7 Recommendation.—At an elevated helipor, a least one hose spray line capable of delivering foam in a jet spray pattern at 250 Lmin should be provided. Additionally at eleated heliports in categories 2 and 3, at least two monitors should be provided each having a capabilit of achieving the required discharge rate and positioned at different locations around the heliports so as to ensure the application of foam to any part of the heliport under any weather condition and to minimize the possibility of both monitors being impaired by a helicopter accident. Rescue equipment 6.1.8 Recommendation.—At an elevated heliport rescue equipment should be stored adjacent to the heliport. Note.— Guidance on the rescue equipment to be provided at a heliport is given in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261). Response time 6.1.9 Recommendation.—At a surface-level heliport, the operational objective of the rescue and fire fighting service should be to achieve response times not exceeding two minutes in optimum conditions of visibility and surface conditions. Note.— Response time is considered to be the time between the initial call to the rescue and fire fighting service and the time when the first responding vehicle(s) the service) is (are) in position to apply foam at a rate of at least 50 per cent of the discharge rate specified in Table 6-2. 6.1.10 Recommendation.—At an elevated heliport, the rescue and fire fighting service should be immediately available on or in the vicinity of the heliport while helicopter movements are taking place. APPENDIX 1. AERONAUTICAL DATA QUALITY REQUIREMENTS Table A1-1. Latitude and longitude Accuracy IntegrityLatitude and longitude Data type Classification Heliport reference point 30m $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 3 }$ Navaids located at the heliport .Obstacles in Area 3. surveyed/calculated routine 3m $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ Obstacles in Area 3. surveyed essential 0.5m $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ Obstacles in Area 2 (the part within the heliport boundary)Geometric centre of TLOF or FATO thresholds . surveyed essential 5m $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ surveyed essential 1m $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 8 }$ Ground taxiway centre line points, air taxiway and transit route pointsGround taxiway intersection marking line surveyed critical 0.5m $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ surveyed/calculated essential 0.5m $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ Ground exit guidance line surveyed essential 0.5m $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ Apron boundaries (polygon)De-icing/anti-icing facility (polygon)Helicopter standpoints/INS checkpoints surveyed essential 1m $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 3 }$ surveyed routine 1m $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 3 }$ surveyed routine 0.5m $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 3 }$ surveyed routine Table A1-2. Elevation/altitude/height Elevation/altitude/height Accuracy Data type Integrity Classification Heliport elevation …… 0.5m surveyed $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ essential WGS-84 geoid undulation at heliport elevation position …… 0.5 m surveyed $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ essential FATO threshold, non-precision approaches … 0.5m surveyed $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ essential WGS–84 geoid undulation at FATO threshold, TLOF geometric centre, non-precision approaches .. 0.5m surveyed $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ essential FATO threshold, precision approaches …. 0.25m surveyed $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 8 }$ critical WGS–84 geoid undulation at FATO threshold, TLOF geometric centre, precision approaches … 0.25m $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 8 }$ Ground taxiway centre line points, air taxiway and transit route points surveyed 1m critical $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ Obstacles in Area 2 (the part within the heliport boundary) surveyed 3m essential $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ Obstacles in Area 3 .. surveyed 0.5m essential $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ Distance measuring equipment/precision (DME/P) … surveyed 3m surveyed essential $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ essential Note 1.—See Annex 15, Appendix8, for graphical ilustrations of obstacle data collection surfaces and criteria used to identify obstacles in the defined areas. Note 2.—Implementation of Annex 15, provision 10.6.1.2, concerning the availability, as of 18November 2010, of obstacle data according toArea 2 and Area 3 specifications would be facilitated by appropriate advance planning for the colletion and processing of such data. Table A1-3. Declination and magnetic variation Declination/variation Accuracy Data type Integrity Classfication Heliport magnetic variation 1 degree $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ surveyed essential ILS localizer antenna magnetic variation 1 degree $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ surveyed essential 1 degree $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ surveyed essential Table A1-4. Bearing Bearing Accuracy Data type Integrity Classification ILS localizer alignment . 1/100 degree surveyed $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ essential MLS zero azimuth alignment …. 1/100 degree surveyed $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ essential 1/100 degree surveyed $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 3 }$ routine Table A1-5. Length/distance/dimension Accuracy IntegrityLength/distance/dimension Data type Classifi cation FATO length, TLOF dimensions …… Clearway length and width 1m $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 8 }$ surveyed critical 1m $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ Landing distance available surveyed essential 1m $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 8 }$ Take-off distance available surveyed critical 1m $1 \times { 1 0 } ^ { - 8 }$ Rejected take-off distance available surveyed critical 1m $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 8 }$ surveyed critical Taxiway width 1m $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ ILS localizer antenna-FATO end, distance . surveyed essential 3m $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 3 }$ ILS glide slope antenna-threshold, distance along centre line . calculated routine3m $1 \times { 1 0 } ^ { - 3 }$ ILS marker-threshold distance …… calculated routine 3m $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ calculated3m essential ILS DME antenna-threshold, distance along centre line … $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ calculated3m essential MLS azimuth antenna-FATO end, distance . $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 3 }$ calculated3m routine MLS elevation antenna-threshold, distance along centre line .. $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 3 }$ MLS DME/P antenna-threshold, distance along centre line calculated3m routine $1 \times 1 0 ^ { - 5 }$ calculated essential ICAO Doc 9261 Heliport Manual (5th ed.) Doc 9261 Heliport Manual Fifth Edition, 2021 Approved by and published under the authority of the Secretary General INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION Doc 9261 Heliport Manual Fifth Edition, 2021 Approved by and published under the authority of the Secretary General Published in separate English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish editions by the INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION 999 Robert-Bourassa Boulevard, Montréal, Quebec, Canada H3C 5H7 For ordering information and for a complete listing of sales agents and booksellers, please go to the ICAO website at www.icao.int Third edition, 1995 Fourth edition, 2020 Fifth edition, 2021 Doc 9261, Heliport Manual Order Number: 9261 ISBN 978-92-9265-356-9 © ICAO 2021 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, without prior permission in writing from the International Civil Aviation Organization. AMENDMENTS Amendments are announced in the supplements to the Products and Services Catalogue; the Catalogue and its supplements are available on the ICAO website at www.icao.int. The space below is provided to keep a record of such amendments. RECORD OF AMENDMENTS AND CORRIGENDA AMENDMENTS CORRIGENDA No. Date Entered by No. Date FOREWORD The Heliport Manual (Doc 9261) is divided into two parts to address helicopter landing areas at a range of offshore installations and vessels (Part I), as distinct from the heliports used in the onshore environment (Part II). Although not exclusively the case, the types of facilities illustrated in Part I are typically used in the process of mineral extraction and for the exploration and/or exploitation of oil and/or gas in the offshore environment. Increasingly, however, installations equipped with helicopter landing areas are being used to service the offshore renewable energy sector, e.g. a substation with helideck is used as a base for helicopters shuttling around a wind farm. Although the current method of personnel transfer from a helicopter to a wind turbine (nacelle) tends to be helicopter hoist operations (HHO), rather than land-on operations, it is possible that in the future, considering the development of yet-larger wind turbines, some turbines may be equipped with helicopter landing areas that allow maintenance personnel to land on the turbine in the same way that a helicopter would land on an oil or gas facility. Part II deals with two principal types of heliports: surface level heliports and elevated heliports. It also provides guidance on aspects not included in Annex 14, Volume II, e.g. site selection, site management and safeguarding, the design helicopter, surface loading, vertical procedures and virtual clearways. Users of this manual are advised that specifications related to helicopter operations in other Annexes, for instance, Annex 6 — Operation of Aircraft, Part III — International Operations — Helicopters, may vary somewhat from those specified in Annex 14, Volume II. In such cases, the more demanding requirements should be applied. To assist users, the characteristics of the majority of helicopter types currently in use are considered in Part II, Appendix A, Chapter 3 of this manual. Acknowledgements ICAO wishes to acknowledge the dedicated work of the offshore subgroup of the Heliport Design Working Group (HDWG) of the ICAO Aerodrome Design and Operations Panel (ADOP) in developing the contents of this manual. Future developments Part I — Offshore Heliports and Part II — Onshore Heliports represent the first stage in the modernization and updating of the Heliport Manual in light of the substantial development of Annex 14 — Aerodromes, Volume II — Heliports in recent years, and of the equipment, technology and best practices used by the heliports arena. The content of this manual should not be taken as contradicting or conflicting with Annex 14 provisions or any other Standards, Recommended Practices, procedures or guidance material published by ICAO. The guidance material in this manual will be updated at regular intervals. Comments on this manual would be appreciated from all parties involved in heliport design, construction, safety oversight and operations. These comments should be addressed to: The Secretary General International Civil Aviation Organization 999 Robert-Bourassa Boulevard Montréal, Quebec, Canada H3C 5H7 icaohq@icao.int TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Glossary (ix) Explanation of terms ..... ....................................................................................................... (ix) Abbreviations/acronyms . ....................................................................................................... (xiii) References .. ............................................................................ (xvii) PART I. OFFSHORE HELIPORTS CHAPTER 1. General . ..... I-1-1 1.1 Introduction .... ............................................. I-1-1 1.2 Helidecks ... .............................................................. I-1-2 1.3 Shipboard heliports... ............................................ I-1-6 1.4 Table of characteristics for common offshore helicopter types . ............................................. I-1-10 CHAPTER 2. Heliport data .... ............................................ I-2-1 2.1 Introduction .. I-2-1 2.2 Authorization of offshore heliports – assessment checklist, content of a helideck directory (HD) and content of a helideck information plate (HIP) .. I-2-1 CHAPTER 3. Physical characteristics .. ...... I-3-1 3.1 Helideck and purpose-built shipboard heliport structural design . ..... I-3-1 3.2 Helideck/shipboard heliport design considerations — including environmental effects ................ I-3-4 3.3 Guidance on helideck size and surface mounted objects ....... .............. I-3-10 3.4 Shipboard heliport size and surface-mounted objects . ....................................................... I-3-12 3.5 Helideck surface arrangements . ............................................ I-3-14 3.6 Shipboard heliport surface arrangements .. .......................................................... I-3-17 CHAPTER 4. Obstacle environment.. ..... I-4-1 4.1 Description of surfaces — helidecks.. ..... I-4-1 4.2 Description of surfaces — shipboard heliports . ......................................... I-4-2 4.3 Temporary combined operations . ......................................... I-4-3 4.4 Multiple platform configurations/location of standby vessels . ............................. I-4-4 4.5 Guidance for obstacle-protected surfaces for square or circular helidecks . .......................... I-4-4 4.6 Mapping of obstacles on non-purpose-built shipboard heliports .. ..... I-4-5 CHAPTER 5. Visual aids — Marking and lighting.. ....... I-5-1 5.1 General....... ....................................................................................... I-5-1 5.2 Wind direction indicator .... .............................................................................................. I-5-2 5.3 Heliport identification (H) marking . ...... ............................................... ................... I-5-2 5.4 Maximum allowable mass marking.. ................................................................................... I-5-3 5.5 D-value markings . ................................................................................ I-5-4 5.6 TLOF perimeter marking .. ................................................................................. I-5-5 5.7 Touchdown/positioning marking circle... ............................................................................... I-5-5 5.8 Heliport name marking ............. ................................................................... I-5-6 5.9 Helideck obstacle-free sector (chevron) marking . .................................................................. I-5-7 5.10 Helideck and shipboard heliport surface marking.. .................................................................... I-5-7 5.11 Prohibited landing sector marking ... .................................................... I-5-8 5.12 General considerations for lights including screening.. I-5-8 5.13 TLOF lighting systems utilizing floodlight solutions . I-5-9 5.14 TLOF lighting systems utilizing “H” and circle lighting — details of a scheme first adopted in the United Kingdom .... ......... I-5-10 5.15 Lighting systems — special considerations for non-purpose-built shipboard heliports...... ....... I-5-10 5.16 Visual aids for denoting obstacles — marking and lighting (including floodlighting) .. I-5-11 CHAPTER 6. Helideck rescue and firefighting facilities.. ........ I-6-1 6.1 Introduction... ......... ....... I-6-1 6.2 Key design characteristics — principal agent ... ..................................................................... I-6-1 6.3 Use and maintenance of foam equipment .. ....................................................................... I-6-5 6.4 Complementary media . .................................................................. I-6-5 6.5 Not permanently attended installations (NPAIs) .. ................................................................... I-6-6 6.6 The management of extinguishing media stocks... ......... I-6-7 6.7 Rescue equipment.......... ............................................................................... I-6-7 6.8 Personnel levels . I-6-7 6.9 Personal protective equipment (PPE).. ............................................................................... I-6-8 6.10 Training .... ............................................................................... I-6-8 6.11 Emergency procedures ................................................................................................................ I-6-9 CHAPTER 7. Winching areas on ships .. ...... ......... I-7-1 7.1 General considerations including location, physical characteristics and obstacle protection........ I-7-1 7.2 Marking of a winching area...... .................... ............................ I-7-2 7.3 Lighting of a winching area for night heli-hoist operations. ...... ..... ........ .................. I-7-4 7.4 Additional operational considerations. ............................ I-7-4 CHAPTER 8. Miscellaneous items . ................................................................... I-8-1 8.1 Criteria for parking areas and push-in parking areas...................................................................... I-8-1 8.2 Meteorological equipment provision ..... ...................................................................... I-8-9 8.3 Deck motions reporting and recording............................................................................................ I-8-10 8.4 Communications and navigation equipment.. .................................................................... I-8-11 8.5 Helicopter refuelling operations .. ........ ................................................... I-8-11 8.6 Bird control at normally unattended offshore facilities . I-8-12 APPENDICES TO PART I APPENDIX I-A. Sample risk assessment for helicopter operations to helidecks and shipboard heliports which are sub-1D... I-App A-1 APPENDIX I-B. Specification for helideck lighting scheme comprising: perimeter lights, lit touchdown/positioning marking and lit heliport identification marking ...... I-App B-1 APPENDIX I-C. Drainage calculation .... I-App C-1 PART II. ONSHORE HELIPORTS CHAPTER 1. Historical background . ..... II-1-1 1.1 Introduction.. ............................................................................................ II-1-1 1.2 Scope and purpose . ........................................................................ II-1-1 1.3 Contents of document . ........................................................................ II-1-2 CHAPTER 2. Site selection, management and heliport data . ..................................................... II-2-1 2.1 Site selection and management . ......................................................................................... II-2-1 2.2 Heliport data . ....................................................................................... II-2-7 2.3 Certification of heliports .... ...................................................................................................... II-2-8 2.4 Safety management system ......................................................................................................... II-2-8 2.5 Heliport winterization .. .................................................................................................. II-2-8 2.6 Safeguarding of heliports... .................................................................................... II-2-8 2.7 Inspector qualifications and training ............................................................... II-2-9 CHAPTER 3. Physical characteristics of onshore heliports.... .......................................................... II-3-1 3.1 General... ..................................................................... II-3-1 3.2 FATO.. .............................................................................. II-3-9 3.3 TLOF . ................................................................................ II-3-21 3.4 Helicopter taxiways and taxi-routes. ....................................................................................... II-3-25 3.5 Aprons and stands .... ............................................................................................ II-3-27 CHAPTER 4. Obstacle environment.... ................................................................................................... II-4-1 4.1 Obstacle limitation surfaces and sectors . ............................................................................. II-4-1 4.2 Application of obstacle limitations..... .................................................................................... II-4-11 CHAPTER 5. Visual aids .... ............................................................................. II-5-1 5.1 Indicators ..... .................................................................................................................... II-5-1 5.2 Marking aids ..... ........................................................................................................................... II-5-2 5.3 Lights... ................................................................................................................. II-5-18 Page CHAPTER 6. Heliport emergency response ... II-6-1 6.1 Heliport emergency planning .... II-6-1 6.2 Rescue and firefighting service (RFFS) ............... ......... II-6-3 APPENDICES TO PART II APPENDIX A TO CHAPTER 2. Sample aviation safeguarding procedure .... . II-2-App A-1 APPENDIX A TO CHAPTER 3. The design helicopter .. .. II-3-App A-1 APPENDIX B TO CHAPTER 3. Surface loading ... .. II-3-App B-1 APPENDIX C TO CHAPTER 3. Establishing the rejected take-off distance ...... .. II-3-App C-1 APPENDIX D TO CHAPTER 3. Establishing a virtual clearway ... ......... II-3-App D-1 APPENDIX A TO CHAPTER 4. Elevating the origin of the take-off climb or approach surfaces and utilizing PC1 vertical procedures .... . II-4-App A-1 APPENDIX B TO CHAPTER 4. Single take-off and climb and approach surface . . II-4-App B-1 APPENDIX A TO CHAPTER 5. Visual alignment guidance system .. . II-5-App A-1 APPENDIX B TO CHAPTER 5. Helicopter approach path indicator .. ..... II-5-App B-1 APPENDIX C TO CHAPTER 5. Example of the UK specification for a hospital heliport lighting system . .. II-5-App C-1 APPENDIX A TO CHAPTER 6. Example of a task/resource analysis (TRA) . . II-6-App A-1 APPENDIX B TO CHAPTER 6. Certification status (crashworthiness) ....... ....... II-6-App B-1 GLOSSARY EXPLANATION OF TERMS Category A. With respect to helicopters, a multi-engined helicopter designed with engine and system isolation features specified in Annex 8 — Airworthiness of Aircraft, Part IVB, and capable of operations using take-off and landing data scheduled under a critical engine failure concept which assures adequate designated surface area and adequate performance capability for continued safe flight or safe rejected take-off. Category B. With respect to helicopters, a single engine or multi-engined helicopter which does not meet Category A standards. Category B helicopters have no guaranteed capability to continue safe flight in the event of an engine failure, and a forced landing is assumed. Commercial air transport operation. An aircraft operation involving the transport of passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or hire. Congested area. In relation to a city, town or settlement, any area which is substantially used for residential, commercial or recreational purposes. D. The largest overall dimension of the helicopter, when rotor(s) are turning, measured from the most forward position of the main rotor tip path plane to the most rearward position of the tail rotor tip path plane or helicopter structure. D is sometimes referred to as D-value. Distance DR. The horizontal distance that a helicopter has travelled from the end of the take-off distance available. D-Value. A limiting dimension, in terms of D, for a heliport, helideck or shipboard heliport, or for a defined area within. Design helicopter. The helicopter type having the largest overall length and greatest maximum certificated take-off mass for which a helideck or shipboard heliport has been designed. Both attributes may not reside in the same helicopter. Dynamic load-bearing surface. A surface capable of supporting the loads generated by a helicopter in motion. Essential objects permitted. Includes, but may not be limited to: around the touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF): perimeter lights and floodlights, guttering and raised kerb, foam monitors or ring-main system, handrails and associated signage, other lights; on the TLOF: helideck net and helideck touchdown marking (“H” and “circle”) lighting; and in the area between the TLOF perimeter and the FATO perimeter, helideck safety netting is present (for helideck installations completed on or before 1 January 2012, this is permitted to exceed the TLOF surface by 25 cm (10 in)). For helidecks completed after 1 January 2012, the outboard edge of netting should be flush, level with the TLOF (for shipboard heliports the effective date is 1 January 2015)). Elevated heliport. A heliport located on a raised structure on land. En-route phase. That part of the flight from the end of the take-off and initial climb phase to the commencement of the approach and landing phase. Note.— Where adequate obstacle clearance cannot be guaranteed visually, flights must be planned to ensure that obstacles can be cleared by an appropriate margin. In the event of failure of the critical engine, operators may need to adopt alternative procedures. Exposure. Any part of a flight during which a system or engine failure leading to a forced landing is likely to result in a hazardous or catastrophic outcome. Exposure time. The period during which the performance of the helicopter with the critical engine inoperative in still air does not guarantee a safe forced landing or the safe continuation of the flight. Falling gradient. A surface extending downwards on a gradient of 5:1 measured from the edge of the safety netting (or shelving) located around the TLOF below the elevation of the helideck or shipboard heliport to water level for an arc of not less than 180 degrees, which passes through the centre of the TLOF and outwards to a distance that will allow for safe clearance of obstacles below the TLOF in the event of an engine failure for the type of helicopter the helideck or shipboard heliport is intended to serve. Where high-performing helicopters are exclusively used, consideration may be given to relaxing the falling gradient from a 5:1 to a 3:1 slope. FATO. A defined area over which the final phase of the approach manoeuvre to hover or land is completed and from which the take-off manoeuvre is commenced. Where the FATO is to be used by helicopters operating in performance Class 1, the defined area includes the rejected take-off area available. Hazard. A condition or an object with the potential to cause or contribute to an aircraft incident or accident. Helideck. A heliport located on a fixed or floating offshore facility such as an exploration and/or production unit used for the exploitation of oil and gas. Heliport elevation. The highest point of the final approach and take-off area (FATO). Landing distance available (LDAH). The length of the final approach and take-off area plus any additional area declared available and suitable for helicopters to complete the landing manoeuvre from a defined height. Landing distance required (LDRH). The horizontal distance required to land and come to a full stop from a point 15 m (50 ft) above the landing surface. Landing decision point (LDP). The point used in determining landing performance from which, an engine failure occurring at this point, the landing may be safely continued or a balked landing initiated. Note.— LDP applies only to helicopters operating in performance Class 1. Limited obstacle sector(s). A sector, not greater than 150 degrees, within which obstacles may be permitted, provided the height of the obstacles is limited. Limited-sized heliport. For the purpose of establishing an RFFS, a heliport where the firefighting capacity is concentrated at the FATO/TLOF and there is no requirement to move foam and/or water dispensing equipment. Obstacle. All fixed (whether temporary or permanent) and mobile objects, or parts thereof, that: are located on an area intended for the surface movement of helicopters; extend above a defined surface intended to protect helicopters in flight; or stand outside those defined surfaces but nonetheless are assessed as a hazard to air navigation. Obstacle-free sector. A sector, not less than 210 degrees, extending outwards to a distance that will allow for an unobstructed departure path appropriate to the helicopter the TLOF is intended to serve, within which no obstacles above the level of the TLOF are permitted (for helicopters operated in PC1 or PC2 the horizontal extent of this distance will be compatible with the one-engine inoperative capability of the helicopter type to be used). Operations in Performance Class 1 (PC1). Operations with performance such that, in the event of a critical engine failure, performance is available to enable the helicopter to safely continue the flight to an appropriate landing area, unless the failure occurs prior to reaching the take-off decision point (TDP) or after passing the landing decision point (LDP), in which cases the helicopter must be able to land within the rejected take-off or landing area. Operations in Performance Class 2 (PC2). Operations with performance such that, in the event of critical engine failure, performance is available to enable the helicopter to safely continue the flight to an appropriate landing area, except when the failure occurs early during the take-off manoeuvre or late in the landing manoeuvre, in which cases a forced landing may be required. Operations in Performance Class 3 (PC3). Operations with performance such that, in the event of an engine failure at any time during the flight, a forced landing will be required. Purpose-built heliport. A specifically designed structure, normally fabricated from aluminium or steel, put in place for the purpose of operating helicopters. Note.— A non-purpose-built heliport is part of an existing structure (such as a building) that is utilised for the purpose of operating helicopters. Rejected take-off distance required (RTODRH). The horizontal distance required from the start of the take-off to the point where the helicopter comes to a full stop following an engine failure and rejection of the take-off at the take-off decision point. Rejected take-off distance available (RTODAH). The length of the final approach and take-off area declared available and suitable for helicopters operating in Performance Class 1 to complete a rejected take-off. Safe forced landing. Unavoidable landing or ditching with a reasonable expectancy of no injuries to persons in the aircraft or on the surface. Shipboard heliport. A heliport located on a ship that may be purpose-built or non-purpose-built. A purpose built shipboard heliport is one designed specifically for helicopter operations. A non-purpose-built shipboard heliport is one that utilizes an area of the ship that is capable of supporting a helicopter but is not designed specifically for it. Static load-bearing area. A surface capable of supporting the mass of the helicopter situated upon it. Take-off and initial climb phase. That part of the flight from the start of take-off to 300 m (1 000 ft) above the elevation of the FATO, if the flight is planned to exceed this height, or to the end of the climb in the other cases. Take-off decision point (TDP). The point used in determining take-off performance from which, an engine failure occurring at this point, either a rejected take-off may be made or a take-off safely continued. Note.— TDP applies only to helicopters operating in Performance Class 1. Take-off distance available (TODAH). The length of the final approach and take-off area plus the length of any clearway (if provided) declared available and suitable for helicopters to complete the take-off. Take-off distance required (TODRH). The horizontal distance required from the start of the take-off to the point at which VTOSS, a selected height and a positive climb gradient are achieved, following failure of the critical engine being recognized at TDP, the remaining engines operating within approved operating limits. Note.— The selected height stated above is to be determined with reference to either: a) the take-off surface; or b) a level defined by the highest obstacle in the take-off distance required. Take-off flight path. The vertical and horizontal path, with the critical engine inoperative, from a specified point in the take-off to 300 m (1 000 ft) above the take-off surface. TLOF. An area on which a helicopter may touchdown or lift-off. Touchdown/positioning marking circle. The TD/PM circle is the reference marking for a normal touchdown, so located that when the pilot’s seat is over the marking, the whole of the undercarriage will be within the TLOF and all parts of the helicopter will be clear of any obstacles by a safe margin. Winching area. An area provided for the hoist transfer by helicopter of personnel or stores to and from a ship. µ. The coefficient of friction, Mu, is the ratio between the friction force and the vertical load. ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS AC Advisory circular (FAA) AEO All engines operating AFFF Aqueous film forming foam AMSL Above mean sea level APAPI Abbreviated precision approach path indicator ASPSL Arrays of segmented point source lighting ATEX Equipment for potentially explosive atmospheres ATT Along-track tolerance BCAFS Performance Level B foam BS British Standard CAFS Compressed air foam system CAT Commercial air transport CRFS Crash resistant fuel system cd Candela CFD Computational fluid dynamics C/L cm Centre line CZ Centimetre D Clear zone DIFF Maximum dimension of helicopter DIFFS Deck integrated firefighting DP Deck integrated firefighting system DPS Decision point DR Dynamic positioning system Horizontal distance that the helicopter has travelled from the end of the take-off distance available EASA EN European Union Aviation Safety Agency EPNdB European number Effective perceived noise in decibels FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAS Fixed application system FATO Final approach and take-off area FFAS Fixed foam application system FFS FMS Firefighting service FOD Fixed monitor system Foreign object debris FOV FPSO Field of view FSO Floating production storage and offloading ft Floating storage and offloading Feet FPM Feet per minute GPU Ground power unit HAPI Helicopter approach path indicator HEMS Helicopter emergency medical services HD Helideck directory HDA Helideck assistant HDWG Heliport design working group HHO Helicopter hoist operations HIP Helideck information plate HLO Helicopter landing officer HMS Helideck motion system HRP Heliport reference point HV Height velocity ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization ICS International Chamber of Shipping IDF Initial departure fix IEC International Electrotechnical Commission ILS Instrument landing system in Inches IMO International Maritime Organization IP International Protection ISO International Organization for Standardization kg Kilogram km.h Kilometres per hour Kts Knots l Litre lb(s) Pound(s) LDAH Landing distance available (for helicopters) LDP Landing decision point LDRH Landing distance required (for helicopters) LED Light emitting diode LFL Lower flammable limit LNG Liquefied natural gas LOA Limited obstacle area LOS Limited obstacle sector LP Luminescent panel LPA Limited parking area lx lux m Metre MAPt Missed approach point MCA Minimum crossing altitude MLS Microwave landing system mm Millimetre MMMF Man-made mineral fibres MODU Mobile offshore drilling unit MR Main rotor MRCA Minimum rotorcraft containment area MTOM Maximum take-off mass MZ Manoeuvring zone N Newton NDB Non-directional beacon NFPA National Fire Protection Association NM Nautical miles NOTAM Notice to airmen NPAI Not permanently attended installation NVIS Night vision imaging system OCA Obstacle clearance altitude OCL Obstacle clearance level OCS Obstacle clearance surface OEI One engine inoperative OFS Obstacle-free sector OIS Obstacle identification surface OLS Obstacle limitation surface PAI Permanently attended installation PAPI Precision approach path indicator PC Performance class PC1 Performance Class 1 PC2 Performance Class 2 PC3 Performance Class 3 PCF Post-crash fire PDG Procedure design gradient PFAS Portable foam application system PinS Point in space PIPA Push-in parking area PLS Prohibited landing sector PPE Personal protective equipment PTA Parking transition area kN/m2 Kilonewton per square metre QFE Query: field elevation QNH Query: nautical height RAO Response amplitude operator RO Radio operator RD Rotor diameter RFFR Rescue and firefighting response RFFS Rescue and firefighting services RFM Rotorcraft Flight Manual RMS Ring-main system ROD Rate of descent ROTS Remotely operated TV system RPE Respiratory protective equipment R/T Radio-telephony or radio communications RTOD Rejected take-off distance RTODAH Rejected take-off distance available (for helicopters) RTODRH Rejected take-off distance required available (for helicopters) s Second SA Safety area SAR Search and rescue SARPs Standards and Recommended Practices SFL Safe forced landing SLS Serviceability limit states SMS Safety management system SRF Structural response factor SRM Safety risk management SSP State safety program t Tonne (1000 kg) TDP Take-off decision point TDPC Touchdown positioning circle TD/PM Touchdown/positioning marking TLOF Touchdown and lift-off area TLS Target level of safety TMA/TCA Terminal manoeuvring area (terminal control area) TODAH Take-off distance available (for helicopters) TODRH Take-off distance required (for helicopters TRA Task/resource analysis UCW Undercarriage width ULS Ultimate limit states UPS Uninterrupted power supply UV Ultraviolet VFR Visual flight rules VMC Visual meteorological conditions VSDA Visual segment design angle VSDG Visual segment design gradient VTOSS Take-off safety speed for helicopters certificated in category A WAT Weight/altitude/temperature XTT Cross-track tolerance REFERENCES Air Transport Association Specification 103 (Standard for Jet Fuel Quality Control at Airports) International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) Helicopter/Ship Guide to Operations, 4th Edition, 2008 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) International Maritime Organization (IMO) Code for the Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODU) PART I OFFSHORE HELIPORTS Chapter 1 GENERAL 1.1 INTRODUCTION Offshore heliports, even when confined to mineral extraction activities, employ a wide range of offshore landing facilities, including helidecks on fixed platforms, mobile offshore drilling units, crane barges and floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) units, and purpose-built shipboard heliports located on large tankers or on smaller vessels such as diving support vessels, seismic survey vessels, ice-breakers and research vessels. For vessels, in particular, helicopter landing areas may be purposebuilt above the bow or stern, purpose-built in an amidships location, or purpose-built overhanging the ship’s side. This manual also provides information for non-purpose-built shipboard heliports, whether located on the side of a ship (ship’s side) or on other areas not specifically designed to receive helicopters, such as hatch covers (Figure I-1-9. refers). Finally, the document addresses shipboard winching areas, where a helicopter hoist operation (HHO) is completed in lieu of landing. The operation of non-purpose-built shipboard heliports and shipboard winching areas is described in detail in the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) Helicopter/Ship Guide to Operations, 4th Edition, 2008. 1.2 HELIDECKS 1.2.1 Fixed platforms (permanently attended and not permanently attended) Fixed platforms sit directly on the sea floor and are thus stable. They can be single units or can consist of two or more separate modules for production, processing and accommodation. Separate modules are generally linked by bridges and can be served by more than one helideck. Fixed platforms that are occupied year-round are often referred to as permanently attended installations (PAI), while those facilities that do not subscribe to a permanent attendance model are referred to in this manual as not permanently attended installations (NPAIs). The acronyms PAI and NPAI are used throughout this document, although it is appreciated that individual States may use additional or alternative acronyms to describe particular attendance models to distinguish specific levels of occupancy of offshore facilities. Figure I-1-1. A fixed platform with helideck above accommodation, bridge linked to a production platform 1.2.2 Mobile offshore drilling units: semi-submersible Semi-submersible units have the hull design of a catamaran and are either towed or self-propelled. A semi-submersible unit has good stability and sea-keeping characteristics and can be positioned dynamically with thrusters or by the use of anchors. These units are heavy duty specialized rigs, with their hull structure submerged at a deep draft (ballasted down fifty feet or more to give it stability) so that a semi-submersible unit, being less affected by wave loadings than a normal ship, is able to operate in adverse weather conditions. They are used in a number of specific offshore roles, such as offshore drilling rigs and heavy lift cranes. In the latter case, a semi-submersible unit is able to transform from a deep to a shallow draft rig by de-ballasting (removing ballast water from the hull), thereby becoming a surface vessel. Semi-submersibles are classified as mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs) and should therefore comply with standards for helidecks, also addressed in the International Maritime Organization (IMO) MODU Code. Figure I-1-2. A deep ballasted semi-submersible mobile offshore drilling unit 1.2.3 Mobile offshore drilling units: self-elevating unit (jack-up) A jack-up rig, or a self-elevating unit, is a mobile platform that consists of a buoyant hull fitted with a number of moveable legs (typically three or four). These rigs are towed to and from locations or may be self-propelled. When on site the legs (which can measure 137 m (450 ft) or more) are ‘jacked’ down until they penetrate the seabed or sit on the sea floor, with the main body of the rig about 15.24 m (50 ft) above sea level. The height of the legs when on station is dependent upon the depth of the water. When on tow, the legs are jacked up and specific limitations are applied for helicopter operations to moving decks (Part 1, Chapter 8, 8.3 refers). When in the jacked-down position, helidecks are not subject to significant movement and therefore behave more like fixed platforms. Jack-up rigs are classified as MODUs and should therefore comply with standards for helidecks, also addressed in the IMO MODU Code. Figure I-1-3. A three-legged jacked-up mobile offshore drilling unit 1.2.4 Floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) and tankers An FPSO unit is a floating vessel used for the production and processing of hydrocarbons and for the storage of oil, until the oil can be offloaded onto a tanker (Figure I-1-4 refers)) or, less frequently, transported through a pipeline. The FPSO extracts and stores the oil while the tanker hooks up to the FPSO before it shuttles the oil ashore. FPSOs are either purpose-built or can be made from the conversion of an oil tanker. They are very effective when used in remote or deep-water locations, where seabed pipelines are not a commercially viable option. Other forms of FPSO may include a floating storage and offloading unit (FSO) or a liquefied natural gas (LNG) floating storage and regasification unit. Figure I-1-4. Tanker (right) hooks up with a FPSO (left) 1.3 SHIPBOARD HELIPORTS Figure I-1-5. A tanker with a purpose-built mid-ship centreline shipboard heliport 1.3.1 Drill ships Drill ships are merchant vessels designed for use in exploratory offshore drilling for new oil and gas wells. They can be either purpose-built or converted older vessels, and are kept on station by standard anchoring systems or by a dynamic positioning system (DPS). In recent years they have increasingly been used to drill in deep water or in ultra-deep water and, in this operating environment, require the most advanced DPS. Figure I-1-6. A high-mounted bow helideck on a drill ship 1.3.2 Small vessels Support and survey vessels are among the most challenging ships to fly to, especially at night. Vessels can be quite small and the helideck can be high above the bow, over the stern or even amidships. Figure I-1-7. A high bow mounted helideck on a pipe laying vessel 1.3.3 Non-purpose-built landing area on ship’s side — tanker port and starboard Some helicopter landing areas, located on tankers, consist of non-purpose-built ship side arrangements, located on either side of the vessel. For non-purpose-built facilities, the control of ground-based, and usually immovable, obstacles become an issue. In this case, care needs to be taken to ensure that deck-mounted obstacles, which may form part of the vessel superstructure, do not impinge on the safety of helicopter operations. This is discussed in detail in Chapter 4, 4.6. Figure I-1-8. Non-purpose-built ship side landing areas (port and starboard) 1.4 TABLE OF CHARACTERISTICS FOR COMMON OFFSHORE HELICOPTER TYPES Table I-1-1. D-value, “t” value and other helicopter type criteria (metric units) Type D-value(metres) Perimeter'D'marking Rotor diameter(metres) Max weight(kg) 4value EC130 12.60 13 10.70 2432 2.4t MD902 11.84 12 10.31 2835 2.8t Bell 206B 11.95 12 9.51 1452 1.5t Bo105D 12.00 12 9.90 2400 2.4t EC135 T2+ 12.20 12 10.20 2910 2.9t Bell 407 12.70 13 10.40 2381 2.4t Bell 429 13.00 13 11.00 3402 3.4t Bell 206L IV 12.96 13 10.44 2018 2.0 t AS355 12.94 13 10.69 2600 2.6t BK117 13.00 13 11.00 3200 3.2t Bell 427 13.00 13 11.28 2971 3.0t A109 13.05 13 11.00 2600 2.6t AW119 13.02 13 10.83 2720 2.7t EC145/H145 13.03 13 11.00 3585 3.6t AS365 N2 13.68 14 11.93 4250 4.3t AW189 17.60 18 14.60 8300 8.3t EC175/H175 18.06 18 14.80 7500 7.5t AS365 N3 13.73 14 11.94 4300 4.3t EC155 B1 14.30 14 12.60 4850 4.9t Bell 222 15.33 15 14.08 3742 3.7t Bell 430 15.29 15 12.80 4218 4.2t Ka-32 15.90 16 15.90 12600 12.6t S76 16.00 16 13.40 5307 5.3t Part I. Offshore heliports Chapter 1. General Type D-value(metres) Perimeter $\mathcal { D } '$ marking Rotor diameter(metres) Max weight(kg) $t '$ value AW139 16.63 17 13.80 6 800 6.8t Bell 412EP 17.13 17 14.02 5398 5.4t Bell 212 17.46 17 14.00 5080 5.1t AS332L 18.70 19 15.60 8599 8.6t AS332 L2 19.50 20 16.20 9 300 9.3t EC225 19.50 20 16.20 11000 11.0t S92A 20.88 21 17.17 12565 12.6 t Mil Mi-17 25.30 25 21.10 13 000 13.0t Mil Mi-8 25.24 25 21.29 12 000 12.0t S61N 22.20 22 18.90 9 298 9.3t AW101 22.80 23 18.60 15 600 15.6t Note.— The specifications presented in this table should be verified against manufacturer derived data Note.— Specifications presented in this table should be verified against manufacturer derived data. Table I-1-2. D-value, “t” value and other helicopter type criteria (imperial units) Type D-value(feet) Perimeter $\mathcal { D } '$ marking Rotor diameter(feet) MaxWeight(1bs) Maximumallowablemassmarking EC130 35.00 35 35.10 5361 5.4 MD902 38.80 39 33.80 6 250 6.3 Bell 206B 39.20 39 33.00 3201 3.2 Bo105D 39.36 39 32.48 5291 5.3 EC135 T2+ 40.00 40 33.50 6400 6.4 Bell 407 41.40 41 35.00 5250 5.3 Bell 429 41.75 42 36.00 7500 7.5 Bell 206L 42.40 42 37.00 4450 4.5 AS355 42.50 43 35.00 5732 5.7 BK117 42.65 43 36.00 7055 7.1 Type D-value(feet) PerimeterD'marking Rotor diameter(feet) MaxWeight(1bs) Maximumallowablemassmarking Bell 427 42.65 43 37.00 6550 6.6 A109 42.80 43 36.00 5732 5.7 AW119 42.70 43 35.50 6000 6.0 EC145 42.70 43 36.00 7900 7.9 AS365 N2 44.80 45 39.10 9370 9.4 EC175/H175 44.90 45 35.00 16 535 16.5 AS365 N3 45.00 45 39.10 9480 9.5 EC155 B1 46.90 47 41.30 10700 10.7 Bell 22 49.50 50 40.00 8245 8.2 Bell 430 50.10 50 42.00 9300 9.3 Ka-32 52.02 52 52.02 27778 27.8 S76 52.49 52 44.00 11700 11.7 AW139 54.63 55 45.28 15000 15.0 Bell412EP 56.20 56 46.00 11900 11.9 Bell 212 57.25 57 48.20 11200 11.2 AW189 57.90 58 47.11 18300 18.3 AS332L 61.34 61 49.60 19000 19.0 AS332 L2 63.94 64 53.20 20500 20.5 EC225 63.96 64 53.20 24250 24.3 S92A 68.49 68 56.32 28000 28.0 Mil Mi-17 83.00 83 69.03 28660 28.3 Mil Mi-8 82.10 69 69.10 26455 26.5 S61N 72.80 73 62.00 20499 20.5 AW101 74.80 75 61.00 34400 34.4 Part I. Offshore heliports Chapter 1. General Figure I-1-9. An S61N helicopter lands on the hatch cover of a large vessel Chapter 2 HELIPORT DATA 2.1 INTRODUCTION 2.1.1 For a fixed facility, the heliport elevation is measured at the highest point of the final approach and take-off area(s) (FATO(s)) and recorded on the helideck information plate (HIP) (Figure I-2-1 refers). Heliport elevation (in feet or metres) is the height of the FATO(s) above mean sea level (AMSL). For floating installations and vessels, the heliport elevation is measured from the keel of the installation/vessel to the highest point of the FATO. The profile information is independent from the draft marking and the actual elevation above the water level. The installation/vessel crew has to calculate the current height above the water level by subtracting the current draft at the perpendicular closest to the helideck and providing this to the helicopter operator. Note.—The helicopter operator should include the corrected elevation information supplied by the installation/vessel operator in the helideck template. 2.1.2 A Helideck directory (HD) entry should promulgate additional information for the helicopter landing area including the D-value of the FATO, whether expressed in metric metres or in imperial feet and inches, and specify the maximum allowable mass of the helicopter permitted to operate to the FATO, a marking expressed either in metric tonnes (known as the t-value), or in imperial units (expressed in lbs). The D-value, in metres or feet, corresponds to the size (diameter) of the FATO (and where coincident, to the size (diameter) of the TLOF) while the maximum allowable mass is a t-value marking expressing metric tonnes or a marking defined by imperial units (lbs), that equates to the load-bearing strength of the touchdown and liftoff area (TLOF) (see Chapter 3, 3.1). Detailed guidance on how these marking issues should be displayed, whether expressed using metric or imperial units, is presented in Chapter 5, 5.3 and 5.4. 2.2 AUTHORIZATION OF OFFSHORE HELIPORTS — ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST, CONTENT OF A HELIDECK DIRECTORY (HD) AND CONTENT OF A HELIDECK INFORMATION PLATE (HIP) 2.2.1 General 2.2.1.1 The content of the operations manual relating to the specific usage of offshore helicopter landing areas (helidecks and shipboard heliports) should contain both the listing of limitations in an HD and a pictorial representation (template) of each offshore location and its helicopter landing area, recording all necessary permanent information. The HD should be amended as necessary and indicate the most recent status of each offshore helicopter landing area concerning non-compliance with applicable Standards, contained in Annex 14 — Aerodromes, Volume II — Heliports, with limitations, warnings, cautions or other comments of operational importance. An example of a typical template is shown in Figure I-2-1. 2.2.1.2 In order to ensure that the safety of flights is not compromised, the operator should obtain relevant information and details for a compilation of the HD, and the pictorial representation, from the owner/operator of the offshore helicopter landing area. 2.2.1.3 If more than one name for the offshore location exists, the common name painted of the surface of the landing area should be listed, but other recent names should also be included in the HD (e.g. radio call sign if different). After renaming an offshore location, the previous name should be retained in the HD for a period of six months following the change. 2.2.1.4 Any limitations associated with an offshore location should be included in the HD. With complex installation arrangements including combinations of installations/vessels (e.g. combined operations), a separate listing in the HD, accompanied by diagrams where necessary, may be required. 2.2.1.5 Each offshore helicopter landing area should be assessed based on its limitations, warnings, instructions and restrictions to ensure its safety. The following factors, as a minimum, should be considered: a) the physical characteristics of the landing area, including size and load-bearing capability; b) the preservation of obstacle-protected surfaces (the most basic safeguard for all flights), which include: the minimum 210° obstacle-free sector (OFS); the 150° limited obstacle surface (LOS); and the minimum 180° falling ‘5:1’ gradient with respect to significant obstacles; Note.— If these sectors/surfaces are infringed, even on a temporary basis and/or if an adjacent installation or vessel infringes the obstacle protected surfaces related to the landing area, an assessment should be made to determine whether it is necessary to impose operating limitations and/or restrictions to mitigate any non-compliance with the criteria. c) marking and lighting: for operations at night: i) adequate illumination of the perimeter of the landing area, utilizing perimeter lighting; ii) adequate illumination of the location of the touchdown marking by use of a lit touchdown/positioning marking and lit heliport identification marking or by perimeter floodlighting; presence of dominant obstacle paint schemes and lighting; appropriate condition of helideck markings; and adequacy of general installation and structure lighting; Note.— Any limitations with respect to non-compliant lighting arrangements should be annotated as ‘daylight-only operations’ in the HD. d) deck surface: assessment of surface friction; adequacy and condition of helideck net (where provided); fit-for-purpose drainage system; deck edge safety netting or shelving; system of tie-down points adequate for the range of helicopters in use; and cleanliness of the surface e.g. removal of bird guano, sea spray, snow and ice; e) environment: foreign object damage; assessment of physical turbulence generators, e.g. structure-induced turbulence due to clad derrick; bird control measures in place; air quality degradation due to exhaust emissions, hot gas vents (turbulence and thermal effects) or cold gas vents; and possible inclusion of adjacent offshore installations in air quality assessment; Note.— To assess for potential adverse environmental effects described in 2), 4) and 5), an offshore location should be subject to appropriate studies e.g. wind tunnel testing, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis. f) rescue and firefighting: fixed foam application systems (FFAS) for delivery of firefighting media to the landing area, e.g. deck integrated firefighting system (DIFFS); delivery of primary media types, critical area, application rate and duration; deliveries of complementary agent(s), media types, capacity and discharge; personal protective equipment (PPE); and rescue equipment and crash box/cabinet; g) communications and navigation: presence and/or quality of aeronautical radio(s); radio-telephony (R/T) call sign to match offshore location name and side identification (should be simple and unique); non-directional beacon (NDB) or equivalent (as appropriate); and radio log; h) fuelling facilities: in accordance with relevant national guidance and regulations; i) additional operational and handling equipment: windsock(s); meteorological information including wind, pressure, air temperature and dew point temperature recording/ displaying mean wind (10 minute wind) and gusts; deck motion recording and reporting (helideck motion system - HMS) where applicable; passenger briefing system; chocks; tie-down strops/ropes; weighing scales; a suitable power source for starting helicopters (ground power unit (GPU)) where applicable; and equipment for clearing the landing area of snow and ice and other contaminants; j) personnel: qualified helicopter landing area staff (e.g. helicopter landing officer/helicopter deck assistant and firefighters, etc.) and persons required to assess local weather conditions or communicate with helicopter by radio-telephony. 2.2.1.6 For offshore locations for which there is incomplete information, ‘limited’ usage based on the information available may be considered by the operator, subject to a risk assessment prior to the first helicopter visit. During subsequent operations, and before any restriction on heliport usage is lifted, information should be gathered and the following should apply: a) pictorial (static) representation: template blanks (see Figure I-2-1) should be available to be filled in during flight preparation, on the basis of the information given by the offshore location owner/operator and flight crew observations; where possible, suitably annotated photographs may be used until the HD and template have been completed; until the HD and template have been completed, conservative operational restrictions (e.g. performance, routing, etc.) may be applied; any previous inspection reports should be obtained and reviewed by the operator; and an inspection of the offshore helicopter landing area should be carried out to verify the content of the completed HD and template. Once found suitable, the landing area may be considered authorized for use by the operator; b) with reference to the above, the HD should contain at least the following: HD revision date and number; generic list of helideck motion limitations; name of offshore location; ‘D’ value; and limitations, warnings, instructions and restrictions; Note.—The content of the helicopter landing area authorization or certificate should include 3), 4) and 5). c) the template should contain at least the following fields (see Figure I-2-1): name of the offshore location; R/T call sign; helicopter landing area identification marking; side panel identification marking; landing area elevation; maximum installation/vessel height; ‘D’ value; type of offshore location: i) fixed: permanently attended installation (PAI); ii) fixed: not permanently attended installation (NPAI); iii) vessel type (e.g. diving support vessel, tanker); iv) mobile offshore drilling unit: semi-submersible; v) mobile offshore drilling unit: jack-up; and vi) floating production storage offloading (FPSO); name of the owner/operator; geographical position, where appropriate; communication and navigation (com/nav) frequencies and identification; general drawing of the offshore location showing the helicopter landing area with annotations showing location of derrick, masts, cranes, flare stack, turbine and gas exhausts, side identification panels, windsock, etc.; plan view drawing, chart orientation from the general drawing, to show the above. The plan view will also show the 210 degree sector orientation in degrees true; type of fuelling: i) pressure and gravity; ii) pressure only; iii) gravity only; and iv) none; type and nature of firefighting equipment; availability of ground power unit (GPU); deck heading; maximum allowable mass (metric tonnes “t” value) or lbs; and revision date of publication. Part I. Offshore heliports Chapter 2. Heliport Data Installation/vessel name R/T callsign:… Helideck identification:… Helideck elevation:...f. Maximum height:..ft.. Side identification:.… Type of installation/vessel: D-value:..m and/or ft Position:2 Operator3 ATIS:VHF 123.456 COM LOG: VHF123.456 NAV NDB: 123 (ident.) Traffic: VHF123.456 GNSS: 123 Deck: VHF123.456 VOR/DME: 123 Not applicable: Fuelling:. GPU:.5 Deck heading:… MTOM:.. T and/or Ibs Status light:.. Firefighting equipment:7 Revision date:… Figure I-2-1. Helicopter landing area template Fixed permanently attended, fixed not permanently attended; vessel type (e.g. diving support vessel); MODU - semi-submersible; MODU - jack-up; FPSO, tanker. 2 Latitude and longitude in degrees, minutes and decimals of a minute. 3 Name of operator of the installation/vessel. 4 Pressure/gravity; pressure; gravity; no. 5 Yes; no; 28v DC. 6 Yes; no (as required by applicable codes e.g. IMO MODU Code). Type of foam (e.g. 3 per cent aqueous film forming foams (AFFF) (3 per cent AFFF)) and nature of primary media delivery (e.g. DIFFS). Chapter 3 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 3.1 HELIDECK AND PURPOSE-BUILT SHIPBOARD HELIPORT STRUCTURAL DESIGN 3.1.1 The helicopter landing area and any parking area provided (see Chapter 8, 8.1) should be of sufficient size and strength and laid out to accommodate the heaviest and largest helicopter requiring to use the facility (referred to as the design helicopter). The structure should incorporate a load-bearing area designed to resist dynamic loads without disproportionate consequences from the impact of an emergency landing anywhere within the area bounded by the touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) perimeter markings. Consideration should be given to the possibility of accommodating an unserviceable helicopter in a parking area (where provided) adjacent to the helideck to allow a relief helicopter to land. Note.— If this contingency is designed into the construction and operating philosophy of the installation or vessel, the helicopter operator should be advised of any mass restrictions imposed on a relief helicopter due to the presence of an unserviceable helicopter, whether elsewhere on the landing area or removed to a parking area, where provided. 3.1.2 The helicopter landing area and its supporting structure should be constructed from steel, aluminium alloy or other suitable materials designed and fabricated to applicable standards. Where differing materials are to be used in near contact, the detailing of the connections should be such as to avoid the incidence of galvanic corrosion. 3.1.3 Both the ultimate limit states (ULS) and the serviceability limit states (SLS) should be assessed. The structure should be designed for the SLS and ULS conditions appropriate to the structural component being considered as follows: a) for deck plate and stiffeners: ULS under all conditions; and SLS for permanent deflection following an emergency landing; b) for helicopter landing area supporting structure: ULS under all conditions; and SLS. 3.1.4 The supporting structure, deck plates and stringers should be designed to resist the effects of local wheel or skid actions acting in combination with other permanent, variable and environmental actions. Helicopters should be assumed to be located within the TLOF perimeter markings in such positions that maximize the internal forces in the component being considered. Deck plates and stiffeners should be designed to limit the permanent deflection (deformation) under helicopter emergency landing actions to no more than 2.5 per cent of the clear width of the plates between supports. Stiffener webs should be assessed locally under wheels or skids and at the support areas so as not to fail under landing gear actions due to emergency landings. Tubular structural components forming part of the supporting structure should be checked for vortex-induced vibrations due to wind. Note.— For the purposes of the following sections it may be assumed that single main rotor helicopters will land on the wheel or wheels of two landing gear or on both skids where skid-fitted helicopters are in use. The resulting loads should be distributed between two main undercarriages. Where advantageous, a tire contact area may be assumed within the manufacturer’s specification. 3.1.5 Case A — Helicopter landing situation A helideck or a purpose-built shipboard heliport should be designed to withstand all the forces likely to act when a helicopter lands. The load and load combinations to be considered should include: a) Dynamic load due to impact landing. This should cover both a heavy landing and an emergency landing. For the former an impact load of 1.5 x maximum (certificated) take-off mass (MTOM) of the design helicopter should be used, while for an emergency landing an impact load of 2.5 x MTOM should be applied in any position on the landing area together with the combined effects of b) to g) inclusive. Normally the emergency landing case will govern the design of the structure. b) Sympathetic response of the landing platform. After considering the design of the helideck structures, i.e. the supporting beams and columns, and the characteristics of the design helicopter, the dynamic load (see a) above) should be increased by a suitable structural response factor (SRF) to take account of the sympathetic response of the helicopter landing area structure. The factor to be applied for the design of the helicopter landing area framing depends on the natural frequency of the deck structure. Unless specific values are available based on particular undercarriage behaviour and deck frequency, a minimum SRF of 1.3 should be assumed. c) Overall superimposed load on the landing platform. To allow for any appendages that may be present on the deck surface, such as helideck nets or lighting, in addition to the wheel loads, an allowance of 0.5 kN/m2 should be applied over the whole area of the helideck. d) Lateral load on landing platform supports. The helicopter landing platform and its supports should be designed to resist concentrated horizontal imposed actions equivalent to 0.5 x MTOM of the design helicopter, distributed between the undercarriages in proportion to the applied vertical loading in the horizontal direction that will produce the most severe loading for the structural component being considered. e) Dead load of structural members. This is the normal gravity load on the element being considered. f) Environmental actions on the helideck. Wind actions on the helideck structure should be applied in the direction which, together with the horizontal impact actions, produces the most severe load case for the component considered. The wind speed to be considered should be that restricting normal (non-emergency) helicopter operations at the landing area. Any vertical up and down action on the helideck structure due to the passage of wind over and under the helideck should be considered. Inertial actions due to platform motions – the effect of accelerations and dynamic amplification arising from the predicted motions of the fixed or floating platform in a storm condition with a ten-year return period should be considered. g) Punching Shear. Where helicopters with wheeled undercarriages are operated, a check should be made for the punching shear of a wheel of the landing gear with a contact area of 65 x 103 mm2 acting in any probable location. Particular attention to detailing should be taken at the junction of the supports and at the platform deck. 3.1.6 Case B — Helicopter at rest situation In addition to Case A above, a helideck or a purpose-built shipboard heliport should be designed to withstand all the applied forces that could result from a helicopter at rest. As such, the following loads should be taken into account: a) Imposed load from helicopter at rest. All parts of the helideck or shipboard heliport should be assumed to be accessible to helicopters, including any separate parking area (see Chapter 8, 8.1) and should be designed to resist an imposed (static) load equal to the MTOM of the design helicopter. This load should be distributed between all the landing gear, and applied in any position so as to produce the most severe loading on each element considered. b) Overall superimposed load. To allow for personnel, freight, refuelling equipment and other traffic, snow and ice, and rotor downwash effects etc., a general area imposed action of 2.0 kN/m2 should be added to the whole area of the helideck or shipboard heliport. c) Horizontal actions from a tied-down helicopter including wind actions. Each tie-down should be designed to resist the calculated proportion of the total wind action on the design helicopter imposed by a storm wind with a minimum one-year return period. d) Dead load. This is the normal gravity load on the element being considered and should be regarded to act simultaneously in combination with a) and b). Consideration should also be given to the additional wind loading from any parked or secured helicopter (see also e) 1) below). e) Environmental actions. 1) Wind loading. Wind loading should be allowed for in the design of the platform. The one-hundred-year return period wind actions on the helicopter landing area structure should be applied in the direction that, together with the imposed lateral loading, produces the most severe load condition on each structural element being considered. Acceleration forces and other dynamic amplification forces. For the effects of these forces arising from the predicted motions of mobile installations or vessels, the appropriate environmental conditions corresponding to a ten-year return period should be considered. Note.— Not all helicopter landing areas on ships consist of purpose-built structures. Some helicopter landing areas may alternatively utilize areas of the ship’s deck which were not specifically designed for helicopter operations, e.g. main decking on a ship’s side, a large hatch cover, etc. In the case of a non-purpose-built structure it should be established, before authorizing a landing area, that the area selected can withstand the dynamic and static loads imposed for the types of helicopters for which it is intended. 3.2 HELIDECK/SHIPBOARD HELIPORT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS — INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Note.— In the following sections, the term “helideck” is used throughout to denote a heliport on a fixed or floating facility such as an exploration and/or production unit used for the exploitation of oil and gas. Where heliports are located on ships, it would be for the designer to assess whether each aspect of design is appropriate for the “shipboard heliport” under consideration. A stand-alone section (Section 3.2.5 refers) is provided to address special considerations for floating facilities and ships and has particular applicability to all shipboard heliports as well as to helidecks located on floating offshore facilities. 3.2.1 General design considerations 3.2.1.1 The location of a helideck is often a compromise between the conflicting demands of the basic design requirements, the space limitations on the often cramped topsides of offshore facilities, and the need for the facility to provide for a variety of functions. It is almost inevitable that helidecks installed on the cramped topsides of offshore structures will suffer to some degree from their proximity to tall and bulky structures, and to gas turbine exhausts or flares. The objective for designers becomes to create topside designs incorporating helidecks that are safe and ‘friendly’ to helicopter operations by minimizing adverse environmental effects (mainly aerodynamic, thermal and wave motion) that can affect helicopter operability. Note.— Where statutory design parameters cannot be fully met, it may be necessary for restrictions or limitations to be imposed upon helicopter operations which could, in severe cases, lead to a loss of payload when the wind is blowing through a turbulent sector. 3.2.1.2 Helidecks are basically flat plates and are therefore relatively streamlined structures. In isolation, they would present little disturbance to the wind flow, and helicopters would be able to operate safely to them in a more or less undisturbed airflow environment. Difficulties may arise, however, when the wind has to deviate around the bulk of the offshore installation, causing large areas of flow distortion and turbulent wakes and/or because the producing facility itself is a source of hot or cold gas emissions. The effects fall into three main categories: the flow around the bulk of the offshore facility. Platforms in particular are slab-sided, non-streamlined assemblies (bluff bodies) that create regions of highly distorted and disturbed airflow in the vicinity; the flow around large items of superstructure such as cranes, drilling derricks and exhaust stacks generates turbulence that can affect helicopter operations (see Section 3.2.2). Like the platform itself, these are bluff bodies which encourage turbulent wake flows to form behind the bodies; and hot gas flows emanating from exhaust outlets and flare systems (see Section 3.2.3) and/or cold flaring (see Section 3.2.4). 3.2.1.3 A helideck on a fixed or floating offshore facility should ideally be located at or above the highest point of the main structure. This will minimize the occurrence of turbulence downwind of adjacent structures. However, while this is desirable, in many parts of the world, for a helideck much in excess of 60 m above sea level, the regularity of helicopter operations may be impacted by low cloud base conditions. Conversely, low elevation helidecks may also adversely affect helicopter operations where one-engine inoperative (dropdown) performance is an operational requirement for a State, i.e. due to the insufficient dropdown between the landing area and the sea surface. Consequently, a trade-off may be required between the height of the helideck above surrounding structures and its absolute height above mean sea level (AMSL). 3.2.1.4 A key driver for the location of the helideck is the need to provide a generous sector, clear of physical obstructions for approaching/departing helicopters and also sufficient vertical clearance for multi-engine helicopters to lose altitude after take-off in the event of an engine failure. This will entail a design incorporating a minimum 210-degree obstacle-free sector with a falling gradient below the landing area over at least 180 degrees of this arc (these issues are discussed further in Chapter 4). Aerodynamically, the helideck should be as far away as possible from the disturbed wind flow around the platform. and in order to achieve this, in addition to providing the requisite obstruction-free areas described above, it is recommended that the helideck be located on the corner of the facility with as large an overhang as possible. 3.2.1.5 In combination with locating the helideck at an appropriate elevation and providing a vital air gap (see Section 3.2.1.8), the overhang will encourage the disturbed airflow to pass under the helideck, leaving a relatively clean ‘horizontal’ airflow above the deck. It is recommended that the overhang should be such that the centre of the helideck is vertically above or outboard of the corner of the facility’s superstructure. 3.2.1.6 When determining which corner of the facility the helideck should overhang, a number of considerations should be evaluated. The helideck location should: a) facilitate a direct approach whenever possible; b) provide for a clear overshoot; c) minimize the need for sideways or backwards manoeuvring; d) minimize the environmental impact due to turbulence, thermal effects etc.; and e) allow, wherever possible, an approach to be conducted by the commander of the helicopter. 3.2.1.7 The relative weighting of these considerations will change depending on factors such as wind speed. However, the helideck should generally be located such that winds from prevailing directions carry turbulent wakes and exhaust plumes away from the helicopter approach path. To assess if this is likely to be the case, for fixed facilities, it will usually be necessary for designers to overlay the prevailing wind direction sectors over the centre of the helideck to establish prevailing wind directions, wind speed combinations and to assess the likely impact on helicopter operations for a helideck if sited at a particular location. 3.2.1.8 The height of the helideck AMSL and the presence of an air gap between the helicopter landing area and a supporting module are the most important factors in determining wind flow characteristics in the helideck environment. In combination with an appropriate overhang, an air gap separating the helideck from superstructure beneath it will promote beneficial wind flow over the landing area. If no air gap is provided, then wind conditions immediately above the landing area are likely to be severe, particularly if mounted on top of a large multi-storey accommodation block — it is the distortion of the wind flow that is the cause. However, allowing for an air gap, typically between 3 m and 6 m in height, has the effect of ‘smoothing out’ distortions in the airflow immediately above the helideck. Helidecks mounted on very tall accommodation blocks will require the largest clearance (typically 5 to 6 m) while those on smaller blocks, and with a very large overhang, will tend to require smaller clearances (typically 3 to 4 m). For shallow superstructures of three storeys or less, such as are often found on semi-submersible drilling facilities, a 1 m air gap may be sufficient; but there is scope to increase the air gap as long as the size and presence of a more generous air gap does not have an adverse effect on the stability of a floating facility or the sea-keeping qualities of a ship. Note.— To avoid wave loading on the helideck, the air gap required by Section 3.2.1.8 is also provided to clear the maximum wave height that might be encountered during transportation and for operational conditions. For a shipboard heliport mounted on the deck of a floating vessel, the maximum vertical displacement due to vessel motion should also be taken into account. 3.2.1.9 It is important that the air gap is preserved throughout the operational life of the facility, and care is taken to ensure that the gap between the underside of the helideck structure and the superstructure beneath does not become a storage area for bulky items that might hinder the free flow of air through the gap. 3.2.1.10 Where it is likely that necessary limitations and/or restrictions caused by issues that cannot easily be ‘designed out’ would have a significant effect on helideck operability, an option may exist for providing a second helideck which could be made available when the wind is blowing through the restricted sector of the primary helideck. 3.2.2 Effects of structure-induced turbulence 3.2.2.1 It is almost inevitable that helidecks installed on cramped topsides of offshore structures will suffer to some degree from their proximity to tall and bulky structures such as drilling derricks, flare towers, cranes or gas turbine exhaust stacks; it is often impractical to site the helideck above every tall structure. Any tall structure above and/or in the vicinity of the helideck may generate areas of turbulence or sheared flow downwind of the obstruction and therefore potentially pose a hazard to the helicopter. The severity of the disturbance will be greater, the bluffer the shape, and the broader the obstruction to the flow. The effect reduces with increasing distance downwind from the source of turbulence. 3.2.2.2 An assessment of the optimum helideck position should also take into account the location and configuration of drilling derricks, which can vary in relative location during the field life. A fully clad derrick, being a tall and solid structure, may generate significant wake downwind of the obstacle. Since the flow properties of the wake will be unstable, if the helideck is located downwind of a clad derrick, it is likely to be subject to large and random variations in wind speed and direction. As a guide on wake decay from bluff bodies, it should be assumed that the wake effects will not fully decay for a downwind distance of some ten to twenty structure widths (for a 10 m (33 ft) wide clad derrick this corresponds to a decay distance of between 100 to 200 m). Consequently, it is preferable that a helideck is not placed closer than ten structure widths from a clad derrick. However, few offshore facilities will be large enough to facilitate such clearances in their design, and any specification for a clad derrick has potential to result in operational limitations being applied when the derrick is upwind of the helideck. In contrast, unclad derricks are relatively porous, and while a wake still exists, it will be of a much higher frequency and smaller scale due to the flow being broken up by the lattice element of the structure. Consequently, a helideck can be safely located closer to an unclad derrick than to its clad equivalent. Generally, separations of at least five derrick widths at helideck height should be the design objective. Separations of significantly less than five structure widths may lead to the imposition of operating restrictions in certain wind conditions. 3.2.2.3 Gas turbine and other exhausts, whether or not in operation, may present a further source of structure-induced turbulence by forming a physical blockage to the air flow over the helideck and creating a turbulent wake (as well as presenting a potential hazard due to the hot exhaust). As a rule of thumb, to mitigate physical turbulence effects at the helideck, it is recommended that a minimum of ten structure widths be established between the obstruction and the helideck. 3.2.2.4 Other potential sources of turbulence which could give rise to turbulence effects may be present on offshore facilities, for example: large structures in close proximity to the helideck or a lay-down area in the vicinity of the helideck. In the latter case, the presence of bulky or tall items placed temporarily in lay-down areas close to the helideck could present a source of turbulence, and may increase hazards, as pilots otherwise familiar with a particular facility would not expect turbulence caused by a temporary obstruction. Ideally, a platform design should seek to ensure that any proposed lay-down areas are significantly below helideck level and/or are sufficiently remote from the helideck so as not to present a problem for helicopter operations. 3.2.3 Temperature rise due to hot exhausts 3.2.3.1 Increases in ambient temperature at the helideck are a potential hazard to helicopters, as increased temperatures result in less rotor lift and less engine power margin. Rapid temperature changes are a significant hazard, as the rate of change of temperature in the plume has potential to cause engine compressor surge or stall (often associated with an audible ‘pop’), which can result in loss of engine power, damage to engines and/or helicopter components and, ultimately, engine flame-out. It is therefore extremely important that helicopters avoid these conditions by ensuring that occurrences of higher than ambient conditions are foreseen, mapped, and, where necessary, that steps are taken to reduce payload to maintain an appropriate performance margin. 3.2.3.2 Gas turbine power generation systems are often a significant source of hot exhaust gases on fixed offshore facilities, while diesel propulsion or auxiliary power system exhausts occurring on some floating offshore facilities may also need to be considered. For certain wind directions the hot gas plumes from the exhausts will be carried by the wind directly across the helideck. The hot gas plume then mixes with the ambient air to increase the size of the plume, at the same time reducing its temperature by dilution. 3.2.3.3 Appropriate modelling designed to evaluate likely temperature rise would indicate that for gas turbine exhausts, with not untypical release temperatures up to 500°C and flow rates of between 50-100 kg/s, the minimum range at which the temperature rise in the plume drops to 2°C above ambient temperature would be in the range of 130-190m downwind of the source. Even where gas turbine generation systems incorporate waste heat recovery systems, resulting in lower gas temperatures of about 250°C, with the same flow rate assumptions the minimum distance before the temperature rise in the plume drops to 2°C above ambient is still in the range of 90-130 m downwind of the source. 3.2.3.4 In consideration of the above, except for the very largest offshore facilities, it is implied that regardless of design, there will always be a wind condition where temperature rise above the helideck exceeds the 2°C threshold. Consequently, it may be impossible to design a helideck that is compliant with these criteria for all conditions. The design aim then becomes one of minimizing the occurrence of high temperatures over the helideck rather than necessarily eliminating them completely. This can be achieved by ensuring that the facility layout and alignment directions are such that these conditions are only experienced rarely. 3.2.3.5 If it is necessary to locate power generation modules and exhausts close to the helideck, the location can still be acceptable provided that the stacks are high enough to direct the exhaust gas plume clear of arriving/departing helicopters. It is also important to ensure that the design of the stacks does not compromise helideck obstacle protection surfaces or that the stacks are not so wide as to present a source of structure-induced turbulence. 3.2.3.6 The helideck should be located so that winds from the prevailing wind direction(s) carry the plume away from the helicopter approach/departure paths. To minimize the effects of other wind directions, the exhausts should be sufficiently high to ensure that the plumes are above all the likely helicopter approach/departure paths. To achieve this, it is recommended that exhaust outlets are no less than 20 to 30 m above the helideck. The provision of downward-facing exhausts that initially direct hot exhaust gases towards the sea should be avoided, as experience has shown that hot plumes can rise from the sea surface and disperse in an unpredictable way, particularly in light and variable wind conditions. 3.2.3.7 In situations where it is difficult or impractical to reduce the potential interaction between the helicopter and the turbine exhaust plume to a sufficiently low level, consideration should be given to installing a gas turbine exhaust plume visualization system on facilities having a significant gas turbine exhaust plume problem, in order to highlight the hazard to pilots when operating by day, to minimize the potential effect of the plume by making it easier to see and avoid a plume encounter. 3.2.3.8 Helicopter performance may also be significantly impaired as a result of the combined radiated and convection heat effects from flare plumes under certain wind conditions. In moderate or strong winds, the radiated heat from a lit flare is rapidly dissipated and usually presents little problem for the helicopter, provided flight through the flare plume is avoided. However, in calm or light wind conditions, potential changes in air temperature in the vicinity of the helideck could be much greater and have a marked effect on the performance of the helicopter. Therefore, designers should exercise great care in determining the location and elevation of flare towers in relation to helicopter operations. 3.2.4 Cold flaring and rapid blow-down systems 3.2.4.1 Hydrocarbon gas can be released as a result of the production process of installation or from drilling facilities at various times. It is important to ensure that a helicopter does not fly into a cloud of hydrocarbon gas because even relatively low levels of concentration (typically above 10 per cent lower flammable limit (LFL)) can cause a helicopter engine to surge or flame-out with a consequent risk to the helicopter. Also, in these conditions, the helicopter poses a risk to the offshore facility because it is a potential ignition source for any hydrocarbon gas that may be present in the atmosphere. It must therefore be ensured that gas release points are as remote as possible from the helideck and from the helicopter flight path and that, in the event of any unforeseen gas release occurring during helicopter operations, the helicopter pilot is given sufficient warning so that, if necessary, the approach to the helideck can be broken off. Planned gas releases should only occur when helicopters are not in the area. 3.2.4.2 The blow-down system on a production facility depressurizes the process system releasing hydrocarbon gas. It will normally be designed to reduce the pressure to half its operating value in about fifteen minutes. However, for a large facility, this could feasibly require the release of fifty tonnes of gas, or more. Once down to the target pressure, in fifteen minutes or less, the remainder of the gas will continue to be released from the system. A blow-down may be automatically triggered by the detection of a dangerous condition in the process, or alternatively, manually triggered. 3.2.4.3 The blow-down system should have venting points that are as remote as possible from the helideck, and prevailing winds should be downwind of the helideck. It is not uncommon to have this vent on the flare boom, normally a good location. However, dilution of the gas to acceptably low levels of concentration (to <10 per cent LFL) may not occur until the plume is a considerable distance from the venting point. This distance may be anywhere between 200 m and 500 m depending on the size of the vent, the rate of venting and the prevailing wind speed. 3.2.4.4 Drilling facilities often have ‘poor-boy degassers’ which are used to release gas while circulating a well, but, except for a sudden major crisis such as a blow-out on a drilling facility, they are unlikely to release significant quantities of gas without warning. As with production facilities, it is not likely to be possible to locate the helideck sufficiently distant from the potential source of gas to always guarantee low levels of concentration at the helideck or in the helicopter flight path. The drilling facility may therefore need to curtail helicopter flights when well circulation activity is going on, or when problems are experienced down the well. 3.2.5 Special considerations for floating facilities and ships Note.— Operating limits for safely remaining on the deck for a period necessary to affect safe passenger and cargo transfer are not considered in detail in Part I. See Chapter 8, 8.3 for deck motions reporting and recording. 3.2.5.1 As well as experiencing the aerodynamic effects and potential hazards highlighted above, floating installations and ships experience dynamic motions due to ocean waves. These motions are a potential hazard to helicopter operations, and motion limits will need to be established in order to maintain safe landing conditions. The recording and reporting of deck motions for the safe landing of helicopters is discussed in more detail in Chapter 8, 8.3. 3.2.5.2 The setting of helideck performance or motion limitations due to floating installations and ship dynamic motions is usually the responsibility of the helicopter operator and will be influenced by the type of floating facility or ship to which they are operating, the types of helicopters being operated, the operating conditions (e.g. whether day or night) and the location of the helideck (a helicopter operator may, for example, discuss landing limits with the Ship’s Master). Limitations typically apply to both vertical linear motions in heave and to angular motions expressed as pitch and roll. Some operators may consider additional parameters such as helideck inclination. 3.2.5.3 The angle of pitch and roll is the same for all points on a facility or ship but the amount of heave, sway or surge motion experienced will vary considerably depending on the precise location of the helideck. The severity of helideck motions will depend on: a) the wave environment; b) the size of the floating facility or ship (a smaller facility/ship generally tends to exhibit larger and faster wave induced motions than a large facility/ship where the response amplitude operator (RAO) is lower); c) the characteristics of the floating facility or ship (certain hull forms exhibit larger wave induced motions than others, or are sensitive to particular sea conditions); d) whether the floating facility or ship is moored, underway or under tow; and e) the location of the heliport on a ship (vertical motions tend to be greater at the bow or stern of a ship than at the amidships location, and sway motions due to roll tend to increase with helideck height). 3.2.5.4 Sea states are usually characterized in terms of a significant wave height, an associated wave period and a wave energy spectrum. The motions of a ship or floating facility generally become larger as the significant wave height and period increase, but can be especially severe at certain wave periods (e.g. at natural roll or pitch periods) and may be sensitive to the range in frequency content of the wave spectrum experienced. The motion characteristics of a floating facility or ship may be reliably predicted by recourse to well-established computer models or to physical model testing. Helideck downtime will occur whenever the motions of the floating facility or ship exceed the derived criteria. 3.2.5.5 The operability of a helicopter landing area depends on its location on a floating facility or ship, both longitudinally and transversely. For ships and ship-shaped floating facilities, such as floating production storage and offloading (FPSOs) units, the pitching motion is such that the vertical heave motion experienced at the helideck on the bow or stern will generally be much greater than if the helideck is located amidships. Bow mounted helidecks can be particularly vulnerable to damage from green seas spilling over the superstructure of the ship, unless mounted high above deck level. Helidecks located off the vessel centreline, and cantilevered over the side (which usually provides the benefit of an unobstructed falling gradient over at least 180 degrees) may experience downtime due to heave motions caused by roll; although generally downtime for a helideck located amidships will be less than for a helideck located at the bow or stern of a ship or ship-shaped facility. Note 1.— The location of the helideck, particularly on drilling facilities, is generally determined by factors other than the need to minimize heave motions, and it may be that the central area of an FPSO or drillship, for example, is otherwise occupied by processing or drilling equipment. A helideck located at the bow or stern may be more accessible to the temporary refuge and/or accommodation on board the facility which is another factor to consider, particularly where the helideck is designated to be a primary means of escape in the event of an incident occurring. Note 2.— Some thruster-assisted FPSOs and dynamically positioned facilities or ships have the ability to turn to a desired heading which can be used operationally to minimize helideck downtime due to wave motions and aerodynamic effects. Where dynamic positioning (DP) systems are used to maintain heading control, it is important to ensure that the heading control system has adequate integrity (operability and redundancy) to maintain heading control at all times during helicopter operations. 3.2.6 Helideck design — environmental criteria 3.2.6.1 The design criteria may be applied to new fixed or floating facilities or ships and to significant modifications to existing facilities or ships and/or where operational experience has highlighted potential issues. When considering the volume of airspace to which the following criteria apply, designers should consider the airspace up to a height above helideck level which takes into consideration the requirement to accommodate helicopter landing and take-off decision points (or committal point). This is considered to be a height above the helideck corresponding to 9.14 m (30 ft) plus wheels-to-rotor height plus one rotor diameter. For the Sikorsky S92, for example, this equates to a column of air approximately 31 m (or 102 ft) above helideck surface level. The formula is clearly type-specific, being predicated on two of the dimensional aspects of the design helicopter, which are specific to type. 3.2.6.2 Generally, with respect to turbulence, a limit on the standard deviation of the vertical airflow velocity of 1.75 m/s should not be exceeded. However, note that this criterion is close to onshore background turbulence levels and that it would be unusual for a helideck not to exceed this lower threshold limit for at least some wind speeds and directions. In consideration of this, the lower threshold limit of 1.75 m/s is intended to draw attention to conditions that might result in operating difficulties and to alert pilots to exercise caution, unless or until operating experience has confirmed the airflow characteristics to be acceptable. Where these criteria are significantly exceeded (i.e. where the limit exceeds 2.4 m/s), there is the possibility that operational restrictions will be necessary and in this case it may be advisable to consider modifications to the helideck to improve the airflow (such as by increasing the air gap). Fixed or floating facilities or ships where there is a likelihood of exceeding the criteria should be subjected to appropriate testing e.g. a scale model in a wind tunnel or by computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis, to establish the wind environment in which helicopters will be expected to operate. 3.2.6.3 Unless there are no significant heat sources on the facility or ship, designers should commission a survey of ambient temperature rise based on a Gaussian dispersion model and supported by wind tunnel testing or CFD analysis. Where the results of such modelling and/or testing indicate there may be a rise of air temperature of more than 2°C averaged over a three second time interval, there is the possibility that operational limitations and/or restrictions may need to be applied. 3.2.6.4 For permanent multiple platform configurations, normally consisting of two or more bridge-linked modules in close proximity to each other, the environmental effects of hazards emanating from all constituent modules should be considered on helideck operations. This is particularly appropriate for the case of hot or cold gas exhausts where there will always be a wind direction which carries any exhaust plumes from a bridge-linked module in the direction of the helideck. 3.2.6.5 For temporary combined operations where typically one or more mobile facilities and/or ships are operated in close proximity to another (usually fixed) facility, the environmental effects emanating from one facility or ship should be fully considered for all facilities located together in temporary combined operations. 3.3 GUIDANCE ON HELIDECK SIZE AND SURFACE MOUNTED OBJECTS Note.— In respect to D and D-value referenced in the following sections (Sections 3.3 and 3.4), it should be noted that this corresponds to the largest overall dimension of a single main rotor helicopter when rotors are turning, being measured, and expressed in metres, or in feet, from the most forward position of the main rotor tip path plane to the most rearward position of the tail rotor tip path plane or the helicopter structure. 3.3.1 For a helideck which is 1 D or greater, it is presumed that the final approach and take-off area (FATO) and the TLOF will always be coincidental, occupying the same space and having the same load-bearing characteristics. Therefore, for helidecks that are 1 D or greater any reference to FATO may be assumed automatically to include the TLOF; so for a 1 D helideck TLOF is used throughout the relevant sections of Annex 14 — Aerodromes, Volume II — Heliports and in Part I of this manual (Figure I-3-1 refers). The FATO and TLOF are each bounded by the circle “1 x D” which is a dynamic load-bearing surface. 3.3.2 For a helideck which is less than 1 D, the TLOF and FATO are regarded to be collocated but are not coincidental as only the TLOF element, consisting of a load-bearing surface, is permitted to apply the reduction below 1 D. The FATO element, for the containment of the helicopter, remains a constant 1 D regardless of the dimension of the reduced TLOF (Figure I-3-2 refers). The FATO is bound by the outer circle from which the obstacle sector surfaces derive their origin. The TLOF is bound by the inner circle (represented as a circle within the octagon shape of the helideck loadbearing area). The FATO outside the TLOF perimeter represents a non-load bearing surface for helicopters as it usually extends over the safety device (whether safety net or safety shelf) which is incapable of supporting even the static load of a helicopter. Therefore, a helideck incorporates one FATO and one TLOF; notwithstanding for a fixed or floating offshore facility, to improve operational flexibility, there may be the possibility to provide additional helideck(s) elsewhere on the facility – the advantages of this are raised in Chapter 3, 3.2.1.10. 3.3.3 It should be remembered that the basic size of a 1 D FATO with coincident TLOF is, of necessity, a compromise for offshore operations where space is invariably limited. Nonetheless, it is essential that the TLOF provides sufficient space for the landing gear configuration and sufficient surface area to promote a helpful “ground cushion” effect from rotor downwash. The area provided should also allow adequate room for passengers and crew to alight or embark the helicopter and to transit to and from the operating area safely. In addition, space consideration needs to be given to allow essential on deck operations, such as baggage handling, tying down the helicopter or helicopter refuelling, to occur safely and efficiently, and, in the event of an incident or accident occurring, for rescue and firefighting teams to always have good access to the landing area from an upwind location (see also Chapter 6). 3.3.4 The design should allow for sufficient clearance from the main rotor and tail rotor of the helicopter to essential objects permitted to be around the perimeter of the TLOF, including obstacles that may be present in the limited obstacle sector (LOS). It should be clearly understood that a FATO of 1 D is the minimum dimension sufficient for the containment of the helicopter; in this case, where a precise landing is completed (see also Chapter 5, especially the use of touchdown/positioning marking circle), the main and tail rotors will abut the edge of the 1 D circle. For this reason it is important that the yellow touchdown/positioning marking circle is accurately and clearly marked and is used by aircrew every time for positioning the helicopter during the touchdown manoeuvre. 3.3.5 Sufficient margins to allow for touchdown/positioning inaccuracies as a result of normal variations or handling difficulties, for example due to challenging meteorological conditions, aerodynamic effects and/or dynamic motions due to ocean waves, should be allowed for in the design. The helideck and environs should provide adequate visual cues and references for aircrew to use throughout the approach to touchdown manoeuvre, from initial helideck location and identification (acquisition) through final approach to hover and to landing. In addition, adequate visual references should be available for the lift-off and hover into forward flight. 3.3.6 In consequence of the considerations stated above, except where an aeronautical study/risk assessment is able to demonstrate otherwise (see Appendix I-A), the minimum size for the newbuild design of a TLOF for single main rotor helicopters is deemed to be an area which can accommodate a circle whose dimension is no less than the overall length including rotors of the largest helicopter that the helideck is intended to serve. For helicopters with a MTOM of 3 175 kg or less, it is permitted, on the basis of a risk assessment (see Appendix I-A) to shrink the overall size of the TLOF so that it is less than 1 D, but is not less than 0.83 D. 3.3.7 A FATO of 1 D provides full containment of the helicopter where touchdown markings are used correctly and precisely. For a helideck that has a dynamic load-bearing surface (TLOF) of less than 1 D, elements of the helicopter will inevitably extend beyond the edge of the TLOF. For this reason the TLOF is surrounded by a circle with a diameter of 1 D — which is obstacle-free with the exception of the permitted obstacles discussed in Section 3.3.8 below. In essence, this obstacle-free area represents the standard 1 D FATO from which the limited obstacle sector extends. To ensure obstacle clearance, it is important that the diameter of the touchdown/positioning marking circle is 0.5 of the notional FATO (not of the smaller landing surface (TLOF)) and is located at the centre of the FATO (these points are emphasised in the Appendix I-A sub-1 D risk assessment). 3.3.8 One of the key elements relating to acceptance of a sub-1 D TLOF is the requirement for sufficient clearance to exist from the main or tail rotor of the helicopter to permitted objects which, to ensure safe helideck operations, may need to be present around the TLOF. These essential objects may include guttering, with or without a raised kerb around the helideck, where provided, helideck perimeter lighting systems including helideck perimeter floodlighting, helideck firefighting equipment e.g. a fixed monitor system (FMS) (see Chapter 6) and any handrails or signage associated with the helideck which may not be capable of complete retraction or removal during helicopter operations. 3.3.9 For a helideck having an overall dimension of 1 D or larger, assuming also a D-value greater than 16 m (52.5 ft), the height of permitted objects around the TLOF perimeter should be no greater than 25 cm (10 in) above helideck level (see Figure I-3-1) but ideally no more than 15 cm (6 in) above helideck level. For a helideck, which has an overall dimension less than 1 D and/or has a D-value of 16 m (52.5 ft) or less, the height of permitted objects around the TLOF perimeter should be no greater than 5 cm (2 in) above helideck level (see Figure I-3-2). 3.3.10 Essential objects, which because of their function are required to be located around the TLOF perimeter, should be of a suitable construction when assessed against the undercarriage design of helicopters operating to the helideck. For a helideck having an overall dimension of 1 D or larger, assuming also a D-value greater than 16 m (52.5 ft), where the construction of permitted objects around the TLOF could present a threat to the undercarriage and tail rotor systems of helicopters passing over the TLOF perimeter at low altitude and at low airspeed, more demanding obstacle height restriction for objects around the TLOF should be considered, so that essential objects are restricted to a height no greater than 15 cm (6 in) above helideck level. 3.3.11 The helideck may be of any shape as long as it can contain within its boundary the minimum prescribed dimensions, which are based on accommodating a usually ‘hypothetical’ circle. Although helidecks may be square, circular or rectangular — all common shapes for early helideck designs — newbuild helidecks are more likely to be hexagonal or octagonal in shape. Consisting of a series of straight sides/edges, these arrangements provide some advantages over early design shapes. For example, multi-sided straight lines can provide more effective visual cues at night than do either a circular or square arrangement. Circular helidecks tend to be less rich in visual cues than do helidecks consisting of a series of straight lines. 3.4 SHIPBOARD HELIPORT SIZE AND SURFACE-MOUNTED OBJECTS 3.4.1 A shipboard heliport may be purpose-built or non-purpose-built and be provided in the bow or stern of a ship, have an over-side location (usually cantilevered), be amidships on or close to the centre line of the ship, be located on the ship’s side or, subject to structural considerations (see Section 3.1), utilize other non-purpose-built areas of the ship such as over a hatch cover (see also Chapter 3, 3.2.5). 3.4.2 For a shipboard heliport, regardless of whether it is purpose-built or non-purpose-built, where the diameter of the landing area is 1 D or larger it is presumed that the FATO and TLOF will always be coincidental and therefore the TLOF is assumed to include the FATO when used throughout the relevant sections of Annex 14, Volume II, and in this manual. A shipboard heliport commonly incorporates one TLOF, notwithstanding that for a large ship, to improve operational flexibility, there may be opportunity to provide an additional landing area elsewhere on the facility — the advantages of this are raised in Chapter 3. 3.4.3 For a purpose-built shipboard heliport provided in the bow or stern of a ship, where operations are conducted within limited touchdown directions only (see Figure I-3-3), consideration may be given to reducing the load-bearing surface dimension athwartships; provided the helicopter’s longitudinal (landing) direction the TLOF dimension is at least 1 D, the width of the TLOF in the athwartships direction may be reduced to no less than 0.83 D. Across both axes the minimum dimension of the FATO is 1 D, so athwartships the FATO will typically overlap the perimeter netting (or safety shelving) on both the port and starboard sides. This portion of the FATO, which for a minimum size (0.83 D TLOF) extends either side beyond the TLOF by 0.085 D, is assumed to be non-load-bearing for helicopters. 3.4.4 The basic size of the FATO and TLOF for a shipboard heliport is, of necessity, a compromise for offshore operations where space is often limited. The landing and take-off (load-bearing) area should provide sufficient space for the landing gear configuration and a sufficient surface area to promote helpful “ground cushion” effect from rotor downwash. The surface area should allow adequate room for passengers and crew to alight or embark the helicopter and to transit to and from the operating area safely. In addition, space consideration needs to be given to allow essential on deck operations, such as baggage handling, tying down the helicopter or helicopter refuelling, to occur safely and efficiently, and, in the event of an incident or accident occurring, for rescue and firefighting teams to have good access to the landing area, at all times from an upwind location (see also Chapter 6). For the arrangement described in 3.4.3, operators should consider running this through the risk assessment ‘template’ provided for sub-1 D helidecks at Appendix I-A. 3.4.5 The design should allow for sufficient clearance from the main rotor and tail rotor of the helicopter to objects permitted to be around the perimeter of the TLOF, including objects that may be present in the limited obstacle sector. It should be clearly understood that a FATO of 1 D is sufficient only for containment of the helicopter; the main and tail rotors will always be at the edge of the 1 D circle — even when the helicopter is perfectly positioned. For this reason, it is important that the touchdown/positioning marking circle is accurately and clearly marked and is used by aircrew for positioning the helicopter during the touchdown manoeuvre. 3.4.6 Sufficient margins to allow for touchdown/positioning inaccuracies as a result of normal variations or handling difficulties, for example due to challenging meteorological conditions, aerodynamic effects and/or dynamic motions due to ocean waves, should be allowed for in the design. Finally, the helideck and the environs should provide adequate visual references for the aircrew throughout the approach to touchdown manoeuvre from initial helideck location and identification (acquisition) through final approach to hover and to landing. In addition, adequate visual references should be available for lift-off and hover (see Appendix I-A for guidance). 3.4.7. In consequence of the considerations stated above, the minimum size of the FATO and the TLOF for single main rotor helicopters is deemed to be an area which can accommodate a circle whose dimension is no less than the overall length including rotors of the largest (design) helicopter that the shipboard heliport is intended to serve. 3.4.8 In the case of a purpose-built shipboard heliport provided in the bow or stern of a narrow-beam ship, where operations are conducted with limited touchdown directions, it is permissible to make a case for operations to shipboard heliports that are less than 1 D, but are no less than 0.83 D in the athwartships direction. The criterion used to assess operations conducted to sub-1 D helidecks is contained in Appendix I-A and could be used to help inform a decision on safe operations to a sub-1 D shipboard heliport. Example — For a ship with a bow-mounted shipboard heliport steaming into wind on a heading of 360°, the touchdown heading of the helicopter (nose) is limited in heading between 330° and 030°, while for a ship with a bow-mounted shipboard heliport steaming downwind on a heading of 180°, the touchdown headings of the helicopter (nose) is limited to between 150° and 210°. In each case the ship may need to be manoeuvred to ensure that the direction of the helicopter touchdown heading is aligned with the direction of the relative wind at the time the helicopter is operating. See Figure I-3-3. Note.— States should carefully consider the available visual references before sanctioning operations to bow- or stern-mounted shipboard heliports at night, especially those which are less than 1 D. 3.4.9 One of the important elements relating to the minimum size of the FATO and TLOF is the requirement for sufficient clearance to exist from the main or tail rotor of the helicopter to essential objects which may need to be present around a TLOF. For a shipboard heliport, which has an overall dimension less than 1 D and/or has a D-value of 16 m (52.5 ft) or less, the height of essential permitted objects around the TLOF perimeter should be no greater than 5 cm (2 in) above the level of the landing area, while for a shipboard heliport having an overall dimension of 1 D or greater, assuming also a D-value greater than 16 m, the height of essential permitted objects around the TLOF perimeter should be no greater than 25 cm (10 in), but ideally no more than 15 cm (6 in), above the level of the landing area. Essential objects may include guttering with or without a raised kerb, where provided, perimeter lighting systems, including perimeter floodlighting and foam monitors where a FMS is the primary means for firefighting (see Chapter 6) and any handrails or signage associated with the shipboard heliport which may not be capable of complete retraction or removal during helicopter operations. 3.4.10 Essential objects, which because of their function are required to be located around the TLOF perimeter, should be of a suitable construction when assessed against the undercarriage design of helicopters operating to the shipboard heliport. For a purpose-built shipboard heliport having an overall dimension of 1 D or larger, assuming also a D-value greater than 16.00 m (52.5 ft), where the construction of permitted objects around the TLOF could present a threat to the undercarriage and tail rotor systems of helicopters passing over the TLOF perimeter at low altitude and at low airspeed, more demanding obstacle height restriction for objects around the TLOF should be considered so that essential objects are restricted to a height no greater than 15 cm (6 in) above heliport level. 3.4.11 With the exception of the operation illustrated in Figure I-3-3, a FATO and TLOF for a shipboard heliport may be any shape as long as it can contain a usually ‘hypothetical’ circle with the minimum prescribed dimensions of 1 D. Although purpose-built shipboard heliports may be square, circular or rectangular — a common shape used for early designs — newbuild purpose-built shipboard heliports are more likely to be hexagonal or octagonal in shape. Consisting of a series of straight sides/edges, these arrangements provide some advantages over early design shapes. For example, multi-sided straight lines can provide better visual cues at night than either a circular or a square arrangement. 3.5 HELIDECK SURFACE ARRANGEMENTS 3.5.1 Objects which, due to their function, are required to be located on the surface of the TLOF, such as helideck nets and helideck touchdown marking lighting systems, where provided, should not exceed a height above surface level prior to installation of more than 2.5 cm (1 in) and may only be present if they do not represent a hazard to helicopter operations. It should be appreciated that the presence of raised fittings on a helideck has potential to induce dynamic rollover for helicopters fitted with skids and extra care should be taken when incorporating deck-mounted fittings to helidecks intended for use by skid-fitted helicopters. As a consequence, because of the possible adverse effects of skid tips becoming enmeshed in helideck surface netting, it is recommended that skid-fitted helicopters not operate to helidecks while a net is present. In addition, because of the concerns of dynamic rollover, helicopters should only operate to helidecks fitted with deck-mounted touchdown marking lighting systems where the system components are suitably finished, and the installed height of the system does not exceed 2.5 cm (1 in). This would include proper arrangements for the chamfering of components (e.g. panels) and the maintenance of suitable friction surface finishes for each element of the system (see Chapter 5, 5.15 and Appendix I-B). 3.5.2 The surface of the landing area should be sloped to prevent the pooling of water. To this end, the landing area should contain a suitable drainage system capable of directing rainwater, seawater, firefighting media and fuel spills away from the helideck, to a safe place. To ensure the adequate drainage of a helideck located on a fixed facility, the surface of the helideck should be laid to a fall or cambered to prevent any liquids accumulating on the landing area. Such falls or cambers should be approximately 1:100 and should be designed to drain liquids away from the main structure. A system of guttering, and/or slightly raised kerb, should be located around the perimeter of the TLOF to prevent spilled fuel falling onto other parts of the facility while directing any spillages to a safe storage or disposal area, which may include the sea surface (where permitted)1. The capacity of the drainage system should be adequate to contain the maximum likely spillage of fuel on the helideck, taking into account the design helicopter and its fuel capacity, typical fuel loads and uplifts. The design of the drainage system should preclude blockage by debris. Any deflection of the helideck surface, in service, due to static loads imposed by the helicopter while stationary, should not modify the surface to the extent that it encourages pooled liquids to remain on the helideck. An example of a helideck drainage system capacity check, based on an S92 helideck design, is attached at Appendix I-C. 3.5.3 The surface of the landing area should be skid-resistant to both helicopters and personnel using the TLOF. This entails that all essential markings on the surface should have a coating of non-slip material. A wide variety of suitable materials are commercially available and information on which system would be best applied in particular cases may be sought through an appropriate authority in each individual State. Guidance may also be given by said State on what minimum friction properties need to be achieved to ensure that a given surface is rendered ‘skid-resistant’ to helicopters and is suitable for personnel using the helideck. The appropriate authority should advise how a helideck can be tested and re-tested, to ensure compliance. Note.— It is recognized that certain aluminium helidecks contain holes in the topside construction for the rapid drainage of fluids, including fuel spills which could occur, for example, if a helicopter’s fuel system is ruptured by the impact of a crash. In these cases, particular care should be taken to assess the quality of skid-resistance prior to the helideck going into service. In addition, it is also important to ensure that the pattern, and especially the size of any holes, do not have a detrimental effect on helicopter operations, i.e. the surface arrangement should not promote the breakdown of a helpful ground cushion beneath the helicopter to reduce beneficial ground effect (for a fuller discussion of this issue see Section 3.2). 3.5.4 Whenever possible, the helideck surface should be rendered so as to meet minimum friction coefficients, acceptable to the appropriate authority (e.g. for helicopter operations on fixed helidecks, not less than 0.6µ inside the touchdown/positioning marking (TD/PM) circle and on the painted markings and 0.5µ outside the TD/PM circle, and for moving helidecks not less than 0.65µ inside the TD/PM circle and on the painted markings and 0.5µ outside the TD/PM circle). However, where an acceptable minimum friction coefficient of 0.6µ for a fixed helideck or 0.65µ for a moving helideck cannot be achieved for operations with wheeled helicopters, there is an option to provide a surface mounted tautly stretched helideck landing net to encompass the touchdown/positioning marking circle and the heliport identification “H” marking, so that for a normal touchdown, the wheeled undercarriage of the helicopter is contained within the perimeter of the net. The net should not be so large as to compromise the clear interpretation of other markings; for example, the heliport-name marking or the maximum allowable mass marking — the helideck net may need to be modified to achieve this objective, e.g. corners are cropped and removed. Where a net is fitted, the entire surface should meet a minimum friction coefficient of 0.5µ. 3.5.5 It is preferable that the net be manufactured from material which is durable, in consideration of the mass of the design helicopter and the forces acting on the net through the undercarriage. Materials selected should not be prone to wear and tear such as flaking caused by prolonged exposure to adverse weather conditions. The rope should be secured at regular intervals and tensioned to a suitable level (typically 2 225 N). Generally it should not be possible to raise any part of the net by more than 25 cm (10 in) above the helideck surface when applying a vigorous vertical pull by hand. The profile of the uninstalled net should ensure that it does not exceed the touchdown area height constraint requirements specified in Section 3.5.1. Note.— It is not recommended that nets be provided for operations by skid-fitted helicopters, as skids can easily become enmeshed in netting. Further, it should also be considered that the presence of a net may have a detrimental effect on certain firefighting solutions where components, when activated, are required to ‘pop-up’ through the surface of the helideck. This action might be hindered by the presence of a tautly stretched helideck net. 3.5.6 Sufficient tie-down points and flush-fitting to obviate damage to tires or skids should be provided for securing the design helicopter. Tie-downs should be located, and be of such construction, so as to secure the helicopter in severe weather conditions. Construction should take account of the inertial forces resulting from any movement of a floating facility (See also Section 3.1). Tie-down points should be compatible with the dimensions of tie-down strop attachments. 3.5.7 Protection safety devices such as perimeter safety nets or safety shelves should be installed around the edge of the helideck, except where structural protection already exists. For helidecks completed on or after 1 January 2012, any safety device employed should not exceed the height of the outboard edge of the TLOF, which would present a hazard to helicopter operations. The load-bearing capability of the safety device should be assessed fit-for-purpose by reference to the shape and size of the workforce that it is intended to protect. 3.5.8 Where the safety device consists of perimeter netting, this should be of a flexible nature and be manufactured from a non-flammable material with the inboard edge fastened just below the edge of the helideck. The net itself should extend to a distance of at least 1.5 m (5 ft) in the horizontal plane and be arranged with an upward slope of approximately 10°. The net should not act as a trampoline but should provide a hammock effect to securely contain a person falling or rolling into it, without serious injury. When considering the securing of the net to the structure and the materials used, care should be taken to ensure each element will meet adequacy of purpose requirements, particularly that netting should not deteriorate over time due to prolonged exposure to the elements, including ultraviolet light. Perimeter nets may incorporate a hinge arrangement to facilitate the removal of sacrificial panels to allow for periodic testing. 3.5.9 Where the safety device consists of safety shelving, rather than netting, it should be ensured that the construction and layout of the shelving does not promote any adverse wind flow issues over the helideck (see Section 3.2.2), while providing equivalent personnel safety benefits to Section 3.5.7, and that it is installed to the same minimum dimensions as the netting system described above (at least 1.5 m (5 ft)) in the horizontal plane beyond the edge of the helideck. This solid shelving offers some advantage for promoting helpful ground cushion, especially for helidecks which are sub-1 D. It may also be further covered with netting to improve “grab” capabilities. 3.5.10 Helideck access points should be located at two or preferably three locations around the landing area to give passengers embarking or disembarking direct access to and from the helicopter without a need to pass around the tail rotor or under the main rotor of those helicopters with a low main rotor profile. The need to preserve, as far as possible, an unobstructed falling gradient over at least 180° should be carefully weighed against the size and design of the access platform in needing to accommodate vital helideck safety equipment (e.g. firefighting equipment) plus access stairs and signage so that any infringement to the falling gradient is the smallest possible, and preferably not at all. 3.5.11 Escape routes should be of a suitable size to enable quick and efficient movement of the maximum number of personnel who may require to use them, and to facilitate easy manoeuvring of firefighting equipment and use of stretchers. Typical dimensions for width of escape routes would be 1.2 m (4 ft) for main escape routes and 0.7 m (2.3 ft) for secondary escape routes, with consideration given to areas for manoeuvring a stretcher. Where foam monitors are selected for firefighting and collocated on an access platform, care should be taken to ensure that the presence of a monitor does not impede or cause injury to escaping personnel due to the operation of the monitor in an emergency situation. Handrails associated with access platforms may need to be made collapsible, retractable or removable where the height constraints of Section 3.3.9 cannot be otherwise met. 3.6 SHIPBOARD HELIPORT SURFACE ARRANGEMENTS 3.6.1 Objects which, due to their function, are required to be located on the surface of the landing area, such as fitted surface nets and touchdown marking lighting systems, should not exceed an uninstalled height above surface level of more than 2.5 cm (1 in) and should only be present if they do not represent a hazard to helicopter operations. It should be appreciated that raised fittings on a shipboard heliport has potential to induce dynamic rollover for helicopters fitted with skids. Because of the possible adverse effects of skid tips becoming enmeshed in the netting, it is not generally recommended that skid-fitted helicopters operate to shipboard heliports with a net present. In addition, because of the concerns of dynamic rollover, helicopters should only operate to shipboard heliports fitted with deck-mounted touchdown marking lighting systems where the system components are suitably finished and where the installed height does not exceed 2.5 cm (1 in). This would include proper arrangements for chamfering of components (e.g. panels) and the maintenance of suitable friction qualities for each element of the system (see Chapter 5, 5.15 and Appendix I-B). Note.— For a non-purpose-built shipboard heliport, there may be circumstances where non-essential, and otherwise immovable surface-mounted obstructions are located within or immediately adjacent to the landing area which, with robust operational controls, may be assessed not to present a hazard to the helicopter but which may need to be highlighted to be readily visible from the air. There is a scheme for marking of obstacles described in Chapter 4, 4.5, which also provides details of how to complete a helicopter landing area/operating area plan. 3.6.2 The surface of the landing area should be arranged to prevent the pooling of water. To this end, the landing area should be provided with a suitable drainage system capable of directing rainwater, seawater, firefighting media or fuel spills away from the surface of the landing area to a safe place. A system of guttering, and/or a slightly raised kerb, should be provided around the perimeter of the landing area to prevent spilled fuel falling onto other parts of the facility while directing any spillages to a safe storage or disposal place, which may be the sea surface (where permitted). The capacity of the drainage system should be adequate to contain the maximum likely spillage of fuel on the landing area taking account the design helicopter with its fuel capacity, typical fuel loads and uplifts. The design of the drainage system should preclude blockage by debris. Any deflection of the landing area surface due to static loads imposed by a stationary helicopter should not modify the surface to the extent that it encourages the pooling liquids to remain on the surface of the landing area. An example of a helideck drainage system capacity check, based on an S92 helideck design, is attached at Appendix I-C. 3.6.3 The surface of the landing area should be skid-resistant to both helicopters and personnel using the landing area. This entails that all essential markings on the surface should have a coating of non-slip material. A wide variety of suitable materials are commercially available and information on which system would be best applied in particular cases should be obtained through the appropriate authority in each individual State. Guidance may also be given by said State on what minimum friction properties need to be satisfied to ensure that a given surface is rendered skid-resistant to both helicopters and the personnel using it. The appropriate authority should also be able to advise how a surface can be tested, and retested, to ensure compliance. Note.— It is recognized that certain aluminium shipboard heliports contain holes in the topside construction for the purpose of rapid drainage of fluids including fuel spills which might occur if a helicopter’s fuel system is ruptured by the impact of a crash. In this instance, care should be taken to assess the qualities of skid-resistance prior to the shipboard heliport going into service. For these particular arrangements, it is also important to ensure that the pattern, and especially the size of any holes, does not have a detrimental effect on helicopter operations, i.e. the surface arrangement should not disrupt the ground cushion beneath the helicopter and so reduce beneficial ground effect. This issue is discussed in more detail in Appendix I-A and in Section 3.2. 3.6.4 Whenever possible, the surface of the landing area should be rendered to meet a minimum friction coefficient, acceptable to an appropriate authority (for helicopter operations to shipboard heliports typically not less than 0.65 µ inside the TD/PM circle and on the painted markings and 0.5 µ outside the TD/PM circle). However, where this cannot be achieved for a specific design, the option exists to provide a surface mounted tautly stretched net to encompass the touchdown/positioning marking circle and the heliport identification “H” marking such that for a normal touchdown, the wheeled undercarriage of the helicopter is contained within the landing net. The size of the net should not compromise the clear interpretation of other markings; for example the heliport-name marking or the maximum allowable mass marking — the net may be modified to achieve this objective e.g. have the corners cropped and removed. Where a net is fitted, the entire surface, regardless of whether it is covered by the net, should meet a minimum friction coefficient of 0.5 µ. 3.6.5 It is preferable that the landing net be manufactured from material which is durable, considering the mass of the design helicopter and the forces acting on the net through the undercarriage, and which is not prone to wear and tear such as flaking due to prolonged exposure to adverse weather conditions. The rope should be secured at regular intervals and tensioned to a suitable level (typically 2 225 N). As a general rule, it should not be possible to raise any part of the net by more than 25 cm (10 in) above the TLOF surface when applying a vigorous vertical pull by hand. The profile of the net should ensure that it does not exceed the surface level height constraint requirements specified in Section 3.6.1. Note.— It is not recommended that nets be provided for operations by skid-fitted helicopters as skids can easily become enmeshed in netting. It should also be considered that the presence of a net may have a detrimental effect on certain firefighting solutions where components, when activated, are required to emerge through the surface of the helideck. This action might be hindered by the presence of a tautly stretched net. 3.6.6 Sufficient tie-down points and flush-fitting to obviate damage to tires or skids, should be provided for securing the design helicopter for the shipboard heliport. These should be located and constructed so as to secure the helicopter in severe weather conditions. Construction should take account of the inertial forces resulting from any movement of the ship (see also Section 3.1). Tie-down points should be compatible with the dimensions of tie-down strap attachments. 3.6.7 Protection safety devices, such as perimeter safety nets or safety shelves, should be installed around the edge of a shipboard heliport except where structural protection exists. For shipboard heliports completed on or after 1 January 2015, any safety device employed should not exceed the height of the landing area at the outboard edge, which would present a hazard to helicopter operations. The load-bearing capability of the safety device should be assessed fit-for-purpose according to the size of the workforce that it is intended to protect. 3.6.8 If the safety device consists of perimeter netting, it should be of a flexible nature and be manufactured from a non-flammable material with the inboard edge fastened just below the edge of the shipboard heliport. The net itself should extend to a distance of at least 1.5 m (5 ft) in the horizontal plane and be arranged with an upward slope of approximately 10°. The net should not act as a trampoline but should display a hammock effect to securely contain a person falling or rolling into it, without serious injury. When considering the securing of the net to the structure and the materials used, care should be taken to ensure each element will meet adequacy of purpose requirements, particularly that netting should not deteriorate over time due to prolonged exposure to the elements, including ultraviolet light. Perimeter nets may incorporate a hinge arrangement to facilitate the removal of sacrificial panels to allow for testing. 3.6.9 Where the safety device consists of safety shelving, rather than netting, it should be ensured that the construction of the shelving does not promote any adverse wind flow issues over the shipboard heliport (see Section 3.2.2), while providing equivalent personnel safety benefits, and that it is installed to the same dimensions as the netting system described above (at least 1.5 m (5 ft) measured in the horizontal plane from the edge of the landing area). This solid shelving offers some advantage for promoting helpful ground cushion, especially for shipboard heliports which are sub-1 D. It may also be further covered with netting to improve traction. 3.6.10 Shipboard heliport access points should be located at two or preferably three locations around the landing area to give passengers embarking or disembarking direct access to and from the helicopter without the need to pass around the tail rotor or under the main rotor of those helicopters with a low main rotor profile. The need to preserve, as far as possible, an unobstructed falling 5:1 (or 3:1) gradient over at least 180° should be carefully weighed with the size and design of the access platform needed to accommodate vital heliport safety equipment (e.g. firefighting stations) plus access stairs and signage so that any infringement to the falling gradient is the smallest possible, and preferably not at all. 3.6.11 Escape routes should be of a suitable size to enable quick and efficient movement of the maximum number of personnel who may require to use them, and to facilitate easy manoeuvring of firefighting equipment and use of stretchers. Typical dimensions for width of escape routes would be 1.2 m (4 ft) for main escape routes and 0.7 m (2.3 ft) for secondary escape routes, with consideration given to areas for manoeuvring a stretcher. Where foam monitors are selected and collocated on an access platform, care should be taken to ensure that the presence of a monitor does not impede or cause injury to escaping personnel due to the operation of the monitor in an emergency situation. Handrails associated with access platforms may need to be made collapsible, retractable or removable where the height constraints of Section 3.4.9 cannot be met. Figure I-3-1. Helideck obstacle limitation sectors and surfaces for a FATO/TLOF of 1 D Part I. Offshore heliports Chapter 3. Physical characteristics Figure I-3-2. Helideck obstacle limitation sectors and surfaces for a FATO/TLOF less than 1 D (particular example is for a minimum-size 0.83 D TLOF) Figure I-3-3. Shipboard permitted landing headings for limited heading operation Chapter 4 OBSTACLE ENVIRONMENT 4.1 DESCRIPTION OF SURFACES — HELIDECKS 4.1.1 For any particular type of single main rotor helicopter, the final approach and take-off area (FATO) should be sufficiently large to contain a circle of diameter D equal to the largest dimension of the helicopter when the rotors are turning. Except for the presence of objects essential for the safe operation of helicopters, the FATO, encapsulating a usually hypothetical D-circle, should remain unobstructed. Acceptance of essential objects within the periphery of the FATO, intended to be an obstacle-free area to contain the design helicopter, should be subject to a risk assessment (see Appendix I-A). 4.1.2 From a point on the periphery of the above mentioned D-circle, an obstacle-free approach and take-off sector should be provided which extends over an angle of at least 210 degrees. Within this sector, obstacle accountability should be considered out to a distance from the periphery of the FATO that will allow for an unobstructed departure path appropriate to the least well performing helicopter the FATO is intended to serve. The height limitation for obstacles in the obstacle-free sector (OFS) is 25 cm (10 in) for a TLOF of greater than 16 m (52.5 ft) and/or 1 D or greater, but ideally no greater than 15 cm (6 in), and 5 cm (2 in) for a TLOF 16 m (52.5 ft) or less and/or less than 1 D. For helicopters that are operated in performance class (PC) 1 or 2, the horizontal extent of this distance from the edge of the FATO will be based on the one-engine-inoperative capability of the type to be used. 4.1.3 The bisector of the 210-degree OFS will normally pass through the centre of the D-circle. In exceptional cases, for the avoidance of immovable obstacles that may be located on one side towards the edge of the obstacle-free sector boundary, when supported by an aeronautical survey it may be permitted to swing the OFS by up to 15 degrees either clockwise or anti-clockwise to clear an object — as illustrated in Chapter 5, Figure I-5-3. If it is necessary for the 210-degree sector to be swung, then it is normal practice to swing the 180-degree falling gradient in the same direction and by the corresponding amount, unless by doing so an obstacle is then introduced below FATO level, which compromises the falling gradient. 4.1.4 To account for the loss in height of a helicopter following an engine failure occurring during the early stages of the take-off manoeuvre, it is required that a clear zone (CZ) be provided below landing area level covering a sector of at least 180 degrees with its origin based at the centre of the D-circle. The falling gradient is measured downwards to the sea surface from the edge of the (approximately 1.5 m (5 ft)) safety netting or safety shelving on a gradient of 5:1 (5 units vertically (downwards) for every 1 unit horizontally (outwards)). The surface should extend outwards for a distance that will allow for safe clearance from obstacles below the landing area in the event of an engine failure based on the least well performing helicopter that is serviced by the FATO. For helicopters operated in performance class (PC) 1 or 2, the horizontal extent of this distance from the landing area will be based on the one-engine inoperative capability of the helicopter type in use. All objects that are underneath the final approach and take-off paths will need to be assessed. 4.1.5 As mentioned, the OFS should extend over a sector of at least 210 degrees, but, obstacles permitting, may extend over the whole 360-degree sector. An obvious example of where a 360-degree OFS could apply is for a facility where the helideck sits above the highest point at an elevation where there is no other significant topside structure present. However, these kinds of facilities (e.g. monopods) are the exception to the rule and it is more likely that obstacles will be present in the remaining limited obstacle sector that protrudes above the level of the FATO on the obstacle side. A limited obstacle sector (LOS) is therefore normally present and will occupy the remaining sector, covering an arc of up to 150 degrees. 4.1.6 The LOS consists of two segments: the first (inner) segment, which adjoins the periphery of the FATO on the obstacle side, will extend to a horizontal distance of 0.12 D from the edge of the FATO and will have the same shape characteristics as the physical shape of the landing area — as newbuild helidecks are most commonly octagonal or hexagonal in shape, this will mean the extent of the first (and second) segments of the LOS, will be lines parallel to the TLOF perimeter marking which is required to follow the physical shape of the helideck (or shipboard heliport). This is illustrated in Chapter 3, Figures I-3-1 and I-3-2. The height limitation for obstacles in the first segment of the LOS (at 0.12 D) is 25 cm (10 in) for a TLOF of greater than 16 m (52.5 ft) and/or 1 D and 5 cm (2 in) for a TLOF 16 m (52.5) or less and/or less than 1D. Guidance on obstacle-protected surfaces for non-standard square or circular helidecks is given in Section 4.5. 4.1.7 The second segment of the LOS extends from the periphery of the first segment for a further distance of 0.21 D (i.e. a total distance of 0.33 D from the periphery of the FATO). Obstacle limitation within the second segment is more relaxed, most limiting at the forward edge of the second segment where obstacle height restriction is limited to 0.05 D based on the diameter of the FATO. From this point, the obstacle limitation surfaces extend on an upward gradient that equates to a slope of 2 units horizontally for every one unit vertically — the 1:2 slope extends from 0.12 D to 0.33 D. Once beyond 0.33 D from the edge of the FATO, obstacle height restrictions no longer apply. 4.1.8 Obstacles that penetrate either segment of the LOS should be removed or modified so that they no longer constitute an infringement. Where an immovable object penetrates the LOS, whether in the first and/or second segment (an example of this could be the leg of a self-elevating jack-up facility which is situated right in the LOS — clearly the leg is neither moveable nor modifiable), it may be possible to mitigate the effects of the penetration by applying a prohibited landing sector (PLS) marking, which ensures that a helicopter cannot land with the tail towards the obstacle, where the obstacle is not within the pilot’s field of view. The application of a PLS, including the characteristic of the marking, is described in more detail in Chapter 5, 5.11. The benefit of a PLS marking may be maximized by applying it in conjunction with an offset touchdown/positioning marking (the offset marking is discussed in further detail in Chapter 5, 5.7.2 and illustrated in Figure I-5-3, Example B). The application of a PLS, with or without a TD/PM, should not be used as an easy (and often temporary) solution to justify the presence of unwanted obstructions; it is always preferable, where practical, to remove, to relocate or to modify an obstacle which would otherwise penetrate through the surface of the LOS. 4.1.9 Experience suggests there can be pressure to accommodate obstacles close to the extended boundary of the OFS but outside the second segment on the limited obstacle side, where there are no specific obstacle restrictions/limitations. The presence of a large solid object, whether a new permanent feature or a temporary one, in close proximity to the helideck has potential to promote turbulence over the helideck in some wind conditions and should be avoided. This issue is discussed in depth in Chapter 3, 3.2 — but to avoid doubt, any proposed siting near to the helideck should be subjected to appropriate modelling before it is introduced. Equally, locating a non-rigid (flexible) structure, such as a long whip aerial, in the area immediately adjacent to the helideck can have an impact on the safety of helicopter operations if the whip aerial should bend into the OFS under the force of an approaching helicopter’s rotor downwash. It is therefore recommended that flexible objects, such as whip aerials, are not sited right at the edge of the OFS where they could bend into the protected area. 4.2 DESCRIPTION OF SURFACES — SHIPBOARD HELIPORTS 4.2.1 The surfaces, sectors and warnings described above apply equally in the majority of the cases for shipboard heliports. This includes bow and stern-mounted heliports and purpose-built heliports cantilevered over the side of a vessel. Operators with these types of arrangements should therefore read all sections above. However, there are also so-called non-standard arrangements which do not apply the same obstacle limitation surfaces as a helideck. These ‘exceptions’ are described in the remaining paragraphs of this section. 4.2.2 A unique arrangement for the obstacle-protected surfaces and sectors is applied for a purpose-built or non-purpose-built shipboard heliport, typically, but not necessarily, located midships on the centreline of the vessel (e.g. a midships heliport on a tanker — Figure I-1-5.). In this case, an OFS (sometimes known as the clear area) is provided between two limited obstacle sectors (sometimes designated as the manoeuvring zones — forward and aft). Being sandwiched between the OFS provides an obstacle-free funnel for approach and departure, which allows a helicopter operating across the vessel (from port to starboard or vice-versa) to do so free of obstacles and, by providing an LOS (manoeuvring zone) either side of the approach and departure funnel, affords the helicopter some degree of lateral movement by providing obstacle restriction forward and aft in the LOS, for a helicopter operating athwartships to the heliport. The sectors and surfaces applied uniquely to this type of arrangement are illustrated in Figure I-4-1. The markings for this arrangement are addressed in Figure I-5-4. 4.2.3 A further non-standard arrangement is applied to a non-purpose-built landing area located on a ship’s side. In this case, the minimum FATO, always coincident with the TLOF, is a circle of 1 D, based on the design helicopter. A CZ, free of obstacles above 25 cm (10 in), is established at the ship’s side adjacent to the FATO, for a distance of 1.5 D. This is referred to as the CZ extended at the ship’s side. Surrounding the FATO is a manoeuvring zone (MZ), having a width of 0.25 D, which tapers out from the midpoint of the D-circle to a distance of 2 D measured at the ship’s side. Two areas adjacent to the ships side inside the inner boundary of the MZ but outside the FATO are referred to as limited obstacle areas (LOA) where obstacles are permitted but should not exceed a maximum height of 25 cm (10 in). Similar obstacle restrictions apply to the MZ which surround the FATO (also known as the CZ). The obstacle limitation surfaces and sectors for this arrangement are illustrated in Figure I-4-2. Note.— Where the FATO is 16 m (52.5 ft) or less, the maximum height of obstacles permitted in the MZ and LOA is correspondingly reduced from 25 cm (10 in) to 5 cm (2 in). 4.2.4 For a non-purpose-built landing area located on a ship’s side, which by design utilizes an area of the ship’s decking, the tight control of obstacles on the ship’s surface is not as straightforward as it would be for any purpose-built heliport structure. In this circumstance it is necessary to develop a system for mapping of obstacles so the operator is aware of their location and any potential impact on helicopter operations. A procedure for mapping of obstacles on non-purpose-built shipboard heliports is fully described in Section 4.6. Note.— Where the D-value is 16 m (52.5 ft) or less the obstacle height limitation around the landing area is restricted to 5 cm (2 in). 4.3 TEMPORARY COMBINED OPERATIONS 4.3.1 Temporary combined operations are essentially arrangements where two or more offshore facilities, whether fixed or floating, are in close proximity ‘alongside’ or ‘pulled away’ from one another. They may be in place for a matter of hours, days, or for up to several years. On occasion, combined operations may include vessels working alongside one or more fixed and/or mobile facilities. The close proximity of facilities and/or vessels to one another is likely to entail one or more of the helidecks/shipboard heliports being operationally restricted due to one or more of the obstacle-protected surfaces being compromised and/or due to adverse environmental effects of one installation on the landing area of another (environmental effects are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3, 3.2). For example, the facility pictured in the centre of Figure I-4-3 has obstacle-protected sectors and surfaces (extended OFS as well as the falling gradient) that are severely compromised by the proximity of the other two facilities. A landing prohibited marker (a yellow cross on a red background) is in place on the drilling facility (centre) to prevent operations to the helideck. Where temporary combined operations are planned, prior to helicopter operations, an assessment should be completed to assess the physical as well as the environmental impact of the arrangements and to assess any flight restrictions or limitations, including prohibitions, which might need to be disseminated to aircrew (usually a temporary instruction). Helidecks (or shipboard heliports), which are determined to be unavailable, should display the relevant landing prohibited marker by day while, at night, all aeronautical lights should be extinguished. 4.3.2 Quite often, combined operations will involve both facilities and/or vessels being in close proximity alongside one another, where the effect of one facility on the helideck obstacle-protected surfaces of another is immediately obvious. However, during the life of a combined arrangement, there may also be periods when mobile facilities and/or vessels are pulled away to a stand-off position, which could be at some distance. It will be necessary for operators to reappraise the situation for a combined operation in the stand-off configuration. With one or more installations or vessels pulled away, there may be an opportunity to relax or remove limitations imposed for the ”alongside” configuration. This is normally an assessment for the helicopter operator to make. 4.4 MULTIPLE PLATFORM CONFIGURATIONS/LOCATION OF STANDBY VESSELS 4.4.1 Where two or more fixed structures are permanently bridge-linked, the overall design should ensure that the sectors and surfaces provided for the helideck are not compromised by other modules which may form part of a multiple platform configuration. It is also important to assess the environmental impact of all modules on the flying environment around the helideck. This is discussed in further detail in Chapter 3, 3.2. 4.4.2 Where there is an intention to add new modules to an existing platform arrangement, it is important to make an assessment of the potential impact that additional platforms might have on helideck operations. This will include an assessment of the sectors and surfaces for the helideck which should not be compromised due to the location of a new platform, or modification to an existing platform. This will include a detailed analysis of the environmental impact on the flying environment around the helideck, which is addressed in further detail in Chapter 3, 3.2. 4.4.3 The presence of a Standby Vessel in the vicinity of an active helideck operation is a legal requirement in many offshore sectors. The location of the Standby Vessel, and any other vessel present on the sea surface, should not compromise the safety of the helicopter operation. It is prudent to re-emphasize the following, based on the note from Annex 14 — Aerodromes, Volume II — Heliports, Section 4.2.14: Note.—Where there is a requirement to position, at sea surface level, one or more offshore support vessel(s) (e.g. a Standby Vessel) [or tanker] essential to the operation of a fixed or floating offshore facility, but located within the proximity of the fixed or floating offshore facility[‘s obstacle-free sector (OFS)], any offshore support vessel(s) would need to be positioned so as not to compromise the safety of helicopter operations during take-off departure and/or approach to landing. 4.5 GUIDANCE FOR OBSTACLE-PROTECTED SURFACES FOR SQUARE OR CIRCULAR HELIDECKS 4.5.1 Earlier, a description of surfaces for helidecks including the characteristics of the limited obstacle sector (LOS) which assumes in each case that the shape of the helideck consists of an octagon or a hexagon, was addressed. This is because the great majority of newly built helidecks, and purpose-built shipboard heliports, are configured for one of these shapes. However, helidecks and shipboard heliports may also be quadrilateral (mainly square) or circular, so it is important to provide some guidance on the characteristics of the obstacle-protected surfaces for square and circular helidecks and shipboard heliports. While evidently there are any number of different variations of shapes possible (as long as the extent of the dynamic load-bearing area provided is able to accommodate the usually hypothetical D-circle), characteristics for the sectors and surfaces of non-standard shapes will, in the main, have a resemblance to one of the schemes used for octagonal or hexagonal helidecks (illustrated in Chapter 3) or to arrangements for circular or square helidecks or shipboard heliports, as illustrated in this section of Chapter 4 — see Figures I-4-4 to I-4-7. 4.5.2 The extent of the 150° LOS segments in the case of a helideck or shipboard heliport that is any shape other than circular will be represented by straight lines parallel to the perimeter of the TLOF. The limiting dimensions of the two segments for the LOS measured from the inboard edge of the landing area are similar — the first (inner) sector comprising a 0.12 D segment where the height limitation for obstacles is 25 cm (10 in) for helidecks of 1 D and greater provided they are also greater than D=16 m (52.5 ft), or 5 cm (2 in) for helidecks where the D-value is 16 m (52.5 ft) or less and/or is less than 1 D. The second segment extending out a further 0.21 D originating at a height of 0.05 D above the helideck surface at the inner edge rises on a 1:2 slope out to an overall distance of 0.33 D. For circular helidecks or shipboard heliports, the segments and sectors represented by straight lines are replaced using sectors shaped in an arc. The overall dimensions are ostensibly the same, but the penetration of the surface at certain points along the arc is somewhat more limited. This is illustrated below: Figures I-4-4 and I-4-5 address 1.0 D helideck/shipboard heliport arrangements, and Figures I-4-6 and I-4-7 address 0.83 D helideck/shipboard heliport arrangements. 4.6 MAPPING OF OBSTACLES ON NON-PURPOSE-BUILT SHIPBOARD HELIPORTS 4.6.1 This section provides guidance on the completion of a helicopter landing area plan for the benefit of helicopter operators. The helicopter landing area plan provides additional information regarding the vessel’s surface and the helicopter landing area (a non-purpose-built ship’s side arrangement). The plan should be prepared in advance of any intended helicopter operations and should be stored on the vessel and provided to the helicopter operator. Amendments to the plan should be made when appropriate. 4.6.2 The system described assumes paper versions of a helicopter landing area plan would be made, but this procedure lends itself just as easily to an electronic form of dissemination. Whichever method is used to create and file the helicopter landing area plan, it should include templates annotated with vessel-specific data, including any obstructions within the FATO/TLOF (a 1 D circular CZ) or within the manoeuvring zone or LOA. Templates should be annotated with the obstructions that exceed the height limits prescribed for the specific areas in Figure I-4-2 — for the LOA and the MZ the obstruction height limit is 25 cm (10 in) while for the FATO/TLOF the obstruction height limit is 2.5 cm (1 in) (if the FATO/TLOF is 16 m (52.5 ft) or less the obstruction height limit for the LOA and MZ are reduced to 5 cm (2 in)). 4.6.3 The template should ideally include a photograph showing the ship’s helicopter operating area to provide a helicopter pilot with a quick reference guide to the ship, the helicopter operating area(s) and notable obstructions. Care in recording the nature and location of obstructions on the template is very important. Accurate measurements of the position and height of all significant obstructions relative to the helicopter touchdown markings should be taken. 4.6.4 Any identified obstacles should be colour-coded on the template and painted on the physical surface of the vessel. Colour-coding and painting will define the safety significance of an obstruction. For the purpose of standardization, the following paint colour schemes are recommended: a) red and white painted stripes should be used for marking the position of notifiable objects within the MZ, the CZ or the LOA where they exceed the height limits for these zones — see Figure I-4-8: objects within the CZ of a height exceeding 2.5 cm (1 in); objects outside the CZ but within the MZ or LOA which exceed a height of 25 cm (10 in); and where the diameter of the CZ is 16 m (52.5 ft) or less limitation in the MZ and LOA applies to objects which exceed a height of 5 cm (2 in); b) yellow and black painted stripes should be applied for marking objects beyond the MZ to which it is considered appropriate to draw the attention of the helicopter pilot. Yellow and black stripes may also be used to mark objects within the MZ, the CZ and the LOA which, though below the height limits for these sectors, are still considered appropriate to draw to the attention of the helicopter pilot. 4.6.5 Vessel details should be included on the template and a photograph that shows the location of the helicopter landing area should be scanned and forwarded to the helicopter operator in a colour presentation. An indication of the scale used should also be provided. 4.6.6 Figure I-4-8 shows an example of a helicopter landing area plan for a ship’s side non-purpose-built heliport on a tanker. The red/yellow/green colour coding presentation corresponds to the absolute height of the obstruction above deck level. The Butterworth Lid at 30 cm (1 ft) is shown in green. The tank wash line at 60 cm (0.6 m, 2 ft) is shown in yellow and the dominant vents at 230 cm (2.3 m, 7.5 ft) are shown in red. Figure I-4-1. A purpose-built or non-purpose-built midship centreline landing area1 Figure I-4-2. Ships-side non-purpose-built heliport obstacle limitation sectors and surfaces Figure I-4-3. A temporary combined operation showing relative position of each helideck 210º sector Figure I-4-4. Helideck obstacle limitation sectors and surfaces for a 1 D circular FATO and coincidental TLOF Figure I-4-5. Helideck obstacle limitation sectors and surfaces for a 1 D square FATO and coincidental TLOF Figure I-4-6. Helideck obstacle limitation sectors and surfaces for a 0.83 D circular TLOF with collocated 1 D FATO Figure I-4-7. Helideck obstacle limitation sectors and surfaces for a 0.83 D square TLOF with collocated 1 D FATO Part I. Offshore heliports Chapter 4. Obstacle environment Ship details Date compilled 18 November 2008 Name of ship SAMARINDA Company name Carthusian Shipping Line Max Deck Height 26m D Value 19m Contact name Capt David Wilkinson Obstruction ltem Description Height - Tank wash line 0.6m Vent 2.3m Butterworth Ltd 30cm Vent 2.3m Figure I-4-8. Helicopter landing area plan for a ship’s side non-purpose-built heliport on a tanker2 Chapter 5 VISUAL AIDS — MARKING AND LIGHTING 5.1 GENERAL 5.1.1 A helideck or shipboard heliport intended for use by day only, in good visibility conditions, will need to display markings only, while a helideck or shipboard heliport intended for use at night and/or in reduced visibility conditions by day and night, will need to display appropriate lighting in addition to defined markings. The marking and lighting aids described in this chapter are, in some cases, amplifications of those included in Annex 14 — Aerodromes, Volume II — Heliports and have been developed primarily in support of visual heliport operations. 5.1.2 It is not intended that this chapter should address every option of a detailed marking scheme for non-purpose-built shipboard heliports, given that the precise layout, including the surface colour of the main deck on which markings will be overlaid, can vary from ship to ship. As the underlying surface colour can vary considerably, some discretion will need to be exercised in the colour selection of paint schemes. The primary objective in every case should be to ensure that heliport markings achieve a good contrast with the surface of the ship and are fit-for-purpose with regards to the maritime environment in which the ship will be operating. Figure I-5-1 illustrates the difficulties that may be encountered in the pursuit of this objective. A specific marking scheme for a non-purpose-built shipboard heliport (ship’s side arrangement) is illustrated in detail in Figure I-5-11. Specific marking and lighting schemes for winching areas are addressed in detail in Chapter 7. 5.1.3 It has been found that on surfaces of light colour, such as natural aluminium, the conspicuity of white and yellow markings, in particular, can be improved by outlining them with a thin black line (typically 10 cm (4 in)) or by overlaying white or yellow markings on a painted black background (proven to be particularly effective for enhancing the heliport/helideck name marking). An example of how this can work in practice is illustrated in Figure I-5-6. 5.1.4 Annex 14 does not currently go into detail on the issue of acceptable tolerances for the size and spacing of marking and lighting. It is for the appropriate authority to determine what tolerance should be allowed giving due diligence to the clear interpretation of visual cues and the safety of operations at all times, i.e. in the interest of providing clear and effective visual cues being interpreted from the air, there may be more allowance given for a slightly oversized marking than for one which is too small, with the exception of where the given specifications are treated as maximum dimensions. Wherever practical, it is recommended that the font type Clearview Hwy-5W is used. 5.1.5 As well as providing effective unambiguous markings and lighting on a helideck (or shipboard heliport) there may be an operational requirement to display the name of a fixed or floating facility (or vessel) in other locations so they are readily identifiable from the air (and sea) from all normal angles and directions of approach. In this case, identifiers should be unique, simple and consistent with other information given to aircrew (e.g. radio-telephony (R/T) call sign, name on a pre-flight helideck information plate (HIP) (see Chapter 2)) and be readable, at ranges that are at or beyond the helicopter’s landing decision point (LDP), both by day and, where required, by night. Effective side signage, which could make use of available technologies such as retro-reflective panels, LED clusters or fibre optic systems, will assist aircrew with early positive recognition of the facility or vessel and so help to minimize the possibility of landing on the wrong rig. Note.—Other simple measures may be introduced to mitigate the incidence of an undesirable landing such as increasing the size of the heliport name marking to 1.5 m (5 ft) (i.e. above the minimum dimensions specified in Chapter 5, 5.8.1), or painting a second heliport name marking aligned with the normal direction of approach for a bow-mounted helideck with the vessel heading steaming into wind (i.e. a second heliport name marking painted between the outboard edge of the shipboard heliport and the yellow TD/PM circle facing toward the helicopter will assist the pilot with positive recognition earlier on in the approach), and by extinguishing the touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) floodlights and or circle-H lighting, at night, in the case where a helideck or shipboard heliport is unprepared and potentially unsafe when it is not expecting to receive helicopters. 5.2 WIND DIRECTION INDICATOR 5.2.1 An offshore facility or ship should be equipped with at least one wind direction indicator to provide a visual indication of the wind conditions prevailing over the facility during helicopter operations. 5.2.2 The location of the primary wind direction indicator should be in an undisturbed airstream avoiding any effects caused by nearby structures (see also Chapter 3, 3.2.2), and unaffected by rotor downwash from the helicopter. The location of the wind direction indicator should not compromise the established obstacle protected surfaces (see Chapter 4). Typically, a primary wind direction indicator will consist of a coloured windsock. 5.2.3 The windsock should be easy visible to the pilot on the approach (at a height of at least 200 m (656 ft)), in the hover and while touched down on the surface of the TLOF, and prior to take-off. Where these operational objectives cannot be fully achieved by the use of a single windsock, consideration should be given to locating a second windsock in the vicinity of the helideck or shipboard heliport, which could also be used to indicate a specific difference between the local wind over the TLOF and the free stream wind at the installation or ship (which the pilot will reference for an approach). 5.2.4 A windsock should be a truncated cone made of a suitable lightweight fabric with a minimum length of at least 1.2 m (4 ft), a diameter at the larger end of at least 0.3 m (1 ft) and a diameter at the smaller end of at least 0.15 m (0.5 ft). The colour should contrast well with the operating background in the offshore environment. Ideally a single coloured windsock, preferably orange or white, should be selected. However, where a combination of colours is found to provide better conspicuity against a changing operating background, orange and white, red and white or black and white colour schemes could be selected, arranged as five alternate bands with the first and last band being the darker colour. 5.2.5 If a helideck or shipboard heliport is intended to be operated at night, the windsock(s) will need to be illuminated. This can be achieved by internal illumination, perhaps a floodlight pointing through the wind cone. Alternatively, the windsock can be externally highlighted using, for example, area floodlighting. Care should be taken to ensure that any system used to illuminate a windsock highlights the entire cone section while not presenting a source of glare to a pilot operating at night. 5.3 HELIPORT IDENTIFICATION (H) MARKING 5.3.1 A heliport identification marking should be provided for a helideck or a shipboard heliport in the form of a white “H” with a height of 4 m (13 ft), an overall width not exceeding 3 m (10 ft) and a stroke width not exceeding 0.75 m (2.5 ft). In circumstances where the D-value of a helideck or shipboard heliport is less than 16 m (52.5 ft), Annex 14, Volume II permits the size of the marking to be reduced such that the dimensions of the “H” are 3 m (10 ft) (in height) with an overall width not exceeding 2.25 m (7.4 ft) and a stroke width not exceeding 0.5 m (1.6 ft). A typical ‘standard-size’ heliport identification marking is shown in Figure I-5-2. 5.3.2 A heliport identification “H” marking should ideally be located in the centre of the final approach and take-off (FATO), except where the results of an aeronautical survey indicate that an offset marking may be beneficial to helicopter operations and still allow for the safe movement of personnel around the helicopter, in which case the centre of the “H” may be offset by up to 0.1 D towards the outboard edge of the FATO. An example of where this measure may be used could be for an oversized helideck — one that exceeds the minimum 1 D dimensional requirement — but that also has immovable obstructions close to the inboard perimeter, in the limited obstacle sector (LOS). In this case, moving the touchdown marking location away from the centre of the FATO towards the outboard edge will improve clearances from dominant obstacles, while, in theory, still facilitating adequate on deck clearance around the helicopter for the safe movement of passengers and for the efficiency of helideck operations, such as refuelling. A comparison of the location of the touchdown markings, whether centralized or fully offset, are shown in Figure I-5-3, examples A and B. 5.3.3 The heliport identification marking, regardless of whether it is based on the centre of the FATO or not, should always be established in the centre of the touchdown/positioning marking circle (see Chapter 5, 5.7). For a helideck, and for a purpose-built shipboard heliport, the centreline of the cross bar of the “H” should be passed through by the bisector of the obstacle-free sector (OFS). Where, in exceptional cases, it is necessary for the chevron marking (see Chapter 5, 5.9) to be swung for a helideck (e.g. to clear an immovable obstacle which might otherwise penetrate the 210-degree sector), it will be necessary to swing the “H” marking by the corresponding angle, to indicate to aircrew on approach that the sector has been swung. The maximum swung sector should not exceed ± 15 degrees from the normal for the OFS. A ‘swung’ heliport identification “H” marking is illustrated in Figure I-5-4. 5.4 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE MASS MARKING 5.4.1 A maximum allowable mass marking should be arranged so as to be readable from the preferred final approach direction (on a fixed facility this will usually be in a direction lining up with the prevailing wind direction for the facility). 5.4.2 The maximum allowable mass marking should be expressed as a one-, two- or three-digit number corresponding to the maximum allowable mass of the heaviest helicopter permitted to use the TLOF in accordance with the structural requirements detailed in Chapter 3, 3.1. In most cases the maximum allowable mass marking will correspond to the maximum (certificated) take-off mass (MTOM) for the design helicopter type, but this need not necessarily be the case if the structural calculations performed for the helideck or shipboard heliport confirm a structural limit that is different from (i.e. exceeding) the MTOM of the design helicopter. Where the MTOM is expressed in metric tonnes, the suffix “t” will be painted with the numerical marking. For States where the marking is expressed as an imperial measure i.e. in lbs, it is not appropriate to suffix with a “t” — in this case no suffix is provided. 5.4.3 For a maximum allowable mass marking expressed in metric units the minimum requirement is to depict a marking rounded to the nearest 1 000 kg. A Recommendation is made in Annex 14, Volume II for the marking to be expressed to the nearest 100 kg. The following examples are offered, based on current manufacturer derived data. The figures should be regarded for illustrative purposes only, and as a helicopter’s MTOM can increase, especially following introduction to service of a new type, designers are advised to verify specific helicopter data with the manufacturer or offshore helicopter operator: Bolkow 117: MTOM 3 200 kg is expressed as “03 t” or “3.2 t” Super Puma AS 332L: MTOM 8 599 kg is expressed as “09 t” or “8.6 t” Sikorsky S92: MTOM 12 565 kg is expressed as “13 t” or $\ " 1 2 . 6 \ : \mathrm { t } ^ { \prime \prime }$ 5.4.4 For a maximum allowable mass marking expressed in imperial (customary to the United States) units, the recommended method of designating the helideck limitations is to indicate the MTOM of the helicopter in terms of a twoor three-digit number with one decimal point rounded to the nearest 100 pounds, with 50 pounds rounded up (i.e. for 15 750 lbs marked as 15.8). The following examples are offered based on current manufacturer derived data. The figures should be regarded for illustrative purposes only, and as a helicopter MTOM can increase, especially when a new type is first introduced into service, designers are advised to verify specific helicopter MTOM’s with the manufacturer, or with the offshore helicopter operator. Sikorsky S76: MTOM 11 700 lbs is expressed as 11.7 Bell 212: MTOM 11 200 lbs is expressed as 11.2 AW101: MTOM 34 400 lbs is expressed as 34.4 5.4.5 For helicopter types with a MTOM of less than 3 175 kg (7 000 lbs) there is acceptance for the use of a TLOF which is less than 1 D, but is no less than 0.83 D. The following examples are presented for helicopter types which have a MTOM of less than 3 175 kg: Bolkow 105 MTOM 2 400 kg to be expressed as “02 t” or “2.4 t” (metric); or MTOM 5 291 lbs to be expressed as 5.3. EC 135T2 MTOM 2 910 kg to be expressed as “03 t” or “2.9 t” (metric); or MTOM 6 400 lbs to be expressed as 6.4. 5.4.6 The recommended size of the characters to be used for the maximum allowable mass marking is presented in Annex 14, Volume II, Figure 5-4, which represents the full character height of 1.5 m (5 ft) applicable for the largest helidecks and shipboard heliports. For smaller helidecks and shipboard heliports, character heights may be reduced to 90 cm (3 ft) or 60 cm (2 ft). In each case, the thickness of characters should be correspondingly reduced. The characteristics applicable for the decimal point, where required, are also included. FATO D-value Min. height of characters Dimensions of decimal point <15m 0.6m 12 cm2²$ 15 m to 30 m 0.9m 18cm²$ >30m 1.5m 30cm2 5.4.7 The numbers and, where appropriate, the letter of the marking and the decimal point, should be painted in a colour contrasting with the background. For a helideck or purpose-built shipboard heliport to contrast effectively with the background (see Section 5.10), the maximum allowable mass marking would normally be white. 5.5 D-VALUE MARKINGS 5.5.1 D-value markings should be displayed within the broken white TLOF perimeter line at three locations, as presented in Figure I-5-8 and Figure I-5-9, for least one marking to be readable from the final approach direction. For a purpose-built shipboard heliport in an amidships location, having a chevron at either end (see Figure I-5-5), two D-value markings are required to be displayed — one on the portside of the heliport and the other on the starboard side. 5.5.2 The D-value marking should be painted white in not less than 90 cm (3 ft) characters where the dimension of the FATO is 15 m or greater and not less than 60 cm (2 ft) characters where the dimension of the FATO is less than 15 m (49 feet). Where the FATO is greater than 30 m (98 ft), the characters should be increased to at least 1.5 m (approximately 5 ft). This is summarized in the table below. The thickness of the 1.5 m characters should accord with Annex 14, Volume II, Figure 5-4, with a corresponding reduction in thickness for 0.9 m and 0.6 m height characters. FATO D-value Min. height of characters <15m 0.6m 15m-30m 0.9m >30m 1.5m 5.5.3 The D-value should be expressed to the nearest whole number with 0.5 rounded up, e.g. EC 225 has a D-value of 19.50 m (64 ft); therefore, this is expressed as “20”. 5.5.4 Where imperial units are used in preference to metric measurements 5.5.4.1 The recommended method of designating the helideck limitations is to have the weight and D size marked in a box, outlined in red, in red numerals on a white background, as shown below in Figure I-5-5A. The height of the figures should be 3 ft. (0.9 m) with the line width of the box approximately 5 in (12 cm). For smaller helidecks where space may be limited, provided the box and numerals are discernible at a range which is compatible with a pilot’s landing decision point (LDP), giving sufficient time to affect a go-around if necessary, the height of the figures may be reduced to no less than 18 in (45 cm). 5.5.4.2 The weight/size limitation box marking should be visible from the preferred direction of approach. It is recommended that on square or rectangular helidecks, the box should be located relative to the preferred direction of approach (when facing the helideck). For circular, hexagonal and other similarly-shaped helidecks, the box should be located on the right-hand side of the TLOF and outside the TD/PM circle, when viewed from the preferred direction of approach. 5.6 TLOF PERIMETER MARKING 5.6.1 A TLOF perimeter marking denoting the extent of the TLOF should be painted around the edge of the TLOF using a continuous white line having a thickness of at least 30 cm (12 in). 5.6.2 The TLOF perimeter line should follow the physical shape of the helideck or shipboard heliport, such that where the deck shape is octagonal or hexagonal, the shape of the painted white TLOF marking will correspond to an octagon or hexagon. A TLOF marking should only be circular where the physical shape of the helideck or shipboard heliport is also circular. 5.7 TOUCHDOWN/POSITIONING MARKING CIRCLE 5.7.1 A TD/PM circle should be provided on a helideck or shipboard heliport to assist a helicopter to touchdown and be positioned accurately by the pilot. The TD/PM is so located that when the pilot’s seat is over the marking, the whole of the undercarriage is comfortably within the TLOF and all parts of the helicopter are clear of any obstacles by a safe margin. Figure I-5-6 illustrates how the TD/PM should be used by aircrew to position the helicopter, facilitate requisite clearances from all obstacles, and allow passengers to make a safe approach to alight the helicopter (and a safe passage for egress). 5.7.2 A TD/PM circle should ideally be located in the centre of the FATO, except where the results of an aeronautical survey indicates that an offset marking may be beneficial to the safety of helicopter operations, and not detrimental to the safe movement of personnel, in which case, the centre of the circle may be offset by up to 0.1 D away from the centre towards the outboard edge of the FATO. An example of where an offset marking may be beneficial is for an oversized helideck, one that exceeds the minimum 1 D dimensional requirement that also has immovable obstructions close to the inboard perimeter, in the LOS. In this case, moving the TD/PM circle location away from the centre of the FATO and towards the outboard edge will improve clearances to dominant obstacles, while, in theory, still allowing adequate on deck clearance around the helicopter for the safe movement of passengers and for the efficiency of helideck operations, such as refuelling. For helidecks that are less than 1 D, it is not recommended that an offset marking be utilized. A comparison of the location of the touchdown markings, whether centralized or offset, is shown in Figure I-5-3, examples A and B. 5.7.3 The TD/PM circle should be painted yellow and have a line width of at least 1 m (3 ft) for helidecks and purpose-built shipboard heliports having a D-value of 16 m (52.5 ft) or greater. For those facilities having a D-value of less than 16 m (52.5 ft), the line width of the marking may be reduced to 0.5 m (1.6 ft). 5.7.4 For a 1 D or greater helideck, and for a shipboard heliport, the inner diameter of the touchdown/positioning marking should be 0.5 D of the design helicopter. So for a helideck designed for the Sikorsky S92 (D = 20.88 m (68.5 ft)) the inner diameter of the touchdown/positioning marking circle is 10.44 m (34.3 ft). The thickness of the marking is 1 m (3 ft). For helidecks which are less than 1 D, the inner diameter of the TD/PM should be 0.5 D of the notional FATO. Generic dimensions, for helidecks and shipboard heliports which are 1 D or greater and/or 16 m (52.5 ft) or greater, are shown in Figure I-5-7. 5.8 HELIPORT NAME MARKING 5.8.1 The heliport name marking should be painted on the helideck or shipboard heliport in minimum 1.2 m (3.9 ft) preferably white painted characters between the chevron (see Section 5.9) and the TD/PM circle (see Section 5.7). Care should be taken to ensure that the name is to no degree obscured by a helideck net (where fitted). 5.8.2 The heliport name marking should consist of the name or the alphanumeric designator of the helideck or shipboard heliport as used in the radio-telephony (R/T) communications. Providing a name that is unique and simple will ensure that the mental process of recognition for aircrew is kept to a minimum at a time when a pilot’s concentration is being exercised by the demands of the final approach and landing manoeuvre. 5.8.3 To allow for recognition of the facility or vessel further up the approach manoeuvre, consideration should be given to increasing the character height of the heliport name marking from 1.2 m (4 ft) to 1.5 m (5 ft). Where the character height is 1.5 m (5 ft), the character widths and stroke widths should be in accordance with Annex 14, Volume II, Figure 5-4. The character widths and stroke widths of nominal 1.2 m characters should be 80 per cent of those prescribed in Figure 5-4 of Annex 14, Volume II. Where the heliport name marking consists of more than one word, it is recommended that the space between words be approximately 50 per cent of character height. 5.8.4 In accordance with Section 5.1.5, some types of floating facilities and vessels may benefit from a second name marking diametrically opposite the first marking, with the characters facing the opposite direction (so that the feet of characters are located adjacent to the outboard edge of the TD/PM circle. Having a name marking on both ends of the TD/PM circle will ensure that one marking is always readable the right way up for aircrew on approach, e.g. for a bow-mounted helideck on a vessel that is steaming into wind, a second name marking oriented towards the main vessel structure (aft) and located between the outer edge of the circle and the outboard edge of the helideck will be more easy to process for aircrew approaching into wind than will a heliport name marking located in the normal location. In this case aircrew would be required to process a marking which is upside down. 5.9 HELIDECK OBSTACLE-FREE SECTOR (CHEVRON) MARKING 5.9.1 A helideck or shipboard heliport with obstacles that penetrate above the level of the TLOF is required to display an OFS (chevron) marking to denote the origin of the OFS. For a 1 D or greater helideck, the apex of the chevron is located at a distance from the centre of the TLOF that is equal to the radius of the largest circle which can be drawn in the TLOF. The arrangement is shown in Figure I-5-7. For a purpose-built shipboard heliport in an amidships location, the marking scheme will consist of a chevron at both ends (see Figure I-5-5). 5.9.2 The origin of the OFS should be marked on the helideck or shipboard heliport by a black chevron, each leg being 79 cm (2.6 ft) long and 10 cm (4 in) wide, forming the angle of the obstacle-free sector in the manner shown in Figure I-5-7. Where exceptionally the OFS is swung (by up to ± 15 degrees — see also Section 5.3.3 and Figure I-5-4) then the chevron is correspondingly swung. Where there is insufficient space to accommodate the chevron precisely, the chevron marking, but not the point of origin of the OFS, may be displaced by up to 30 cm (12 in) towards the centre of the TLOF. 5.9.3 The purpose of the chevron is widely misunderstood to provide a form of visual indication to the aircrew that the OFS is clear of obstructions. However, the marking is too small for the purposes of aircrew and instead is intended as a visual tool for a helicopter landing officer (HLO) (who has charge of the helideck operation on the ground) to ensure that the 210-degree OFS is clear of any obstructions, fixed or mobile, before giving a helicopter clearance to land. The black chevron may be painted on top of the white TLOF perimeter line to achieve maximum clarity for helideck crew. 5.9.4 Adjacent to and where practical inboard of the chevron, the certified D-value of the helideck is painted in 10 cm (4 in) alphanumeric characters. The D-value of the helideck should be expressed in metres to two decimal places (e.g. “D = 16.05 m”). Where imperial measurements are used, the D-value of the helideck should be expressed in feet and inches. 5.9.5 For a TLOF which is less than 1 D, but not less than 0.83 D, the chevron is positioned at 0.5 D from the centre of the FATO which will take the point of origin outside the TLOF. If practical, this is where the black chevron marking should be painted. If impractical to paint the chevron at this location, the chevron should be relocated to the TLOF perimeter on the bisector of the OFS. In this case the distance and direction of displacement along with the words “WARNING DISPLACED CHEVRON” are marked in a box beneath the chevron in black characters not less than 10 cm (4 in) high. An example of the arrangement for a sub-1 D helideck is shown in Figure I-5-9. 5.10 HELIDECK AND SHIPBOARD HELIPORT SURFACE MARKING 5.10.1 A surface background marking is provided to assist a pilot in identifying the location of the helideck or shipboard heliport during an approach to land by day and to emphasize the position of the touchdown markings etc. The helideck or shipboard heliport surface encapsulated by the white TLOF perimeter marking should be dark green using a high friction coating. 5.10.2 Aluminium helidecks are now widely in use throughout the offshore industry. Some of these are a natural light grey colour and may present painting difficulties. The natural light grey colour of aluminium may be acceptable provided the conspicuity of helideck markings is assessed, preferably from the air, and if necessary, enhanced. How this is achieved in practice is discussed further in Section 5.1.3. 5.11 PROHIBITED LANDING SECTOR MARKING 5.11.1 Helideck-prohibited landing sector markings are used where it is necessary to protect the helicopter from landing or manoeuvring in close proximity to limiting obstructions which, being of an immovable nature, may compromise the sectors and surfaces established for the helideck (an example might be a jack-up leg penetrating the 150-degree limited obstacle sector or a crane on the edge of the LOS). 5.11.2 A prohibited landing sector (PLS) is therefore established utilizing the marking arrangement shown in Figure I-5-10. The hatched marking is overlaid on the portion of the yellow TD/PM circle and extending out to the TLOF perimeter marking within the relevant headings, for which it would be deemed unsafe to place the nose of the helicopter (due to the presence of an obstacle behind the tail of the aircraft, which due to the landing orientation of the helicopter would be beyond the field of view of the aircrew). 5.11.3 The arc of coverage should be sufficient to ensure that the tail rotor system will be positioned clear of the obstruction when hovering above, and touching down on, the yellow circle at any location beyond the PLS marking. As a guide it is recommended that the PLS marking extends by a minimum 10 to 15 degrees either side of the edge of the obstacle (this implies that even for a simple whip aerial infringement the PLS arc applied will be an arc of no less than 20 to 30 degrees of coverage). 5.11.4 The sector of the TD/PM circle, opposite from the personnel access point, should be bordered in red with the words “no nose” clearly marked in red on a white background as shown in Figure I-5-10. When positioning over the TD/PM circle, helicopters should be manoeuvred so as to keep the aircraft nose clear of the “no nose” marked sector of the TD/PM circle at all times. The minimum prohibited “no nose” marking should cover an arc of at least 30 degrees. 5.11.5 The following figure shows the required location and dimensions of the marking scheme. Colours of markings may vary depending on the underlying surface colour of the vessel. This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5, 5.1.2 and Figure I-5-1. For guidance on mapping of obstructions see Chapter 4, 4.6. For TLOF lighting systems, special considerations for non-purpose-built shipboard heliports are addressed in Section 5.15. 5.12 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIGHTS INCLUDING SCREENING 5.12.1 The specification for the TLOF lighting system presented in the following sections assumes that the performance of the lighting will not be diminished due to the relative intensity, configuration or colour of other lighting sources present on a fixed or floating facility or on a vessel. Where other non-aeronautical lighting has potential to cause confusion, or to diminish or prevent the clear interpretation of aeronautical ground lights, it will be necessary for the facility or vessel operator, and if possible, the HLO, to extinguish, screen, or otherwise modify, non-aeronautical light sources to ensure the effectiveness of helideck or shipboard heliport lighting systems are not compromised. To achieve this, operators should give consideration to shielding any high intensity light sources from approaching helicopters by fitting screens or louvers. 5.12.2 The helideck and shipboard heliport lighting systems specified in the following sections, and detailed in Annex 14, Volume II (Chapter 5), and Appendix I-B of this document, are designed on the assumption that operations occur in typical night viewing conditions, with an assumed eye threshold illuminance of $\mathsf { E t } = 1 0 ^ { - 6 . 1 }$ llux. If there is an expectation for aeronautical lighting to be used in more demanding viewing conditions, such as at twilight or during typical day conditions, (where $\mathsf { E t } = 1 0 ^ { - 5 . 0 }$ lux for twilight and $\mathsf { E t } = 1 0 ^ { - 4 . 0 }$ lux for normal day), it should be recognized that the ‘true night’ viewing ranges achieved by the system design will decay considerably in more demanding viewing conditions (i.e. the range at which a particular visual aid becomes detectable and conspicuous at night will decrease if that same aid is used at twilight or by day because the higher background brightness leads to a decreasing probability of detection). It is not the intention of this manual to discuss these issues in detail — suffice to say, that to achieve the same ‘night’ detection range for a particular visual aid, viewed in the most demanding typical day conditions, will require a very much brighter lighting system. Further guidance is provided in the Aerodrome Design Manual (Doc 9157), Part 4 — Visual Aids. 5.13 TLOF LIGHTING SYSTEMS UTILIZING FLOODLIGHT SOLUTIONS 5.13.1 The TLOF, as defined by the white TLOF perimeter marking (see Section 5.6) should be delineated by fixed omnidirectional green TLOF perimeter lights visible from on or above the level of the TLOF (the whole pattern formed by the perimeter lights should not be visible to aircrew from below the level of the landing area, whether on a fixed or floating facility or vessel). The photometric specification of TLOF perimeter lights is provided in the isocandela diagrams in Annex 14, Volume II, Figure 5-11 (Illustration 6). 5.13.2 TLOF perimeter lights, around the edge of the area designated for use as the TLOF, should be spaced at not more than 3 m (10 ft) intervals (measured between light sources) and should follow the shape of the helideck or shipboard heliport (e.g. for an octagonal helideck, the TLOF perimeter lights should be arranged to form an octagon). To avoid lights creating a trip hazard at points of access and egress it may be necessary to provide sources that are flushmounted (i.e. recessed) into the surface. The pattern of lights should be formed using regular spacing. However, to avoid potential trip hazards, blocking foam dispensing nozzles, etc., it may be desirable to move lights to one side. In this case, TLOF perimeter lights may be relocated by up to ± 0.5 m (1.6 ft) such that the maximum gap between two adjacent TLOF perimeter lights is no more than 3.5 m (11.5 ft) and the minimum no less than 2.5 m (8.2 ft). 5.13.3 TLOF floodlights should be arranged around the perimeter of the TLOF so as to avoid glare to pilots in flight or to personnel working on the area. Floodlighting can easily become misaligned and the HLO should instigate daily checks to ensure that misaligned lights are corrected and do not create a hazard to flight operations by providing a source of glare (the glare issue may be reduced by fitting appropriate hoods (louvers) onto deck-mounted floodlights). Notwithstanding, lights should be realigned when, in the opinion of aircrew, they are creating a glare hazard during flight operations. 5.13.4 Another issue with deck-mounted floodlighting, given their shallow angle of attack and the potentially very large area needing to be illuminated, especially over the touchdown markings, is what is commonly known as the black hole effect. In this case, adequate illumination is dispensed in areas adjacent to the perimeter lights, but a black hole is left in the centre of the landing area where the lights cannot properly illuminate the central touchdown area markings. Designers should aim to create a lighting environment which achieves an average horizontal illuminance of the floodlighting which is at least 10 lx, with a uniformity ratio (average to minimum) of not more than 8:1, measured on the surface of the TLOF. Furthermore, the spectral distribution of TLOF area floodlights should ensure adequate illumination of the surface markings (especially the TD/PM circle) and obstacle markings (this may include a prohibited landing sector marking, where present). 5.13.5 Given the challenges of meeting the above specifications, designers may be tempted to provide multiple floodlighting units, in seeking to achieve the recommendations for spectral distribution and average horizontal illuminance for floodlighting set in Annex 14, Volume II. However, being very much brighter than the TLOF perimeter lights, floodlighting has a tendency to make the pattern of the green perimeter lights less obvious, due to the number and intensity of much brighter floodlights. As the green pattern provided by the TLOF perimeter lights generates the initial source of helideck acquisition for aircrew, the desire to specify multiple sets of floodlights should be resisted. For all but the largest helidecks a compliment of between four and six floodlights should be sufficient (up to eight for the largest helidecks). Providing that technologies are selected which promote good, sharp, beam control, this should optimize their effectiveness and offer the best opportunity to effectively illuminate touchdown markings. To mitigate the glare issue as much as possible, floodlights should be mounted to ensure the centreline of the floodlight beam is at a 45-degree angle to the reciprocal of the prevailing wind direction. This will minimize any glare or disruption to the pattern formed by the green perimeter lights for the majority of approaches. Figure I-5-12 provides a typical floodlighting arrangement. 5.13.6 The height of the installed TLOF perimeter lights and floodlights should not exceed 25 cm (10 in) above the level of the TLOF, but ideally should not exceed 15 cm (6 in) for helidecks which are 1 D or greater and/or have a D-value greater than 16 m (52.5 ft), and 5 cm (2 in) for helidecks which are sub-1 D, but not less than 0.83 D, and/or have a D-value of 16 m (52.5 ft) or less. TLOF lighting should be inset when a light extending above the surface could endanger helicopter operations (see also Chapter 3, 3.4.10). 5.13.7 In addition to providing the visual cues needed for helideck recognition for approach and landing, helideck floodlighting may be used at night to facilitate on deck operations such as passenger movements, refuelling operations, freight handling, etc. Where there is potential for floodlights to dazzle a pilot during the approach to land or during take-off manoeuvres, they should be switched off for the duration of the approach and departure. Therefore all floodlights should be capable of being switched off at a pilot’s request. All TLOF lighting should be fed from an uninterrupted power supply (UPS) system. 5.13.8 For some helidecks or shipboard heliports, it may be possible to site additional high-mounted floodlighting away from the TLOF perimeter, such as a ship’s bridge or pointing down from a hangar. In this case, extra care should be taken to ensure that additional sources do not cause a source of glare to a pilot, especially when lifting in the hover to transition into forward flight, and do not present a competing source to the green TLOF perimeter lights. Screens or louvers should be considered for any additional high-mounted sources. 5.14 TLOF LIGHTING SYSTEMS UTILIZING “H” AND CIRCLE LIGHTING —DETAILS OF A SCHEME FIRST ADOPTED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM 5.14.1 As an effective alternative to providing illumination of the touchdown markings by the use of deck-mounted floodlighting, operators may wish to consider a scheme for a lit TD/PM and a lit heliport identification marking. This scheme is presented in detail in Appendix I-B, together with the photometric specification for green TLOF perimeter lights. 5.14.2 The lit TD/PM and the lit heliport identification marking scheme has been developed to be compatible with helicopters having wheeled undercarriages. Although the design specification presented in Appendix I-B ensures segments and subsections are compliant with the maximum height for obstacles on the TLOF surface (2.5 cm (1 in)), and are likely to withstand the point loading presented by typically lighter skidded helicopters, due to the potential for raised fittings to induce dynamic rollover, it is important to establish compatibility with skid-fitted helicopter operations before lighting is installed on helidecks and shipboard heliports used by skid-fitted helicopters. 5.14.3 The specification for a complete helideck/shipboard heliport lighting scheme is presented in Appendix I-B. The detail therein is not considered mandatory but it is nevertheless reproduced here to demonstrate an acceptable alternative means of compliance for any State wishing to take advantage of the United Kingdom specification, based on dedicated and in-service offshore trials. Figure I-5-13 shows the illumination of the TLOF for a helideck using the lit TD/PM and the lit heliport identification marking scheme described in the previous section and in Appendix I-B alongside a helideck, which utilizes the conventional floodlighting solution described above. 5.15 LIGHTING SYSTEMS — SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR NON-PURPOSE-BUILT SHIPBOARD HELIPORTS Given the possible presence of obstructions within the landing area (see Chapter 4, 4.6) some States may decide not to permit night operations unless a risk assessment can demonstrate it is safe to do so. Where night operations are permitted, specific lighting schemes for non-purpose-built shipboard heliports may utilize an area floodlighting solution to illuminate the TLOF and markings as illustrated in Figure I-5-14. 5.16 VISUAL AIDS FOR DENOTING OBSTACLES — MARKING AND LIGHTING (INCLUDING FLOODLIGHTING) 5.16.1 Fixed obstacles which present a hazard to helicopters should be readily visible from the air. If a paint scheme is necessary to enhance identification by day, alternate black and white, black and yellow, or red and white bands are recommended, not less than 0.5 m (1.6 ft), or more than 6 m (20 ft) wide. The colour should be chosen to contrast with the background to the maximum extent. 5.16.2 Obstacles to be marked in these contrasting colours include any lattice tower structures and crane booms which are close to the helideck or to the LOS boundary. Similarly parts of the leg (or legs) of a self-elevating jack-up unit that are adjacent to the helideck and which extend, or can extend above it, should also be marked in the same manner. 5.16.3 Omnidirectional low intensity steady red obstruction lights having a minimum intensity of 10 cd for angles of elevation between 0 degrees and 30 degrees should be fitted at suitable locations to provide the helicopter pilot with visual information on the proximity and height of objects which are higher than the landing area and which are close to it, or to the LOS boundary. This should apply, in particular, to all crane booms on an offshore facility or vessel. Objects which are more than 15 m (50 ft) higher than the landing area should be fitted with intermediate low intensity steady red obstruction lights of the same intensity spaced at 10 m (33 ft) intervals down to the level of the landing area (except where such lights would be obscured by other objects). It is often preferable for some structures, such as flare booms and towers, to be illuminated by floodlights as an alternative to fitting intermediate steady red lights, provided that the lights are arranged such that they will illuminate the whole of the structure and not dazzle a helicopter pilot. Facilities may, where appropriate, consider alternative equivalent technologies to highlight dominant obstacles in the vicinity of the helideck. 5.16.4 An omnidirectional low intensity steady red obstruction light should be fitted to the highest point of the installation. The light should have a minimum intensity of 50 cd for angles of elevation between zero and 15 degrees, and a minimum intensity of 200 cd between 5 and 8 degrees. Where it is not practicable to fit a light to the highest point of the installation (e.g. on top of flare towers) the light should be fitted as near to the extremity as possible. 5.16.5 In the particular case of jack-up units, it is recommended that when the tops of the legs are the highest points on the facility, they should be fitted with omnidirectional low intensity steady red lights of the same intensity and characteristics as described in the above paragraph. In addition, the leg (or legs) adjacent to the helideck should be fitted with intermediate low intensity steady red lights of the same intensity and characteristics as described in Section 5.16.3 at 10 m (33 ft) intervals down to the level of the landing area. As an alternative, the legs may be floodlit providing the helicopter pilot is not dazzled. 5.16.6 Any ancillary structure within one kilometre of the helideck, and which is 10 m (33 ft) or more above helideck height, should be similarly fitted with red lights. 5.16.7 Red lights should be arranged so that the locations of the objects which they delineate are visible from all directions of approach above the landing area. 5.16.8 Facility/vessel emergency power supply design should include all forms of obstruction lighting. Any failures or outages should be reported immediately to the helicopter operator. The lighting should be fed from a UPS system. 5.16.9 For some helidecks, especially those that are on not permanently attended installations (NPAIs), it may be beneficial to improve depth perception by deploying floodlighting to illuminate the main structure (or legs) of the platform. This can help to address the visual illusion that a helideck appears to be floating in space. Care should be taken to ensure that any potential source of glare from structure lighting is eliminated by directing it away from the approach path of the helicopter and/or by providing louvers. Figure I-5-1. S61N operating to a non-purpose-built ship’s side heliport Figure I-5-2. Dimensions of the heliport identification “H” marking (standard size) Figure I-5-3. Location of touchdown markings (Example A) Figure I-5-3. Location of touchdown markings (Example B) Figure I-5-4. Heliport identification marking reflecting a swung OFS (in this case the OFS is swung by 15 degrees in a clockwise direction to avoid an obstacle) Note 1.— The bisector of the 210° obstacle-free sector (OFS) should normally pass through the Centre of the D-circle. The sector may be ‘swung’ by up to 15° in either direction from the normal. (A 15° clockwise swing is illustrated). Note 2.— If the 210° OFS is swung, then it would be normal practice to swing the 180° falling 5:1 gradient by a corresponding amount to indicate, and align with, the swung OFS. Part I. Offshore heliports Chapter 5. Visual aids — Marking and lighting Figure I-5-5. D-value markings for a purpose-built shipboard heliport in an amidships location Figure I-5-5A. Helideck limitation markings — imperial units Figure I-5-6. Accurate positioning of a helicopter by correct use of the touchdown/positioning marking (TD/PM) circle Part I. Offshore heliports Chapter 5. Visual aids — Marking and lighting Figure I-5-7. Touchdown/positioning marking circle (painted yellow) Figure I-5-8. Chevron for a 1 D helideck and helideck D-value markings Figure I-5-9. Chevron for a 0.83 D helideck Figure I-5-10. Examples of an alternative prohibited landing sector (PLS) marking Figure I-5-11. Heliport markings — special considerations for non-purpose-built shipboard heliports Part I. Offshore heliports Chapter 5. Visual aids — Marking and lighting Figure I-5-12. Typical floodlighting arrangement for an octagonal helideck Figure I-5-13. Fixed platform (left) with the lit TD/PM and the lit heliport identification marking scheme. Mobile offshore drilling unit (right) with deck-mounted floodlighting system Part I. Offshore heliports Chapter 5. Visual aids — Marking and lighting Figure I-5-14. Lighting systems — special considerations for non-purpose-built shipboard heliports Chapter 6 HELIDECK RESCUE AND FIREFIGHTING FACILITIES 6.1 INTRODUCTION 6.1.1 This chapter provides guidance regarding the provision of equipment, extinguishing media, personnel, training, and emergency procedures for offshore helidecks and should be read in conjunction with the guidance material presented in this manual, to support Annex 14, Volume II, Section 6.2 Rescue and Firefighting. Unless specifically stated, it should be assumed that all sections apply to an offshore facility regardless of the manning policy (i.e. whether a permanently attended installation (PAI) or a not permanently attended installation (NPAI)). For editorial convenience, when it fits the context, the generic term “landing area” is used and may be assumed to include both attendance models (PAIs and NPAIs) for fixed offshore heliports. 6.1.2 Rescue and firefighting (RFF) requirements for purpose-built shipboard heliports on ships constructed before 1 January 2020 should at least comply with paragraphs 5.1.3 to 5.1.5 of SOLAS regulation II-2/18 and, for ships constructed on or after 1 January 2020, with the provisions of Chapter 17 of the Fire Safety Systems Code. For non-purpose-built shipboard heliports on ships constructed before 1 January 2020, RFF arrangements should at least be in accordance with Part C of SOLAS II-2, Helicopter Facilities, and for ships constructed on or after 1 January 2020, with the relevant provisions of Chapter 17 of the Fire Safety Systems Code. It may therefore be assumed that this chapter does not include RFF arrangements for purpose-built or non-purpose-built heliports or for shipboard winching areas. 6.1.3 The principal objective of an RFF response is to save lives. For this reason, the provision of a means of dealing with a helicopter accident or incident occurring at or in the immediate vicinity of the landing area assumes primary importance because it is within this area that there are the greatest opportunities for saving lives. This should assume at all times the possibility of, and need for, bringing under control and then extinguishing a fire which may occur either immediately following a helicopter accident or incident (e.g. crash and burn) or at any time during rescue operations. 6.1.4 The most important factors having a bearing on effective rescue in a survivable helicopter accident are the speed of initiating a response and the effectiveness of that response. Requirements to protect accommodation beneath or in the vicinity of the landing area, a fuel installation (where provided) or the support structure of the offshore heliport are not taken into account in this chapter, nor are any additional considerations that may arise from the presence of a second helicopter located in a parking area (see Chapter 8). In the case of a parking area, consideration may be given for providing a passive fire-retarding surface supplemented with hand-held extinguishers. 6.1.5 Due to the nature of offshore operations, usually taking place over large areas of open sea, an assessment will need to be carried out to determine if specialist rescue services and firefighting equipment are needed to mitigate the additional risks and specific hazards of operating over open sea areas. These considerations will form a part of the heliport emergency plan. 6.2 KEY DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS — PRINCIPAL AGENT 6.2.1 A key aspect in the successful design for providing an efficient, integrated rescue and firefighting facility is a complete understanding of the circumstances in which it may be expected to operate. A helicopter accident which results in a fuel spillage with wreckage and/or fire and smoke has the capability to render some of the equipment inventory unusable or to preclude the use of some passenger escape routes. 6.2.2 Delivery of firefighting media to the landing area at the appropriate application rate should be achieved in the quickest possible time. The method for delivery of the primary agent is best achieved through a fixed foam application system (FFAS) with an automatic or semi-automatic method used for the distribution of extinguishing agent to knock down and bring a fire under control in the shortest possible time, while protecting the means of escape for personnel to quickly and easily alight clear of the landing area to a place of safety. An FFAS may include, but is not necessarily limited to: a fixed monitor system (FMS), a deck integrated firefighting system (DIFFS), or, for a helideck with a D-value of 20 m (65.6 ft) or less, a ring main system (RMS). The purpose of this chapter is to discuss in detail the specification for an FMS and, as the alternative means of compliance, the preferred method of delivery now widely used in the offshore sector; a DIFFS. The specification for an RMS, or any other alternative means of compliance present or future, is not discussed in detail in this chapter. However, the critical area calculations illustrated in Section 6.2.8.1 are the recommended minimum objectives for any FFAS. An FMS, RMS or DIFFS should therefore be regarded as different methods by which the uniform distribution of foam, at the required application rate and for the required duration, may be efficiently distributed to the whole of the landing area (an area that is based on the D-circle of the critical design helicopter). For an FMS, where, due to its location around the periphery of the helideck, a good range of application is essential, foam is initially applied in a solid stream (jet) application. A dispersed pattern is applied through a DIFFS or an RMS where the requirement is to deliver media at shorter ranges to combine greater coverage and a more effective surface application of primary media. Where a solid plate helideck is provided, i.e. a helideck having a solid plate surface design set to a fall or camber which allows fuel to drain across the solid surface into a suitable drainage collection system, primary media will always consist of foam (see Note below and Section 6.2.8). However, where the option is taken to install a passive fire-retarding surface constructed in the form of a perforated surface or grating which contains numerous holes that allow burning fuel to rapidly drain through the surface of the helideck, the use of water in lieu of foam is accepted. Where water is used the critical area calculation applicable for Performance Level C foam is applied (see Section 6.2.8). Note.— From time to time, new technologies may come to market which, providing they are demonstrated by rigorous testing to be at least as effective as solutions described elsewhere in this chapter, with the approval of the appropriate authority, may be considered for helideck firefighting. For example, compressed air foam systems (CAFS) may be considered, with foam distributed through a DIFFS. CAFS has the ability to inject compressed air into foam to generate an effective solution to attack and suppress a helideck fire. This type of foam has a tighter, denser bubble structure than standard foams, which allows it to penetrate deeper into the fire before the bubbles are broken down. CAFS is able to address all sides of the fire triangle by smothering the fire (preventing oxygen from combining with the fuel), by diminishing the heat, using trapped air within the bubble structure, and by disrupting the chemical reaction required for a fire to continue. Hence the application rate for a DIFFS using Performance Level B compressed air foam may be accordingly reduced — see calculation of application rate in Section 6.2.8. 6.2.3 Given that the effectiveness of any FFAS is the speed of initiating a response in addition to the effectiveness of that response, it is recommended that a delay of less than 15 seconds, measured from the time the system is activated to actual production at the required application rate, should be the objective. The operational objective of an FFAS should ensure that the system is able to bring under control a helideck fire associated with a crashed helicopter within 1 minute measured from the time the system is activated and producing foam at the required application rate for the range of weather conditions prevalent for the helicopter operating environment. Note.— A fire is deemed to be under control at the point when the initial intensity of the fire is reduced by 90 per cent. 6.2.4 An FFAS should be of adequate performance and be suitably located to ensure an effective application of foam to any part of the landing area irrespective of the wind strength/direction or accident location when all components of the system are operating in accordance with the manufacturer’s technical specifications for the equipment. However, for an FMS, consideration should also be given to the loss of a (downwind) foam monitor either due to limiting weather conditions or as a result of a crash situation occurring. The design specification for an FMS (usually consisting of 2, 3 or 4 fixed monitors) should ensure remaining monitor(s) are capable of delivering finished foam to the landing area at or above the minimum application rate. For areas of the landing area or its appendages which, for any reason, may be otherwise inaccessible to an FMS, it is necessary to provide additional hand controlled foam branch pipes as described further below. 6.2.5 Consideration should be given to the effects of the weather on static equipment. All equipment forming part of the RFF response should be designed to withstand protracted exposure to the elements or be protected from them. Where protection is the chosen option, it should not prevent the equipment being brought into use quickly and effectively (see paragraphs above). The effects of condensation on stored equipment should be considered. 6.2.6 The minimum capacity of the fixed foam application system will depend on the D-value of the design helicopter, the required foam application rate at the helideck, the discharge rates of installed equipment (i.e. capacity of main fire pump) and the expected duration of application. It is important to ensure that the capacity of the main offshore heliport fire pump is sufficient to guarantee that finished foam can be applied at the appropriate induction ratio and application rate and for the minimum duration to the whole of the landing area, when all monitors are being discharged simultaneously. 6.2.7 The application rate is dependent on the types of foam concentrate in use and the types of foam application equipment selected. For fires involving aviation kerosene, ICAO has produced a performance test which assesses and categorizes the foam concentrate. Foam concentrate manufacturers will be able to advise on the performance of their concentrates against these tests. It is recommended that foam concentrates compatible with seawater and meeting at least performance level ‘B’ or performance level ‘C’ are used. Level ‘B’ foams should be applied at a minimum application rate of 5.5 litres per square metre per minute. Level ‘C’ foams should be applied at a minimum application rate of 3.75 litres per square metre per minute. Where seawater is used in lieu of foam (see Section 6.2.2) the application rate should be the same as for performance level ‘C’ foam. 6.2.8 Calculation of the application rate 6.2.8.1 Example based on the D-circle for an S92 (for the purpose of illustration assumed to be the design helicopter with a D = 20.88): For a performance level B foam: $$ \mathsf { A p p l i c a t i o n ~ r a t e = 5 . 5 \times \pi \times r ^ { 2 } \left( 5 . 5 \times 3 . 1 4 2 \times 1 0 . 4 4 \times 1 0 . 4 4 \right) = 1 8 8 3 \mathrm { ~ l i t r e s ~ p e r ~ m i n u t e } } $$ For a performance level C foam (or seawater): Application rate = 3.75 x π x r2 (3.75 x 3.142 x 10.44 x 10.44) = 1 284 litres per minute For a performance level B compressed air foam: $$ \mathsf { A p p l i c a t i o n \ r a t e = 3 . 0 0 \times \pi } \times \mathsf { r ^ { 2 } } ( 3 . 0 0 \times 3 . 1 4 2 \times 1 0 . 4 4 \times 1 0 . 4 4 ) = 1 \ 0 2 7 \ | \mathsf { i t r e s \ p e r \ m i n u t e } $$ 6.2.8.2 Given the often remote location of offshore heliports, the overall capacity of the foam system should exceed that which is necessary for the initial suppression and extinction of the fire. Five minutes of foam application capability for a solid plate helideck is generally considered to be reasonable. In the case of a passive fire-retarding surface with a wateronly DIFFS the discharge duration may be reduced to no less than three minutes. 6.2.9 Calculation of minimum operational stocks 6.2.9.1 Using the 20.88 m example as shown in Section 6.2.8.1 above, a 1 per cent performance level ‘B’ foam solution discharged over five minutes at the minimum application rate will require: 1 $\mid 8 8 3 \times 0 . 0 1 \times 5 = 9 4$ litres of foam concentrate. 6.2.9.2 A 3 per cent performance level ‘C’ foam solution discharged over five minutes at the minimum application rate will require 1 284 x 0.03 x 5 = 193 litres of foam concentrate Note.— Sufficient reserve foam stocks to allow for replenishment as a result of operation of the system during an incident or following training or testing, will also need to be considered. 6.2.10 Low expansion foam concentrates can generally be applied in either aspirated or non-aspirated form. It should be recognized that while non-aspirated foam may provide a quick knockdown of any fuel fire, aspiration, i.e. the induction of air into the foam solution discharged by monitor or by hand controlled foam branch (see below), gives enhanced protection after extinguishment. Wherever a non-aspirated FFAS is selected during design, additional hose lines capable of producing aspirated foam for post-fire security/control should be provided on solid-plate helidecks. 6.2.11 Not all fires are capable of being accessed by monitors, and in some scenarios their use may actually endanger passengers. Therefore, in addition to foam monitor systems, there should be the ability to deploy at least two deliveries with hand controlled foam branch pipes for the application of aspirated foam at a minimum rate of 225 to 250 litres/minute through each hose line. A single hose line, capable of delivering aspirated foam at a minimum application rate of 225 to 250 litres/minute, may be acceptable where it is demonstrated that the hose line is of sufficient length, and the hydrant system of sufficient operating pressure, to ensure the effective application of foam to any part of the landing area irrespective of wind strength or direction. The hose line(s) provided should be capable of being fitted with a branch pipe able to apply water in the form of a jet or spray pattern for cooling, or for other specific firefighting tactics. 6.2.12 As an effective alternative means of compliance to an FMS, offshore heliports are encouraged to consider the provision of a DIFFS. These systems typically consist of a series of pop-up nozzles with both a horizontal and vertical component, designed to provide an effective spray distribution of foam to the whole of the landing area and protection for the helicopter suitable for a range of weather conditions. A DIFFS on a solid-plate helideck should be capable of supplying performance level ‘B’ or level ‘C’ foam solution to bring under control a fire associated with a crashed helicopter within the time constraints stated in Section 6.2.3 achieving an average (theoretical) application rate over the entire landing area (based on the D-circle) of 5.5 litres per square metre per minute for performance level ‘B’ foams and 3.75 litres per square metre per minute for performance level ‘C’ foams, for a duration which at least meets the minimum requirements stated in Section 6.2.8.2 above. 6.2.13 When an FFAS consisting of a DIFFS capable of delivering foam and/or seawater in a spray pattern to the whole of the landing area (see previous paragraphs and Note below) is selected in lieu of an FMS, full scale testing has confirmed that the provision of additional hand-controlled foam branch pipes may not be necessary to address any residual fire situation. Instead any residual fire may be tackled with the use of hand-held extinguishers (see Chapter 4). 6.2.14 The precise number and lay out of pop-up nozzles will be dependent on the specific landing area design, particularly the dimensions of the landing area. However, nozzles should not be located adjacent to helideck egress points as this may hamper quick access to the helideck by trained rescue crews and/or impede occupants of the helicopter from escaping to a safe place away from the landing area. Notwithstanding this, the number and layout of nozzles should be sufficient to provide an effective spray distribution of foam over the entire landing area with a suitable overlap of the horizontal spray component from each nozzle, assuming calm wind conditions. It is recognized in meeting the objective for the average (theoretical) application rate specified above for performance level ‘B’ or level ‘C’ foams that there may be some parts of the landing area, particularly where the spray pattern of nozzles significantly overlap, where the average (theoretical) application rate is exceeded in practice. Conversely, for other areas the application rate in practice may fall slightly below the average (theoretical) application rate specified in Section 6.2.12. This is acceptable provided that the actual application rate achieved for any portion of the landing area does not fall below two-thirds of the application rates specified. Note.— Where a DIFFS is used in tandem with a passive fire-retarding system demonstrated to be capable of removing significant quantities of unburned fuel from the surface of the offshore heliport, in the event of a fuel spill from a ruptured aircraft tank, it is permitted to select a seawater-only DIFFS to deal with any residual fuel burn. A seawater-only DIFFS should meet the same application rate as specified for a performance level ‘C’ foam DIFFS in Section 6.2.12 and duration as specified in Section 6.2.8.2. (See also Section 6.5 for not permanently attended installations (NPAIs).) 6.2.15 In a similar way to where an FMS is provided, the performance specification for a DIFFS needs to consider the likelihood that one or more of the pop-up nozzles may be rendered ineffective by the impact of a helicopter on the deck surface. Any local damage to the DIFFS nozzles and distribution system, caused by a helicopter crash, should not hinder the system’s overall ability to deal effectively with a fire situation. To this end, a DIFFS supplier should be able to verify that a system where at least one of the nozzles is rendered inactive remains fit-for-purpose, and is able to bring a fire associated with a crashed helicopter under control within one minute measured from the time the system is producing foam at the required application rate. 6.2.16 A variation on the basic design performance level ‘B’ or level ‘C’ foam DIFFS is a DIFFS CAFS (see the Note below Section 6.2.2). 6.2.17 If lifesaving opportunities are to be maximized, it is essential that all equipment should be ready for immediate use on, or in the immediate vicinity of, the landing area whenever helicopter operations are being conducted. All equipment should be located at points having immediate access to the landing area. The location of the storage facilities should be clearly indicated. 6.3 USE AND MAINTENANCE OF FOAM EQUIPMENT 6.3.1 Mixing different concentrates in the same tank, i.e. different either in make or strength, is generally unacceptable. Many different strengths of concentrate are on the market, but the most common concentrates found offshore are 1 per cent, 3 per cent or 6 per cent. Any decision regarding selection should take into account the design characteristics of the foam system. It is important to ensure that foam containers and tanks are correctly labelled. 6.3.2 Induction equipment ensures that water and foam concentrate are mixed in the correct proportions. The settings of adjustable inductors, if installed, should correspond with the strength of concentrate in use. 6.3.3 All parts of the foam production system, including the finished foam, should be tested by qualified personnel upon commissioning and annually thereafter. The tests should assess the performance of the system against original design expectations while ensuring compliance with any relevant pollution regulations. 6.4 COMPLEMENTARY MEDIA 6.4.1 While foam is considered the principal agent for dealing with fires involving fuel spillages, the wide variety of fire incidents likely to be encountered during offshore helicopter operations — e.g. engine, avionic bays, transmission areas, hydraulics — may require the provision of more than one type of complementary agent. Dry powder and gaseous agents are generally considered acceptable for this task. The complementary agents selected should comply with the appropriate specifications of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Systems should be capable of delivering the agents through equipment which will ensure its effective application. Note.— Halon extinguishing agents are no longer specified for new installations. Gaseous agents, including $C O _ { 2 } ,$ have replaced them. The effectiveness of $C O _ { 2 }$ is accepted as being half that of Halon. 6.4.2 Dry chemical powder is recommended as the primary complementary agent. For helidecks up to and including 16 m (52.5 ft) the minimum total capacity should be 23 kg (50 lbs) delivered from one or two extinguishers. For helidecks above 16 m (52.5 ft) and up to 24 m (78 ft), the minimum total capacity should be 45 kg (99 lbs) delivered from one, two or three extinguishers. For helidecks above 24 m (78 ft) the minimum total capacity should be 90 kg (198 lbs) delivered from two, three or four extinguishers. The dry powder system should have the capability to deliver the agent anywhere on the landing area and the discharge rate of the agent should be selected for optimum effectiveness of the agent. Containers of sufficient capacity to allow continuous and sufficient application of the agent should be provided. 6.4.3 A quantity of gaseous agent is recommended in addition to the use of dry powder as a secondary complementary agent. A quantity of gaseous agent should be provided with a suitable applicator for use on engine fires. The appropriate minimum quantity delivered from one or two extinguishers is 9 kg (19 lbs) for helidecks up to and including 16.00 m (52.5 ft), 18 kg (39 lbs) for helidecks above 16.00 m (52.5 ft) and up to 24.00 m (78 ft), and 36 kg (78 lbs) for helidecks above 24.00 m (78 ft). The discharge rate should be selected for optimum effectiveness of the agent. Due regard should be given to the requirement to deliver gaseous agents to the seat of the fire at the recommended discharge rate. Due to the windy conditions prevalent in many offshore sectors, complementary agents may be adversely affected during application and if considering gaseous media the ambient conditions should be taken into account. 6.4.4 Offshore helicopters have integral engine fire protection systems (predominantly Halon) and it is therefore considered that the provision of foam as the principal agent, plus suitable water/foam branch lines, plus sufficient levels of dry powder with a quantity of secondary gaseous agent, will form the core of the fire extinguishing system. It should be noted that none of the complementary agents listed will offer any post-fire security/control. 6.4.5 All applicators are to be fitted with a mechanism which allows them to be hand-controlled. 6.4.6 Dry chemical powder should be of the foam-type compatible. 6.4.7 The complementary agents should be sited so that they are readily available at all times. 6.4.8 Reserve stocks of complementary media to allow for replenishment as a result of activation of the system during an incident, or following training or testing, should be held. 6.4.9 Complementary agents should be subject to annual visual inspection by qualified personnel and pressure tested in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations. 6.5 NOT PERMANENTLY ATTENDED INSTALLATIONS (NPAI) 6.5.1 In the case of NPAIs, where RFF equipment will be unattended during certain helicopter movements, the application of foam through a manually operated fixed monitor system is not recommended. For installations which are at times unattended, the effective delivery of foam to the whole of the landing area is best achieved by means of a fullyautomated DIFFS. See Sections 6.2.12 to 6.2.15 for specification. 6.5.2 For NPAIs, other combination solutions where these can be demonstrated to be effective in dealing with a running fuel fire may be considered. This could permit, for example, the selection of a seawater-only DIFFS used in tandem with a passive fire-retarding system demonstrated to be capable of removing significant quantities of unburned fuel from the surface of the landing area in the event of a fuel spill from a ruptured aircraft tank. In this case the minimum discharge duration should meet the appropriate requirements specified in Section 6.2.8.2. 6.5.3 DIFFS on NPAIs should be integrated with platform safety systems such that pop-up nozzles are activated automatically in the event of an impact of a helicopter where a post-crash fire (PCF) results. The overall design of a DIFFS should incorporate a method of fire detection and be configured to avoid spurious activation and should be capable of manual override. Similar to a DIFFS provided for a PAI, a DIFFS provided on an NPAI needs to consider the eventuality that one or more nozzles may be rendered ineffective by, for example, a crash. The basic performance assumptions stated in Section 6.2.12 to 6.2.15 should also apply for a DIFFS located on an NPAI. 6.6 THE MANAGEMENT OF EXTINGUISHING MEDIA STOCKS 6.6.1 Consignments of extinguishing media should be used in delivery order to prevent deterioration in quality by prolonged storage. 6.6.2 The mixing of different types of foam concentrate may cause serious density issues and result in the possible malfunctioning of foam production systems. Unless evidence is given to the contrary, it should be assumed that different types are incompatible. In the event of mixing it is essential that the tank(s), pipe work and pump (if fitted) are thoroughly cleaned and flushed prior to the new concentrate being introduced. 6.6.3 Consideration should be given to the provision of reserve stocks for use in training, testing and recovery from emergency use. 6.7 RESCUE EQUIPMENT 6.7.1 In some circumstances, lives may be lost if simple ancillary rescue equipment is not readily available. 6.7.2 The provision of minimum equipment is recommended as listed in Table I-6-1. Sizes of equipment are not detailed in this table, but should be appropriate for the types of helicopter expected to use the facility. 6.7.3 Appropriate personnel should be appointed to ensure that the rescue equipment is checked and maintained regularly. 6.7.4 Rescue equipment should be stored in clearly marked and secure watertight cabinets or chests. An inventory checklist of equipment should be held inside each equipment cabinet/chest. 6.8 PERSONNEL LEVELS 6.8.1 The facility or vessel should have a sufficient number of trained firefighting personnel immediately available whenever helicopter movements are taking place. A determination of what constitutes sufficient resources may be made on a case-by-case basis by use of a task resource analysis. When conducting this assessment, it is recommended that the following be taken into account, at minimum: a) helicopter types using the helideck, including maximum passenger seating configuration, composition, fuel loads (and whether fuel can be uplifted on site); b) expectations for the rescue of helicopter occupants, e.g. assisted rescue model; c) design and complexity of the firefighting arrangements, e.g. equipment to address worst case PCF with rescue of occupants; and d) availability of additional emergency support personnel to assist dedicated helideck personnel. 6.8.2 Dedicated helideck personnel should be deployed to allow the appropriate, efficient operations of firefighting and rescue systems and to maximum advantage, so that any helideck incident can be managed effectively. The helicopter landing officer (HLO) should be readily identifiable to the helicopter crew as the person in charge of operations. The preferred method of identification is a brightly coloured ‘HLO’ tabard/waistcoat. 6.9 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE) 6.9.1 All responding RFF personnel should be provided with appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and respiratory protective equipment (RPE) to allow them to carry out their duties in an effective manner. 6.9.2 Sufficient personnel to operate the RFF equipment effectively should be dressed in protective clothing prior to helicopter movements taking place. In addition, equipment should only be used by personnel who have received adequate information, instruction and training. PPE should be accompanied by suitable safety measures e.g. protective devices, markings and warnings. The specifications for PPE should meet one of the following international standards: NFPA EN BS Helmet with visor NFPA 1971 EN443 BS EN 443 Gloves NFPA 1971 EN659 BSEN 659 Boots (footwear) NFPA 1971 EN ISO 20345 BS EN ISO 20345 Tunic and trousers NFPA 1971 EN469 BS EN ISO 14116 Flash-hood NFPA 1971 EN13911 BS EN 13911 6.9.3 Appropriate personnel should be appointed to ensure that all PPE is installed, stored, used, checked and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Facilities should be provided for the cleaning, drying and storage of PPE when crews are off duty. Facilities should be well-ventilated and secure. 6.9.4 In addition, equipment should only be used by personnel who have received adequate information, instruction and training. PPE should be accompanied by suitable safety measures e.g. protective devices, markings and warnings. Appropriate PPE is included in Table I-6-1. Specific outcomes from the task-resource analysis may determine a requirement for additional PPE, or that, given the specific rescue model employed, certain items may not be required. 6.10 TRAINING 6.10.1 If they are to effectively utilize the equipment provided, all personnel assigned to RFF duties on the landing area should be fully trained to carry out their duties to ensure competence in role and task. It is recommended that personnel attend an established helicopter firefighting course. 6.10.2 In addition, regular recurrent training in the use of all RFF equipment, helicopter type familiarization and rescue tactics and techniques should be carried out. Correct selection and use of principal and complementary media for specific types of incident should form an integral part of personnel training. 6.11 EMERGENCY PROCEDURES 6.11.1 The heliport emergency plan should specify the actions to be taken in the event of an emergency involving a helicopter on or near the installation or vessel. The heliport emergency plan sets out the procedures for coordinating the response of agencies or services that could be of assistance in responding to an emergency at an offshore heliport. 6.11.2 Details of the scope and content for heliport emergency planning are addressed in detail in Annex 14, Volume II, Chapter 6, 6.1. Table I-6-1. Rescue equipment Adjustable wrench 1 Rescue axe, large (non-wedge or aircraft type) 1 Cutters, bolt 1 Crowbar, large 1 Hook, grab or salving 1 Hacksaw (heavy duty) and six spare blades 1 Blanket, fire resistant 1 Ladder (two-piece)* 1 Life line (5 mm circumference × 15 m in length) plus rescue harness 1 Pliers, side cutting (tin snips) 1 Set of assorted screwdrivers 1 Harness knife and sheath or harness cutters** ** Man-made mineral fibre (MMMF) filter masks** ** Gloves, fire resistant** ** Power cutting too*** 1 * For access to casualties in an aircraft on its side. ** This equipment is required for each helideck crew member. *** Requires additional approved training by competent personnel only specified for helicopters above 24 m (78 ft). Chapter 7 WINCHING AREAS ON SHIPS 7.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS INCLUDING LOCATION, PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND OBSTACLE PROTECTION Note.— The proposed application of this chapter is to winching areas located on ships. However, States may seek to apply the basic same criteria, but with some alleviations, for heli-hoist activities that occur, where permitted, on fixed platforms, e.g. for a winching area located on an offshore support substation. Applying the same criteria provides an additional degree of conservatism as fixed platforms are not subject to the same effects of motion that occur on ships (the amount of heave, sway or surge motion can vary considerably depending on the location of the winching area on a ship – see Chapter 3, 3.2.5.3). Therefore, for winching areas located on fixed platforms, some relaxation of the clear zone dimension (see Section 7.1.3) and the manoeuvring zone (see Section 7.1.4) may be considered by the appropriate authority. 7.1.1 Where practicable, the helicopter should always land rather than winch (an operation commonly referred to as helicopter hoist operation (HHO)) because safety is enhanced when the time spent hovering is reduced. However, certain types of ships, which need to engage helicopter support but are unable to provide the space and/or obstacle limitation surfaces needed to meet the requirements for a shipboard heliport, may need to consider a shipboard winching area in lieu of a shipboard heliport landing area. 7.1.2 The optimum position for a winching area will be determined primarily by the availability of a suitable space on the ship. However, a winching operation should be located over an area to which the helicopter can safely hover while winching to or from the ship. Its location should allow the pilot an unimpeded view of the whole of the winching area clear zone and the ship’s topside layout. Where more than one area capable of accommodating a winching area exists, preference should be given to the location that best minimizes aerodynamic and wave motion effects. In addition, the winching area should preferably be clear of accommodation spaces and provide adequate deck areas adjacent to the manoeuvring zone to allow for safe access to the winching area from at least two different directions. In selecting a suitable winching area, the desirability for keeping the winching (hoist) height to a minimum should also be borne in mind, such that the area chosen will allow a helicopter to hover at a safe height above the highest obstacle that may be present in the manoeuvring zone. 7.1.3 The winching area clear zone should comprise a circular area with a minimum diameter of 5 m (16 ft). This clear zone should be a solid surface capable of accommodating personnel and/or stores for which the winching area is intended. In addition the clear zone should be entirely obstacle-free. 7.1.4 The manoeuvring zone, divided into an inner and outer area, should encompass and extend beyond the clear zone to a minimum overall diameter of 2 D. The inner manoeuvring zone, having a diameter of not more than 1.5 D, may contain objects which are no higher than 3 m (9 ft) above the surface of the clear zone, while the outer manoeuvring zone, having an overall diameter of at least 2 D, may contain objects that are no higher than 6 m (20 ft) above the surface of clear zone. It is not essential for the entire manoeuvring zone to be a solid surface, and a portion may be located beyond the ship’s side over the water (the same obstacle height limitations would apply as for a solid surface). 7.2 MARKING OF A WINCHING AREA 7.2.1 Winching area markings should be located in order for their origin to coincide with the centre of the clear zone. 7.2.2 The clear zone of the winching area, a circle with a minimum diameter of 5 m (16 ft), should be painted in a conspicuous colour to contrast with the surrounding deck surface of the ship. Ideally the clear zone should be painted yellow. It is usually necessary to apply a paint scheme that provides a high friction coating to prevent personnel from slipping in the clear zone and/or stores from sliding due to the motion of the ship. 7.2.3 The edge of the circular outer manoeuvring zone of the winching area, having a diameter of at least 2 D, should be marked by a broken circle with a line width of at least 30 cm (1 ft) painted in a conspicuous colour to contrast with the adjacent ship’s deck. For standardization, it is recommended wherever possible that the outer manoeuvring zone marking is painted yellow. As a guide the mark to space ratio of the broken circle should be approximately 4:1 (80 per cent coverage of the markings). 7.2.4 Within the inner manoeuvring zone, but outside the solid clear zone, “WINCH ONLY” should be painted in characters which are easily visible to the helicopter pilot. The size and location of the marking may be dictated by the available surface on which to apply the marking (see 7.1.4) but the individual letters should ideally be at least 2 m (6.5 ft) high with a line width of approximately 33 cm (13 in). “WINCH ONLY” should be painted in a conspicuous colour to contrast with the adjacent deck. For standardization, it is recommended wherever possible that the marking is painted white. 7.2.5 While it is not a specific requirement to mark the periphery of the inner manoeuvring zone (with a diameter not greater than 1.5 D), it may be helpful, for the mapping of obstacles relative to the two obstruction segments in the manoeuvring zone, to do so. In this case, it is recommended that a thin unbroken circle be painted around the periphery of the inner manoeuvring zone in a colour which contrasts with the adjacent ship’s deck, but which is different from the colour used to define the outer manoeuvring zone. For standardization, it is recommended wherever possible that the inner manoeuvring zone circle, where marked, is painted white, with a line width of approximately 10 cm (4 in). 7.2.6 Obstructions within, or immediately adjacent to, the manoeuvring zone which may present a hazard to the helicopter need to be readily visible from the air and should be conspicuously marked. There is a scheme for marking of obstacles described in Annex 14 — Aerodromes, Volume II — Heliports , Chapter 5. However, a protocol also exists internationally which ship’s Masters may find helpful to adopt, particularly as it harmonizes with colour schemes being proposed for a ship’s helicopter landing area plan in this manual (see Chapter 4, 4.5 for details of how to complete a helicopter landing area/operating area plan). For objects within the height constraints specified for the two segments of the manoeuvring zone, to which it is necessary to draw the attention of the helicopter pilot, it is recommended that a yellow paint scheme be applied to highlight the position of these objects. Where, exceptionally, objects within the manoeuvring zone exceed the height constraints specified in Section 7.1.4, it is suggested that a paint scheme consisting of red and white stripes, in lieu of yellow, be applied to the object. In all cases it is necessary that the marking of objects contrasts effectively with the surface of the ship and therefore, some latitude may be required for precise colour schemes to be used. The suggestions given in this paragraph are intended to achieve standardization of markings wherever possible. 7.2.7 The marking scheme for a shipboard winching area is shown in Figure I-7-1. Part I. Offshore heliports Chapter 7. Winching areas on ships Figure I-7-1 Marking scheme for a shipboard winching area 7.3 LIGHTING OF A WINCHING AREA FOR NIGHT HELI-HOIST OPERATIONS 7.3.1 Where winching area operations are required to be conducted at night, winching area floodlighting should be provided to illuminate the clear zone and the manoeuvring zone areas. Floodlights should be arranged and adequately shielded so as to avoid glare to pilots operating in the hover and to personnel who may be working on the area during periods of non-operation. For a winching area, with its associated obstacle limitation surfaces, it is most likely that this will be achieved using a system of area (high-mounted) floodlighting, rather than a dedicated surface-mounted floodlighting system. 7.3.2 However illumination of the winching area is achieved, it is important to ensure that the spectral distribution of winching area floodlights is such that the surface markings and obstacle markings can be clearly identified. The floodlighting arrangement should ensure that shadows are kept to a minimum. 7.3.3 Obstructions within or immediately adjacent to the manoeuvring zone which may present a hazard to the helicopter conducting winching operations at night, need to be made readily visible from the air during night operations and should be conspicuously illuminated. 7.4 ADDITIONAL OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 7.4.1 To reduce the risk of a hoist hook or cable becoming fouled, all guard rails, awnings, stanchions, antennae and other obstructions within the vicinity of the manoeuvring zone should, as far as possible, be either removed, lowered or securely stowed. In addition, personnel should be kept well clear of any space immediately beneath the operating area. All doors, portholes, skylights, hatch-covers etc. in the vicinity of the operating area should be closed. This may also apply to deck levels that are below the operating area. 7.4.2 RFF personnel should be deployed in a ready state but sheltered from the helicopter operating area. RFF service requirements for landing areas are addressed in Chapter 6 of this manual. Winching areas should comply with the relevant SOLAS regulation for winching areas. Chapter 8 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 8.1 CRITERIA FOR PARKING AREAS AND PUSH-IN PARKING AREAS 8.1.1 The ability to park a helicopter on an offshore facility or vessel and still be able to use the landing area for other helicopter operations provides greater operational flexibility. A parking area, where provided, should be located within the 150 degree limited obstacle sector (LOS) equipped with markings to provide effective visual cues for flight crews needing to use the parking area. 8.1.2 It is therefore necessary for a parking area to be clearly distinguishable from the touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF). By day, this is achieved by ensuring a good contrast between the surface markings of the landing area and the surface markings of the parking area. For a standard dark green helideck, as described in Chapter 5, 5.10.1, a parking area which is painted a light grey colour utilising a high friction coating will provide suitable contrast (an aluminium surface may be left untreated). For an untreated aluminium landing area, as described in Chapter 5, 5.1.3 and 5.10.2, it will be necessary to select a different colour finish for the parking area (preferably a darker colour than the landing area but avoiding dark green) to achieve a good contrast. (The Figures in this chapter assume that a dark green minimum 1 D final approach and take-off area (FATO) is provided. When an untreated aluminium landing area is selected the underlying colour of the parking area will need to be varied to achieve good contrast). 8.1.3 Ideally, the dimensions of the parking area should accommodate a circle with a minimum diameter of 1 x the D-value of the design helicopter. A minimum clearance between the edge of the parking area and the edge of the landing area of 1/3 (0.33) D based on the design helicopter should be provided. The 1/3 D clearance area represents the parking transition area (PTA) (see Section 8.1.6) and should be kept free of obstacles when a helicopter is located in the parking area. Figure I-8-1 defines the basic scheme for a 1 D FATO/TLOF with associated 1 D parking area: Figure I-8-1. General arrangement — 1 D helideck landing area with associated 1 D parking area — separated by a parking transition area (PTA) 8.1.4 Markings should be incorporated on the parking area surface to provide visual cues to the flight crew to enhance safe operations. Where space (the physical surface) is limited for the parking area, it is permissible to reduce the parking area to be no less than the rotor diameter (RD) of the design helicopter. In this case, the TD/PM circle is offset away from the landing area to ensure a parked helicopter is a safe distance away from the landing area and is contained in the parking area within a hypothetical circle of dimension D. With a reduction in the load-bearing surface of the parking area from D to RD, it is accepted that parts of the helicopter, e.g. the tail rotor or main rotor, may overhang the physical parking area (inboard). The general arrangement for a helideck parking area with offset TD/PM circle is shown in Figure I-8-2. Figure I-8-2. General arrangement for a helideck parking area with offset TD/PM circle 8.1.5 For some offshore facilities, it may not be practical to accommodate a full helideck parking area adjacent to the landing area. In this case, consideration may be given to providing an extension to the landing area, known as a limited parking area (LPA) or push-in parking area (PIPA), separated from the landing area by a PTA (see Section 8.1.6) and designed to accommodate only a fully shutdown helicopter. In this case it is intended helicopters should be shut down on the landing area and ground handled to and from the LPA/ PIPA. The arrangement for an LPA/PIPA is shown in Figure I-8-3. Similar to a parking area, the LPA/PIPA is bounded by a solid white edge buffer line, and should be painted in a colour that contrasts effectively with the landing area (and the PTA). Figure I-8-3. General arrangement for a helideck limited parking area (LPA)/ push-in parking area (PIPA) 8.1.6 In all cases, the PTA provides a sterile area between the edge of the TLOF and the edge of the parking area or LPA/PIPA, and is used to transition the helicopter to and from the parking or LPA/PIPA, whether performing an air taxiing or ground taxiing manoeuvre to the parking area or, in the case of a disabled helicopter, towing or pushing the helicopter clear of the landing area (for an LPA/PIPA the helicopter will always be pushed-in). The PTA provides a minimum 1/3 (0.33) D clearance between a static (parked) helicopter and a helicopter taking off or landing at the TLOF, and should be painted in black for the area between the TLOF perimeter marking and the inboard perimeter of the parking (or pushin parking) area (both defined with 30 cm (1 ft) white lines). During normal operations no part of either helicopter, whether parked in the parking or LPA/push-in parking area, or operating into the landing area, should intrude into the PTA. Assuming the parking area can accommodate the same size (design) helicopter as is assumed for the landing area, there will be no requirement to provide additional markings in the PTA. The parking transition area is shown in Figure I-8-4. Part I. Offshore heliports Chapter 8. Miscellaneous items Figure I-8-4. Parking transition area (PTA) 8.1.7 To provide illumination to a parking area at night, and to ensure a pilot is able to differentiate between the parking area and the landing area, it is recommended that deck-mounted floodlights, with louvers, be arranged along either side of the parking area (for guidance on the number and use of floodlighting see Chapter 5, 5.13). Alternatively, where point source (coloured) lights are preferred, or are utilized in addition to floodlights, then the colour green should be avoided for the parking area and the associated PTA — instead blue lights are preferred. The perimeter lights on the parking area do not need to be viewed at range, as do the TLOF perimeter lights (see Chapter 5, 5.12) and therefore parking area perimeter lights should be a blue low intensity light — no less than 5 cd at any angle of elevation (and subject to a maximum of 60 cd at any angle of elevation). Lighting arrangements for parking areas and PIPAs are illustrated in Figures I-8-5 and I-8-6 respectively. Figure I-8-5. Landing and parking area deck lighting scheme Part I. Offshore heliports Chapter 8. Miscellaneous items Note.— The PIPA shall be provided with floodlighting. If hover taxi and/or ground taxi is still allowed in the transition area (TA), the TA perimeter lights should be in a blue colour. If no taxiing is allowed in the TA, then floodlights would also be recommended. Figure I-8-6. Floodlighting scheme for a helideck push-in parking area (PIPA) connected via a PTA to a 0.83 D TLOF 8.1.8 The following sections, supported by Figures I-8-7 and I-8-8, address how a helicopter may be taxied from the landing area to the parking area, by reference to the 15 cm (6 in) yellow taxiway alignment line (see Figures I-8-7 and I-8-8) and then shut down on a heading which keeps the tail clear of any obstructions that may be present in the vicinity of the parking area. Where an obstacle is in close proximity to, or infringes the parking protection area, a “no nose” marking may be necessary to prevent the helicopter tail rotor from coming into line with an object, as illustrated by Figure I-8-8. 8.1.9 Manoeuvring (360 degrees) in the PA as a hover or ground taxi operation is acceptable. The nose of the helicopter should be located over the yellow portion of the PCOM when shutdown, i.e. the nose of the helicopter should not be located over the white portion of the PCOM circle during or while shutdown. 8.1.10 A PCOM marking can be used to avoid the tail rotor being positioned in the vicinity of an exit or emergency exit. 8.1.11 The coverage of the white portion of the PCOM will depend on the size of the obstacle to be avoided but, when used, it is recommended the minimum (angular) size should be no less than 30 degrees. 8.1.12 A “no nose” marking should be used to avoid the tail rotor being positioned in the vicinity of an obstacle that is very near to, or infringes the 0.33 D parking protection area. 8.1.13 A “no nose” marking provides visual cues for aircrew indicating that the “helicopter’s nose” should not be manoeuvred or parked in a particular direction. Figure I-8-8 shows a helicopter manoeuvring and parking orientation restriction, to avoid infringement of a tail rotor hazard. 8.1.14 A “no nose” marking should be on a white background with a red border and the words “no nose” located on the touchdown parking circle (TDPC) as shown in (Figure I-8-8). The “no nose” marking size will depend on the size of the area or obstacle to be avoided by the tail rotor/tail boom. It is recommended that the minimum (angular) size should not be less than 30 degrees. One or multiple obstacles may be covered by this sector. Note.— Consistent with the arrangements for the landing area (see Chapter 3, 3.5 for helidecks and Chapter 3, 3.6 for shipboard heliports) provisions should be put in place for parking or limited parking/ push-in areas/parking transition areas to ensure adequate surface drainage arrangements and a skid-resistant surface for helicopters and persons operating on the parking or limited parking/push-in parking areas/parking transition areas. When tying down helicopters in the parking area, it is prudent to ensure sufficient tie-down points are located about the touchdown/positioning marking circle (see Chapter 3, 3.5.6 and 3.6.6). A method to secure a helicopter in the push-in area should also be considered. Where necessary a safety device, whether netting or shelving, should be located around the perimeter of the parking area or limited parking/push-in area (and the parking transition area). Parking areas may be provided with one or more access points to allow personnel to move to and from the parking area without having to pass through the PTA to the landing area. Figure I-8-7. Touchdown parking circle (TDPC) and parking circle orientation marking (PCOM) Part I. Offshore heliports Chapter 8. Miscellaneous items Figure I-8-8. No nose marking 8.2 METEOROLOGICAL EQUIPMENT PROVISION 8.2.1 Accurate, timely and complete meteorological observations are necessary to support safe and efficient helicopter operations. It is recommended that manned, fixed and floating facilities and vessels are provided with an automated means of ascertaining the following meteorological information at all times: a) wind speed and direction (including variations in direction); b) air temperature and dew point temperature; c) QNH and, where applicable, QFE; d) cloud amount and height of cloud base (above mean sea level (AMSL)); e) visibility; and f) present weather. 8.2.2 Where a fixed, manned facility is in close proximity to another fixed, manned facility, close as determined by the competent authority, it may not be deemed necessary for every facility to be provided the above equipment, as long as those facilities which are equipped are given to make their information routinely available to the others. For other facilities, a manual means of verifying and updating the visual elements of an observation, i.e. cloud amount and height of base, visibility and present weather, may be used. For not permanently attended installations (NPAIs) and for those fixed and floating facilities and vessels deemed to have a low movement rate, as determined by the competent authority, it may be acceptable just to provide the basic elements of wind, pressure, air temperature and dew point temperature information. 8.2.3 Contingency meteorological observing equipment providing manual measurements of air and dew point temperatures, wind speed direction and pressure is recommended to be provided in case of the failure or unavailability of the automated sensors. It is recommended that personnel who carry out meteorological observations undergo appropriate training for the role and complete periodic refresher training to maintain competency. 8.2.4 Equipment sensors used to provide the data listed in Section 8.2.1. a) to f) should be periodically calibrated in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations in order to demonstrate continuing adequacy for purpose. 8.2.5 Additional guidance relating to the provision of meteorological information from offshore facilities and vessels may be contained in Annex 3 — Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation. 8.3 DECK MOTIONS REPORTING AND RECORDING 8.3.1 Floating facilities and vessels experience dynamic motions due to wave action, which represent a potential hazard to helicopter operations. Although the ability of a floating facility or vessel to sometimes manoeuvre may be helpful in providing an acceptable wind direction in relation to the helideck/shipboard heliport location, it is likely that floating facilities and vessels will still suffer downtime due to excessive deck motions. Downtime can be minimized by careful consideration of the location of the landing area at the design stage (see Chapter 3, 3.2.5). However, to a greater or lesser degree floating facilities and vessels remain subject to movement at the helideck/heliport in pitch and roll, in deck inclination and in heave (usually measured as rate of heave). 8.3.2 It is necessary for these motions to be recorded by the use of an electronic helideck motion system (HMS) and reported as part of the overall offshore weather report (see Section 8.2.5), prior to landing and during helicopter movements. An HMS should be equipped with a colour-coded display which allows a trained operative to easily determine whether the landing area is in-limits, or is out-of-limits, or is moving towards a condition where it may soon be out-of-limits. Motions at the helideck/heliport should be reported to the helicopter operator to an accuracy of one decimal place. The helicopter pilot, in order to make vital safety decisions, is concerned with the degree of inclination on and the rate of movement of the helideck surface. It is therefore important that reported values are only related to the true vertical and do not relate to any false datum created, for example, by a list created by anchor patterns or displacement. 8.3.3 Research indicates that the likelihood of a helicopter tipping or sliding while touched down on a helideck or shipboard heliport (especially with rotors running, turning and burning on the landing area) is directly related to helideck/heliport accelerations and to the prevailing wind conditions. Ideally an HMS should incorporate additional software which allows for on deck motion severity and wind severity index limits to be recorded and communicated to aircrew; in a similar way that pre-landing limits are disseminated to a pilot. 8.3.4 To provide aircrew with a visual indication of the current status of a helideck/shipboard heliport it may be helpful to employ a traffic light system consisting of three lights mounted at three to four locations around the edge of a helideck/heliport. These lights should avoid the use of the colour green (green is used for TLOF perimeter lights), but could consist of blue/amber and red, where blue is safe within limits, amber is moving out of limits towards an unsafe condition and red is out of limits: unsafe condition. 8.4 COMMUNICATIONS AND NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT 8.4.1 On most facilities, fixed and floating, and on vessels, the radio operator (RO) is the initial and final point of contact between flight crew and the facility/vessel. However, as continuous line of sight to the landing area is often not possible to provide from the radio room, it is advisable to equip helideck/heliport personnel (e.g. HLOs and helideck assistants (HDAs)) with portable aeronautical headsets, the use of which they should be suitably trained in. 8.4.2 A major advantage of having a radio-equipped person on the helideck/heliport is that they can maintain visual as well as radio communication during the circuit, final approach and landing, therefore providing the helicopter crew with further positive identification of the facility (or vessel) and thereby reducing the incidence for a wrong deck landing (see also Chapter 5, 5.1.5). A radio-equipped person is also in a good position to warn of any developing issues while the helicopter is on deck. 8.4.3 Hand-over and general R/T procedures employed should be standard R/T phrases and vocabulary only, to avoid misunderstandings. Communications should be kept brief, avoiding any unnecessary chatter on the selected aeronautical frequency and should be confined to essential dialogue between flight crew and the HLO. 8.4.4 Offshore fixed and floating facilities and vessels that have aeronautical radio equipment and/or aeronautical non-directional beacons (NDBs) on them should hold a valid approval issued by the State in which they operate. 8.5 HELICOPTER REFUELLING OPERATIONS 8.5.1 It is essential to ensure at all times that aviation fuel delivered to helicopters from offshore facilities and vessels is of the highest quality. A major contributor towards ensuring that fuel quality is maintained, and contamination prevented, is the provision of clear, unambiguous product identification on all system components and pipelines, denoting the fuel type (e.g. Jet A-1) following the standard aviation convention for markings and colour codes. Markings should be applied initially during systems manufacture and routinely checked for clarity during subsequent maintenance inspections. 8.5.2 It should be noted that an offshore fuelling system may vary according to the particular application for which it was designed. Nevertheless the elements of all offshore fuelling systems are similar and will include: a) storage tanks; b) static storage facilities, and if installed, a sample reclaim tank; c) a pumping system; and d) a delivery system. 8.5.3 When preparing a layout design for aviation fuelling systems on offshore facilities and vessels, it is important to make provisions for suitable segregation and bunding of the areas set aside for the tankage and delivery system. Facilities for containing possible fuel leakage and providing fire control should be given full and proper consideration, along with adequate protection from potential dropped objects. The design of the elements of an offshore fuelling system is not addressed in detail in this manual. For detailed guidance, refer to the Air Transport Association Specification 103 (Standard for Jet Fuel Quality Control at Airports). 8.5.4 Fuel storage, handling and quality control are key elements for ensuring, at all times, the safety of aircraft in flight. For this reason, personnel assigned refuelling responsibilities should be certified as properly trained and competent to undertake systems maintenance, inspection and fuelling of helicopters. 8.5.5 Throughout the critical processes of aviation fuel system maintenance and fuelling operations, routine fuel sampling is required to ensure delivered fuel is scrupulously clean and free from contamination that may otherwise enter helicopter fuel tanks and could ultimately result in engine malfunctions. 8.5.6 Fuel samples drawn from transit/static storage tanks and the fuel delivery system should be retained in appropriate containers for a specified period. The containers should be kept in a secure light-excluding store and kept away from sunlight until they are disposed of. 8.5.7 Guidance on the design of containers is provided by the International Air Transport Association (IATA). The IATA fuel guidelines provide an essential set of standards designed to ensure safe and efficient aircraft fuel handling and contribute to training of fuelling operatives for oil companies or into-plane service providers. 8.6 BIRD CONTROL AT NORMALLY UNATTENDED OFFSHORE FACILITIES 8.6.1 Bird guano infestations may be routinely encountered, particularly at NPAIs, and especially at certain times of the year for facilities located in proximity to bird migratory routes. (The problem is most severe at not permanently attended facilities since, at attended facilities, on-board activities will tend to scare the birds away). The effects of bird guano infestation are many and include threats to safe flight operations (e.g. potential for a bird strike during an approach), the obliteration of essential markings (so making touchdown/positioning inaccuracies more likely), a reduction in the friction qualities of the surface (leading to a helicopter sliding over the deck surface) and effects on personnel health and safety due to the highly toxic and slippery nature of guano (e.g. effect on the lungs due to inhalation of dried guano dust, slips on wet guano surfaces). Also to consider are the additional costs incurred through a requirement for more regular maintenance of static equipment on a facility, of damage caused to the interior of the helicopter (guano is trodden onto floor surfaces) and the need to perform high-pressure cleaning on a regular basis to restore the integrity of markings, etc. 8.6.2 Problems caused by the presence of sea birds and guano infestation on or around the landing area should be noted and reported by flight crews. Significant surface contamination is likely to incur flight restrictions where, for example, the build-up of guano has a detrimental effect on the interpretation of surface markings and an inability to maintain an adequate friction surface. Routinely, for affected facilities, flight crew should be encouraged to complete and file helideck condition reports that indicate the current condition of the surface, of helideck lighting (including any outages) and of the windsock (including illumination). 8.6.3 Experience over time in various sectors would suggest that finding permanent solutions to the guano/bird problem can be challenging, and consequently, determining an optimum solution to the problem has proven elusive. In the past, active measures taken to discourage sea birds from roosting on helidecks has included visual deterrents, different audio deterrents (e.g. distress calls) and even combined audio/visual deterrents that build in random changes. However, over time, birds have tended to habituate to any of these solutions that involve audio and/or visual deterrents, even where these incorporate random changes. 8.6.4 One possible solution that has been found to be more effective than most of the aforementioned is the application of pressurised water-spray systems, to which birds do not appear to readily habituate (pressurized water could be delivered from an automated firefighting deck integrated firefighting system (DIFFS) or a ring-main system (RMS) where bird activities are being monitored, from the beach or from a normally attended platform, via a remotely operated TV system (ROTS)). When water combined with an effective bird-scaring device is activated automatically as birds are detected around the landing area, the combination has proven to be relatively effective in dispersing birds that may have encroached onto the helideck. However, it is fair to conclude that current bird-exclusion methods have at best been only partially successful, so there is room for more innovative approaches to bird control measures at helidecks. Appendix 1-A SAMPLE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR HELICOPTEROPERATIONS TO HELIDECKS ANDSHIPBOARD HELIPORTS WHICH ARE SUB-1 D Table I-A-1 could form the basis of an aeronautical study (risk assessment) conducted by, or on behalf of, an offshore helicopter operator when intending to service helidecks or shipboard heliports with limited touchdown directions using helicopters with an overall length (D) greater than the design D of the touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) (referred to in this document as a sub-1 D operation). The assumption is made that sub-1 D operations will be considered only in the following circumstances and when applying the following conditions: a) for a helideck that provides a load-bearing surface (represented by the TLOF) of between 0.83 D and 1 D, a minimum 1 D circle (representing the final approach and take-off area (FATO)) should be assured for the containment of the helicopter. From the periphery of the FATO (not the TLOF) the limited obstacle sector (LOS) extends; the non-load-bearing area between the TLOF perimeter and the FATO perimeter should be entirely free of ‘non-permitted’ obstacles, while ensuring that any permitted objects present for the safety of operation that are located on or around the TLOF perimeter should not exceed the obstruction height criteria set out in d) below; b) this assessment may be considered for any helideck on a fixed offshore installation. A floating installation or vessel that is subject to dynamic motions may be considered provided deck motions are maintained within benign limits as determined by the State of operation, e.g. stable deck conditions – specified criteria in pitch roll and heave; c) this assessment, when applied to helidecks completed on or before 1 January 2012, or shipboard heliports completed on or before 1 January 2015, may take advantage of an Annex 14, Volume II, alleviation permitting the outboard edge of the (approximately) 1.5 m (5 ft) helideck perimeter netting to extend above the level of the landing area by no more than 25 cm (10 in). However, for helidecks completed on or after 1 January 2012 and shipboard heliports completed on or after 1 January 2015, Annex 14 — Aerodromes, Volume II — Heliports requires that the height of the helideck safety net should be no greater than the adjacent helideck load-bearing surface (TLOF); d) for helidecks that are less than 1 D and/or having a D-value which is 16.00 m (52.5 ft) or less, Annex 14, Volume, II prescribes the height limit for essential objects around the edge of the TLOF, and in the first segment of the LOS, to be 5 cm (2 in). “Essential objects” permitted around the edge of the TLOF are notified in Chapter 3 of this manual and include helideck guttering with raised kerb, helideck lighting systems and foam monitors (or ring-main system) where provided; e) Figure I-A-1 illustrates a 0.83 D minimum size TLOF. The inner circle bounded by the octagon-shaped helideck represents the sub-1 D TLOF (in the illustration a 0.83 D load-bearing surface). The outer circle illustrates the 1 D FATO which provides containment of the helicopter and from which is derived the origin of the LOS. Where practical, the chevron denoting the origin of the LOS should be physically marked at the periphery of the FATO, (see Chapter 5, 5.9.5 and Figure I-5-8). The diameter of the FATO is the declared D-value, marked at the chevron; and f) operations to sub-1 D helidecks and shipboard heliports should not be considered below 0.83 D. Table I-A-1. Sample risk assessment considerations Issues to be addressed Considerations/mitigations accounting for compromise Reduction of the distance from helideck (TLOF) centre to the limited obstacle sector (LOS) (denoting the origin of the 1st and 2nd segments) It is essential that clearance from obstacles in the LOS is maintained; for this reason, the sub-1 D TLOF should be surrounded by a 1 D circle (the FATO) that is (with the exception of permitted objects) free of any obstacles. To ensure that obstacle clearances are maintained for the helicopter, the touchdown/ positioning Reduction of suitable and sufficient visual references required for the pilot during all flight phases. and located at the centre of the TLOF; never offset. Adequate visual cues provided for aircrew are essential for the conduct of safe operations to helidecks. On a sub-1 D helideck, or shipboard heliport with limited touchdown directions, these will, to some degree, be compromised. An aeronautical study should ensure that visual cues, within the field of view (FOV) are adequate for aircrew to perform the following visual tasks: a) identification of helideck location early on in the approach; b) visual cues to help maintain the sight picture during approach; c) visual cues on final approach to hover position; d) visual cues for landing; and e) visual references on lift-off and hover It is important that helideck markings and deck mounted lighting (where provided) remain uncontaminated at all times (e.g. deposits of guano on the surface of a helideck, or shipboard heliport, may compromise markings and/or deck-mounted lighting). A windsock should be provided to facilitate an accurate indication of wind direction and strength over the helideck. For night operations, lighting systems Reduction of the space available for passengers and crew to should include effective obstruction lighting in addition to helideck lighting and an illuminated windsock. A reduction of the operating area entails that clearances between passengers/crew moving around the helideck or shipboard heliport avoiding the helicopter's rotor safely alight and embark the helicopter and to transit to and from the operating area safely. systems by a safe margin are reduced. This reduction should be considered on a helicopter-type specific basis. It should be ensured that suficient access points are available to avoid the situation where passengers and crew have to pass close to helicopter 'no-go' areas (e.g. in relation to main and tail rotor systems). Where personnel are required to transit close to the deck edge, procedures should be Reduction of the space available for securing helicopters for the conduct of safe and efficient refuelling operations (where provided) and for post-crash teams to provide effective fire and rescue intervention in the passengers to escape downwind to safety. considered to assure the safe movement of passengers. The surface area available should accommodate a sufficient tie-down pattern arrangement to allow the most critical helicopter(s) to be tied-down (where required). Where refuelling operations are required, the area available around the helicopter should allow this to occur safely and efficiently at al times. Sufficient access points should be provided to allow helideck fire and rescue teams to move to the scene of an incident or accident from an upwind location and to allow Part I. Offshore heliports Appendix I-A. Issues to be addressed Considerations/mitigations accounting for compromise event of an incident or accidentoccurring. Helicopter elements will be overpermitted essential objects at theedge of the TLOF. According to Annex 14 Volume Il, 3.3.13, the permitted height for essential objectslocated around the TLOF in the 210° obstacle-free sector and in the 1st segment ofthe 150° limited obstacle sector was reduced from 25 cm (10 in) to 5 cm (2 in) for aTLOF which is less than 1 D and/or 16 m (52.5 ft) or less. For newbuilds this isregarded as adequate mitigation for the reduction of the dimension of theload-bearing area to address the presence of objects which, because of theirfunction, are required to be located immediately around the TLOF. Reduction of built-in margin toallow for touchdown/positioninginaccuracies during landing. It should be assumed that even amongst experienced, well trained aircrew therewill inevitably be some degree of variability in the actual point of touchdown withinthe landing area. The TD/PM circle provides an effective visual reference to guidethe handling pilot to the point of touchdown, but scatter has potential to occur,particularly when external factors beyond a pilot's control come into play. This mayinclude the influences of prevailing meteorological conditions at the time of landing(e.g. wind, precipitation etc.), and/or any helideck environmental effectsencountered (e.g. turbulence, thermal effects). It is essential that a good visualmeans of assessing wind strength and direction is always provided for the pilot byday and by night. Markings should be kept free of contamination which may reducea pilot's ability to touchdown accurately. The TD/PM circle and “H" should be lit(or adequately illuminated) for night operations. Reduction of helpful groundcushion effect from rotordownwash It is a condition of Annex 14 Volume I that the TLOF should provide ground effect.A reduction of the load-bearing area (TLOF) for sub-1 D operations means that thebeneficial effect of ground cushion willikely suffer some reduction. The reductionof helpful ground cushion needs to be considered particularly when operating to asub-1D helideck with a perforated surface, i.e. helideck designs that incorporate apassive fire-retarding feature which allows unburned fuel to drain away throughspecially manufactured holes, forming a drain-hole pattern over the surface of theTLOF. Figure I-A-1. Obstacle limitation surface and sectors for a 0.83 D TLOF SPECIFICATION FOR HELIDECK LIGHTING SCHEME COMPRISING:PERIMETER LIGHTS, LIT TOUCHDOWN/POSITIONING MARKINGAND LIT HELIPORT IDENTIFICATION MARKING 1. OVERALL OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT 1.1 The lighting configuration should be designed to be visible over a range of 3600 in azimuth. It is possible, however, that on some offshore installations the lighting may be obscured from the pilots’ view by topsides structure when viewed from some directions. The design of the helideck lighting is not required to address any such obscuration. 1.2 The visibility of the lighting configuration should be compatible with the normal range of helicopter vertical approach paths from a range of 2 NM. 1.3 The purpose of the lighting configuration is to aid the helicopter pilot perform the necessary visual tasks during approach and landing as stated in Table I-B-1. Table I-B-1. Visual tasks during approach and landing Phase of Approach Visual Task Visual Cues/ Aids Desired Range (NM) 5000mmet. vis. 1400mmet. vis. Helideck locationand identification Search within platformstructure. shape of helideck;colour of helideck;luminance of helideck; andperimeter lighting. 1.5(2.8 km) 0.75(1.4 km) Final approach Detect helicopter position inthree axes.Detect rate of change ofposition. apparent size/shape andchange of size/shape ofhelideck; andorientation and change oforientation of knownfeatures/markings/lights. 1.0(1.8 km) 0.5(900m) Hover and landing Detect helicopter attitudeposition and rate of changeof position in three axes(six degrees of freedom). known features/markings/lights; andhelideck texture. 0.03(50 m) 0.03(50m) 1.4 The minimum intensities of the lighting configuration should be adequate to ensure that, for a minimum meteorological visibility (met. vis.) of 1 400 m and an illuminance threshold of 10-6.1 lux, each feature of the system is visible and useable at night from ranges in accordance with the following: a) the perimeter lights are to be visible and usable at night from a minimum range of 0.75 NM; b) the touchdown/positioning marking (TD/PM) circle on the helideck is to be visible and usable at night from a range of 0.5 NM; and c) the heliport identification marking (‘H’) is visible and usable at night from a range of 0.25 NM. 1.5 The minimum ranges at which the TD/PM Circle and ‘H’ are visible and useable should still be achieved even where a correctly fitted landing net covers the lighting. 1.6 The design of the perimeter lights, TD/PM Circle and ‘H’ should be such that the luminance of the perimeter lights is equal to or greater than that of the TD/PM circle segments, and the luminance of the TD/PM circle segments equal to or greater than that of the ‘H’. 1.7 The design of the TD/PM Circle and ‘H’ should include a facility to enable their intensity to be increased by up to approximately two times the figures given in this specification to permit a once-off (tamperproof) adjustment at installation; the average intensity over 3600 in azimuth at each elevation should not exceed the maximum figures. The purpose of this facility is to ensure adequate performance at installations with high levels of background lighting without risking glare at less well-lit installations. The TD/PM Circle and ‘H’ should be adjusted together using a single control to ensure that the balance of the overall lighting system is maintained in both the ‘standard’ and ‘bright’ settings. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 The following definitions should apply: 2.1.1 Lighting Element. A lighting element is a light source within a segment or subsection and may be discrete (e.g. a Light Emitting Diode (LED)) or continuous (e.g. fibre optic cable, electro luminescent panel). An individual lighting element may consist of a single light source or multiple light sources arranged in a group or cluster and may include a lens/diffuser. 2.1.2 Segment. A segment is a section of the TD/PM circle lighting. For the purposes of this specification, the dimensions of a segment are the length and width of the smallest possible rectangular area that is defined by the outer edges of the lighting elements, including any lenses/diffusers. 2.1.3 Subsection. A subsection is an individual section of the ‘H’ lighting. For the purposes of this specification, the dimensions of a subsection are the length and width of the smallest possible rectangular area that is defined by the outer edges of the lighting elements, including any lenses/diffusers. 3. THE PERIMETER LIGHT REQUIREMENT 3.1 Configuration Perimeter lights, spaced at intervals of not more than 3 m, should be fitted around the perimeter of the landing area. 3.2 Mechanical Constraints For any helideck 1 D or greater, where the D-value is also greater than 16 m (52.5 ft), the perimeter lights should not exceed a height of 25 cm (10 in), but ideally 15 cm (6 in), above the surface of the helideck. Where a helideck has a D-value of 16 m (52.5 ft) or less and/or is less than 1 D, the perimeter lights should not exceed a height of 5 cm above the surface of the helideck. 3.3 Light Intensity 3.3.1 The minimum light intensity profile is given in Table I-B-2 below: Table I-B-2. Minimum light intensity profile for perimeter lights Elevation Azimuth Intensity (min) 00 to 10 $- 1 8 0 ^ { 0 } \mathrm { t } 0 + 1 8 0 ^ { 0 }$ 30cd $> 1 0 ^ { 0 } \mathrm { \Delta t o \ } 2 0 ^ { 0 }$ $- 1 8 0 ^ { 0 } \mathrm { t } 0 + 1 8 0 ^ { 0 }$ 15 cd $> 2 0 ^ { 0 } \mathrm { t o } 9 0 ^ { 0 }$ $- 1 8 0 ^ { 0 } \mathrm { t } 0 + 1 8 0 ^ { 0 }$ 3 cd 3.3.2 No perimeter light should have an intensity of greater than 60 cd at any angle of elevation. Note that the design of the perimeter lights should be such that the luminance of the perimeter lights is equal to or greater than that of the TD/PM Circle segments. 3.4 Colour 3.4.1 The colour of the light emitted by the perimeter lights should be green, as defined in Annex 14, Volume 1, Appendix 1, paragraph 2.3.1 (c), whose chromaticity lies within the following boundaries: Yellow boundary x = 0.310 White boundary $\mathsf { x } = 0 . 6 2 5 \ \mathsf { y } - 0 . 0 4 1$ Blue boundary $\mathsf { y } = 0 . 4 0 0$ 3.4.2 The above assumes that solid state light sources are used. Annex 14, Volume 1, Appendix 1, paragraph 2.1.1 (c), should be applied if filament light sources are used. 3.5 Serviceability 3.5.1 The perimeter lighting is considered serviceable provided that at least 90 per cent of the lights are serviceable, and providing that any unserviceable lights are not adjacent to each other. 4. THE TOUCHDOWN/POSITIONING MARKING CIRCLE REQUIREMENT 4.1 Configuration The lit TD/PM circle should be superimposed on the yellow painted marking, such that it is concentric with the painted circle and contained within it. It should comprise one or more concentric circles of at least sixteen discrete lighting segments, of at least 40 mm (1.5 in) minimum width. The segments should either be straight or curve in sympathy with the painted circle. A single circle should be positioned such that the radius of the circle formed by the centre line of the lighting segments is within 10 cm (4 in) of the mean radius of the painted circle. Multiple circles should be symmetrically disposed about the mean radius of the painted circle, each circle individually meeting the specification contained in this Appendix. The lighting segments should be of such a length as to provide coverage of between 50 per cent and 75 per cent of the circumference and be equidistantly placed with the gaps between them not less than 0.5 m (1.6 ft). A single non-standard gap up to 25 per cent larger or smaller than the remainder of the circle is permitted at one location to facilitate cable entry. The mechanical housing should be coloured yellow. 4.2 Mechanical constraints 4.2.1 The height of the lit TD/PM circle fixtures (e.g. segments) and any associated cabling should be as low as possible and should not exceed 25 mm (1 in). The overall height of the system, taking account of any mounting arrangements, should be kept to a minimum. So as not to present a trip hazard, the segments should not present any vertical outside edge greater than 6 mm (0.2 in) without chamfering at an angle not exceeding 300 from the horizontal. 4.2.2 The overall effect of the lighting segments and cabling on deck friction should be minimized. Wherever practical, the surfaces of the lighting segments should meet the minimum deck friction limit coefficient (µ) of 0.65, e.g. on non-illuminated surfaces. 4.2.3 The TD/PM circle lighting components, fitments and cabling should be able to withstand a pressure of at least 1 655 kPa (240 lbs/in2) and ideally 3 250 kPa (471 lbs/in2) without damage. 4.3 Intensity 4.3.1 The light intensity for each of the lighting segments, when viewed at angles of azimuth over the range +80° to -80° from the normal to the longitudinal axis of the strip (see Figure I-B-1), should be as defined in Table I-B-3. Table I-B-3. Light intensity for lighting segments on the TD/PM circle Elevation Intensity Min Max 00 to 100 As a function of segment length as definedin Figure I-B-2. 60 cd >10° to 200 25% of min intensity > 00 to 100 45 cd >200to 900 5% of min intensity > 00 to 100 15 cd Figure I-B-1. TD/PM segment measurement axis system 4.3.2 For the remaining angles of azimuth on either side of the longitudinal axis of the segment, the maximum intensity should be as defined in Table I-B-3. 4.3.3 The intensity of each lighting segment should be nominally symmetrical about its longitudinal axis. The design of the TD/PM circle should be such that the luminance of the TD/PM circle segments is equal to or greater than the subsections of the ‘H’. Figure I-B-2. TD/PM Segment intensity versus segment length Note.— Given the minimum gap size of 0.5 m (1.6 ft) and the minimum coverage of 50 per cent, the minimum segment length is 0.5 m (1.6 ft). The maximum segment length depends on deck size but is given by selecting the minimum number of segments (16) and the maximum coverage (75 per cent). 4.3.4 If a segment is made up of a number of individual lighting elements (e.g. LEDs) then they should be of the same nominal performance (i.e. within manufacturing tolerances) and be equidistantly spaced throughout the segment to aid textural cueing. Minimum spacing between the illuminated areas of the lighting elements should be 3 cm (1.2 in) and maximum spacing 10 cm (4 in). 4.3.5 On the assumption that the intensities of the lighting elements will add linearly at longer viewing ranges where intensity is more important, the minimum intensity of each lighting element (i) should be given by the formula: $$ \mathsf { i } = \mathsf { I } / \mathsf { n } $$ Note.—The maximum intensity of a lighting element at each angle of elevation should also be divided by the number of lighting elements within the segment. 4.3.6 If the segment comprises a continuous lighting element (e.g. fibre optic cable, electro luminescent panel), then to achieve textural cueing at short range, the element should be masked at 3 cm (1.2 in) intervals on a 1:1 mark-space ratio. 4.4 Colour 4.4.1 The colour of the light emitted by the TD/PM circle should be yellow, as defined in Annex 14, Volume 1, Appendix 1, paragraph 2.3.1 (b), whose chromaticity is within the following boundaries: $$ \mathsf { R e d \ b o u n d a r y \qquad y = 0 . 3 8 7 } $$ $$ \mathsf { W h i t e \ b o u n d a r y \qquad y = 0 . 9 8 0 - x } $$ $$ \mathsf { G r e e n b o u n d a r y } \qquad \mathsf { y } = 0 . 7 2 7 \times + 0 . 0 5 4 $$ 4.4.2 The above assumes that solid state light sources are used. Annex 14, Volume 1, Appendix 1, paragraph 2.1.1 (c), should be applied if filament light sources are used. 4.5 Serviceability The TD/PM circle: At least 90 per cent of the lighting elements should be operating for the TD/PM circle to be considered serviceable. 5. THE HELIPORT IDENTIFICATION MARKING REQUIREMENT 5.1 Configuration 5.1.1 The lit heliport identification marking (‘H’) should be superimposed on the 4 m x 3 m (13 ft x 10 ft) white painted ‘H’ (limb width 0.75 m (2.5 ft)). The lit ‘H’ should be 3.9 m to 4.1 m (13 ft x 13.5 ft) high, 2.9 to 3.1 m (9.5 ft x 10 ft) wide and have a stroke width of 0.7 m to 0.8 m (2.3 ft x 2.6 ft). The centre point of the lit ‘H’ may be offset from the centre point of the painted ‘H’ in any direction by up to 10 cm (4 in) in order to facilitate installation (e.g. avoid a DIFFS nozzle on the helideck surface). The limbs should be lit in outline form as shown in Figure I-B-3. 5.1.2 An outline lit ‘H’ should comprise subsections of between 80 mm (3 in) and 100 mm (4 in) wide around the outer edge of the painted ‘H’ (see Figure I-B-3). There are no restrictions on the length of the subsections, but the gaps between them should not be greater than 10 cm (4 in). The mechanical housing should be coloured white. Figure I-B-3. Configuration and nominal dimensions of heliport identification marking ‘H’ 5.2 Mechanical constraints 5.2.1 The height of the lit ‘H’ fixtures (e.g. subsections) and any associated cabling should be as low as possible and should not exceed 25 mm (1 in). The overall height of the system, taking account of any mounting arrangements, should be kept to a minimum. So as not to present a trip hazard, the lighting strips should not present any vertical outside edge greater than 6 mm (0.2 in) without chamfering at an angle not exceeding 300 from the horizontal. 5.2.2 The overall effect of the lighting subsections and cabling on deck friction should be minimized. Wherever practical, the surfaces of the lighting subsections should meet the minimum deck friction limit coefficient (µ) of 0.65, e.g. on non-illuminated surfaces. 5.2.3 The ’H’ lighting components, fitments and cabling should be able to withstand a pressure of at least 1 655 kPa (240 lbs/in2) and ideally 3 250 kPa (471 lbs/in2) without damage. 5.3 Intensity 5.3.1 The intensity of the lighting along the 4 m (13 ft) edge of an outline ‘H’ over all angles of azimuth is given in Table I-B-4 below. Table I-B-4. Light Intensity of the 4 m edge of the ‘H’ Elevation Intensity Min Max $2 ^ { 0 } \mathrm { t o } \ 1 2 ^ { \circ }$ 3.5 cd 60 cd ${ > } 1 2 ^ { 0 } \mathrm { t o } 2 0 ^ { 0 }$ 0.5 cd 30 cd ${ } > 2 0 ^ { 0 } \ \mathsf { t o } \ 9 0 ^ { 0 }$ 0.2 cd 10 cd Note.—For the purposes of demonstrating compliance with this specification, a subsection of the lighting forming the 4 m (13 ft) edge of the ‘H’ may be used. The minimum length of the subsection should be 0.5 m (1.6 ft). When testing a subsection, the light intensities defined in Table I-B-4 apply only when viewed at angles of azimuth over the range $+ 8 0 ^ { o } t o \ - 8 0 ^ { o }$ from the normal to the longitudinal axis of the strip (see Figure 1). For the remaining angles of azimuth on either side of the longitudinal axis of the subsection, the maximum intensity should be as defined in Table I-B-4. 5.3.2 The outline of the H should be formed using the same lighting elements throughout. 5.3.3 If a subsection is made up of individual lighting elements (e.g. LED’s) then they should be of nominally identical performance (i.e. within manufacturing tolerances) and be equidistantly spaced within the subsection to aid textural cueing. Minimum spacing between the illuminated areas of the lighting elements should be 3 cm (1.2 in) and maximum spacing 10 cm (4 in). 5.3.4 With reference to paragraph 4.3.5, due to the shorter viewing ranges for the ‘H’ and the low intensities involved, the minimum intensity of each lighting element (i) for all angles of elevation (i.e. 20 to 900) should be given by the formula: $$ \mathsf { i } = \mathsf { I } / \mathsf { n } $$ where: I = required minimum intensity of subsection at the ‘look down’ (elevation) angle between $2 ^ { 0 }$ and $1 2 ^ { 0 }$ (see Table I-B-4). n = the number of lighting elements within the subsection Note.—The maximum intensity of each lighting element at any angle of elevation should be the maximum between $_ { 2 ^ { 0 } }$ and $1 2 ^ { 0 }$ (see Table I-B-4) divided by the number of lighting elements within the subsection. 5.3.5 If the ‘H’ is constructed from a continuous light element (e.g. fibre optic cables or panels, electroluminescent panels), the luminance (B) of the 4 m (13 ft) edge of the outline ‘H’ should be given by the formula: $$ \mathsf { B } = \mathsf { I } / \mathsf { A } $$ 5.3.6 If the subsection comprises a continuous lighting element (e.g. fibre optic cable, electro luminescent panel), then to achieve textural cueing at short range, the element should be masked at 3 cm (1.2 in) intervals on a 1:1 mark space ratio. 5.4 Colour 5.4.1 The colour of the ‘H’ should be green, as defined in Annex 14, Volume 1, Appendix 1, paragraph 2.3.1(c), whose chromaticity is within the following boundaries: $$ \mathsf { Y e l l o w b o u n d a r y } \qquad \mathsf { x } = 0 . 3 1 0 $$ $$ \begin{array} { r } { \mathsf { W h i t e \ b o u n d a r y \qquad x = 0 . 6 2 5 y - 0 . 0 4 1 } } \end{array} $$ $$ \mathsf { B l u e \ b o u n d a r y \qquad y = 0 . 4 0 0 } $$ 5.4.2 The above assumes that solid state light sources are used. Annex 14, Volume 1, Appendix 1, paragraph 2.1.1 (c) should be applied if filament light sources are used. 5.5 Serviceability 5.5.1 The ‘H’: At least 90 per cent of the lighting elements should be operating for the ‘H’ to be considered serviceable. 6. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS The general characteristics detailed below apply to perimeter lighting as well as the TD/PM circle and ‘H’ lighting except where otherwise stated. 6.1 Requirements 6.1.1 The following items are fully defined and form firm requirements. 6.1.2 All lighting components should be tested by an independent test house. The photometrical and colour measurements performed in the optical department of this test house should be accredited according to the version of EN ISO/IEC 17025 current at the time of the testing. The angular sampling intervals should be: every $1 0 ^ { 0 }$ in azimuth; every $1 ^ { 0 }$ from $0 ^ { 0 }$ to 100; every $2 ^ { 0 }$ from $ 1 0 ^ { 0 }$ to $\scriptstyle 2 0 ^ { 0 }$ and every $5 ^ { 0 }$ from $\scriptstyle 2 0 ^ { 0 }$ to ${ \mathfrak { g } } 0 ^ { 0 }$ in elevation. 6.1.3 As regards the attachment of the TD/PM circle and ‘H’ to the helideck, the failure mode requiring consideration is detachment of components of the TD/PM circle and ‘H’ lighting due to shear loads generated during helicopter landings. The maximum horizontal load may be assumed to be the maximum take-off mass (MTOM) of the largest helicopter for which the helideck is designed multiplied by 0.5, distributed equally between the main undercarriage legs. This requirement applies to components of the circle and H lighting having an installed height greater than 6 mm (0.2 in) and a plan view area greater than or equal to 200 cm2 (6.6 ft2). Note 1.— Example — for a helicopter MTOM of 14 600 kg (32 187 lbs), a horizontal load of 35.8 kN should be assumed. Note 2.— For components having plan areas up to and including 1 000 cm2 (33 ft2), the horizontal load may be assumed to be shared equally between all fasteners providing they are approximately equally spaced. For larger components, the distribution of horizontal loads should be considered. 6.1.4 Provision should be included in the design and installation of the system to allow for the effective drainage of the helideck areas inside the TD/PM circle and the ‘H’ lighting. The design of the lighting and its installation should be such that, when mounted on a smooth flat plate with a slope of 1:100, a fluid spill of 200 litres inside the ‘H’ lighting will drain from the circle within 2 minutes. The maximum drainage time applies primarily to aviation fuel, but water may be used for test purposes. The maximum drainage time does not apply to firefighting agents. Note.— Drainage may be demonstrated using a mock-up of a one quarter segment of a helideck of D-value at least 20 m, configured as shown in Figure I-B-4, and a fluid quantity of 100 litres. The surface of the test helideck should have a white or light-coloured finish and the water (or other fluid used for the test) should be of a contrasting colour (e.g. by use of a suitable dye) to assist the detection of fluid remaining after 2 minutes. Figure I-B-4. Configuration of quarter segment drainage test mock-up 6.2 Other considerations 6.2.1 The considerations detailed in this section are presented to make equipment designers aware of the operating environment and customer expectations during the design of products or systems. They do not represent formal requirements but are desirable design considerations of a good lighting system. 6.2.2 All lighting components and fitments should meet safety regulations relevant to a helideck environment, such as explosion proofing (Zone 1 or 2 as appropriate) and flammability, and be tested by a notified body in accordance with the equipment for potentially explosive atmospheres (ATEX) directive or equivalent locally applicable hazardous area certification standards. 6.2.3 All lighting components and fitments installed on the surface of the helideck should be resistant to attack by fluids that they will likely or inevitably be exposed to, such as: fuel, hydraulic fluid, helicopter engine and gearbox oils; those used for de-icing, cleaning and firefighting; any fluids used in the assembly or installation of the lighting, e.g. thread locking fluid. In addition, they should be resistant to ultraviolet (UV) light, rain, sea spray, guano, snow and ice. Components should be immersed in each of the fluids individually for a period representative of the likely exposure in-service and then checked to ensure no degradation of mechanical properties (i.e. surface friction and resistance to contact pressure), any discolouration, or any clouding of lenses/diffusers. Any other substances that may come into contact with the system that may cause damage should be identified in the installation and maintenance documentation. 6.2.4 All lighting components and fitments that are mounted on the surface of the helideck should be able to operate within a temperature range appropriate for the local ambient conditions. 6.2.5 All cabling should utilize low smoke/toxicity, flame retardant cable. Any through-the-deck cable routing and connections should use sealed glands, of a type approved for helideck use. 6.2.6 All lighting components and fitments should meet International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Ingress Protection (IP) standards according to the version of IEC 60529 current at the time of testing appropriate to their location, use and recommended cleaning procedures. The intent is that the equipment should be compatible with deck cleaning activities using pressure washers and local floodlight (i.e. puddling) on the surface of the helideck. It is expected that this will entail meeting at least IP66 (dust tight and resistant to powerful water jetting), IP67 (dust tight and resistant to temporary submersion in water) and/or IP69 (dust tight and resistant to close range high pressure, high temperature jetting) should also be considered and applied where appropriate. Note.— Except where flush-mounted (e.g. where used to delineate the landing area from an adjacent parking area), perimeter lights need only to meet IP66. Lighting equipment mounted on the surface of the helideck (e.g. circle and ‘H’ lighting) should also meet IP67. Any lighting equipment that is to be subject to high pressure cleaning should also meet IP69. 6.2.7 Control panels that may be required for helideck lighting systems are not covered by this Appendix. It is the responsibility of the duty holder/engineering contractor to select and integrate control panels into the installation safety and control systems and to ensure that all such equipment complies with the relevant engineering standards for design and operation. Appendix I-C DRAINAGE CALCULATION Helideck Drainage Capacity Check and Calculation For 20.88m Octagonal Helideck The following calculation is performed to check on the adequacy of the gutters and drainage header pipes when the firefighting equipment is activated. The calculation is based on ICAO requirements of a minimum 5.5 litres per minute per m2 application rate. This calculation is based on a typical regular octagon helideck encompassing a 20.88m D-value diameter designed for the Sikorsky S-92A Helicopter. • The calculation considers the worst case scenario of combined fuel leakage, rainfall and firewater. HELIDECK SIZE: 20.88m Octagonal DESIGN HELICOPTER: Sikorsky S-92A ASSUMED FUEL CAPACITY: 1130 US Gallons = 4.28 m3 Item Helicopter Unit S92A Assumed FuelLoad ltrs 4278 US Galls 1130 Min. Foam/ Waterapplication rate ltrs/ min 1883 A) CONVERSION: 1 Gallon = 0.0379 m3 1 Hectare 10 000 m2 1 m3 1 000 litres B) NOTATIONS: Qr = run-off of fluid in m3/sec Qd = gutter uniform flow in m3/sec C = run-off coefficient based on the Rational n = roughness coefficient Method. I = average rainfall intensity in mm/hr p = wetted perimeter of gutter A = Helideck octagonal surface catchment area S = bed gradient in m2 A1 = Sectional area of gutter R = Hydraulic radius Q = Vertical pipe discharge capacity g = Specific wt. of water c = Coefficient of contraction from orifice h = Water head H = sectional height of gutter W = sectional width of gutter C) DUE TO RAINFALL RUN-OFF FOR HELIDECK SURFACE AREA: s Rational formula: Qr = C * I * A C = 0.65 I = 120 mm/hr (rainfall intensity = 120mm/hr) A a = 3.278E-05 m/s Area of Helideck = S * S - a * a Where S is the span of the octagon and a the length of one of the sides = 361.17 m2 Therefore, Qr = 0.0077 m3/sec = 462 Litres/min D) COMPUTATION OF DISCHARGE CAPACITY OF THE GUTTER HEADER PIPES (SCUPPERS): No. of perimeter pipe for the scuppers = 6 nos. Considering 6 nos. of pipe effective Considering 6 nos. of pipe effective and taking the gutter header pipe as an Orifice, $$ \begin{array} { r l r } { = } & { { } } & { \mathsf { c } ^ { \star } \mathsf { A p } ^ { \star } \mathsf { s q r t } ( 2 ^ { \star } \mathsf { g } ^ { \star } \mathsf { h } ) } \end{array} $$ Discharge Q c = 0.5 (Value achieved when the area of choke is divided by the area of the pipe) g = 9.81 m/s2 h = 0.180 m (The total height of gutter is 0.2m. Consider 90% full, h = 0.18m) Pipe dia. (Inside) = 0.146 m (φ152mm aluminium pipe having thickness of 3mm) No. of eff. Pipe, N = 6 (Assumed effective pipe nos) Area of one pipe, Ap = 0.017 m2 Therefore, Q = 0.01573 m3/ sec (for 1 pipe) TYP. Gutter/Scupper detail E) VERIFICATION THAT DISCHARGE OF GUTTER HEADER PIPES SUFFICIENT FOR RAINFALL OF120MM/HR: Therefore, for discharge of 3 pipes, Q3 = 0.0472 m3/sect (discharge for 3 pipes) Q3 = 2832 Litres / min Q3 > Qr satisfactory This shows that 3 gutter header pipes are already satisfactory to cater for the rainfall intensity flow, Qr. Note: Vertical pipes considered for design = 6 nos. See below for the locations of each scupper. Aluminium Gutter Layout F) COMPUTATION OF DISCHARGE CAPACITY OF THE GUTTER DRAINS: Use Manning formula for steady uniform flow: Qd = (1/n) * (A * R^(2/3) * S^(1/2)) H = 0.20 m (cross sectional height of the gutter drains) W = 0.20 m (internal width of the gutter drains) A1 = 0.036 m2 (assumed only 90% of sectional area is full) p = 0.56 m (wetted perimeter of the cross sectional area of gutter, assumed only 90% effective) R = A1/p = 0.064 m n = 0.015 (aluminium material roughness based on Manning's roughness coefficient) S1 = 0.01 (Slope 1:100) Qd1 = 0.038 m3/sec (for one way flow direction) S2 = 0.001 (assumed to be almost flat) Qd2 = 0.024 m3/sec (for two way flow direction) By considering 3 Gutters effective at each flow side of decking edge, the total discharge, Qdt, will be; Qdt = (Qd1)*(2 gutters) + (Qd2)*(1 gutter) = 0.101 m3/sec = 6078 Litres/min G) TIME REQUIRED TO DISCHARGE ANY SPILLED FUEL IN THE HELICOPTER TANK: V, Fuel capacity = 4.28 m3 Time = (V/Qt) = 0.70 mins. (Time required to discharge the fuel from tank) H) DISCHARGE CAPACITY REQUIRED TO FIREFIGHTING APPLICATION RATE OF 5.5 LITRES PER MIN PER SQ: $$ \begin{array} { r l r } { \mathrm { Q d t a n d Q t } } & { { } > } & { \mathsf { Q m } , \mathsf { S a t i s f a c t o r y ! } } \end{array} $$ I) WORST CASE SCENARIO - COMBINATION OF RAINFALL, FUEL SPILLAGE & FIREFIGHTING APPLICATION: $$ \begin{array} { r l r } { \mathsf { M i n . \ d i s c h a r g e \ r e q u i r e d \ p e r { \ m i n } } , } & { = } & { 2 4 4 8 \mathsf { l i f r e s / m i n } } \ & { } & { \mathsf { O r } + \mathsf { O m } } \end{array} $$ $$ \begin{array} { r l r } { \mathsf { Q d t a n d Q t } } & { { } > } & { \mathsf { Q r } + \mathsf { Q m } , \mathsf { S a t i s f a c t o r y ! } } \end{array} $$ The available discharge capacity for the fuel spillage, $$ \begin{array} { l l l } { \mathsf { Q a } = \mathsf { m i n } ( \mathsf { Q d t } , \mathsf { Q t } ) - ( \mathsf { Q r } + \mathsf { Q m } ) } & { = } & { 3 2 1 5 \mathrm { ~ | i t r e s / m i n } } \end{array} $$ Time taken to discharge the fuel, V/Qa = 1.33 min In conclusion, based on the calculations above, the gutters and downcomer are sized for their intended use. PART II ONSHORE HELIPORTS Chapter 1 Historical Background 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1.1.1 Annex 14 — Aerodromes, Volume II — Heliports first became applicable on 15 November 1990, and includes specifications on the planning, design and operation of heliports. The applicability of visual aids is limited to operations at visual heliports. 1.1.2 Since the publication of the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261) in 1995, the perception of heliports as smaller versions of aerodromes with runways and associated surfaces has changed. The majority of heliports no longer have runway-type final approach and take-off areas (FATOs) and are not situated in large open areas; most are on small sites, located where the versatility of the helicopter permits operations inaccessible to fixed wing aircraft. 1.1.3 Heliports in congested areas have necessitated an elevation of the facilities to the tops of buildings to raise them above the obstacle environment. The lack of surface area on these elevated sites, has required a reassessment of the attributes of some defined areas resulting in the necessity for a solid surface being removed from some or transferred to others. 1.1.4 Due to these changes and others made to Annex 14, Volume II, a more detailed explanation of the evolving Standards and Recommended practices (SARPs) was necessary. 1.1.5 Since the development of helidecks and onshore heliports have become increasingly complex and the responsibility for such developments does not always reside with the same organization, each topic now has its own section in the manual. 1.2 SCOPE AND PURPOSE 1.2.1 Part II of this manual is complementary to the SARPs contained in Annex 14, Volume II. 1.2.2 Although the manual is primarily addressed to States and for heliports intended to be used by helicopters in international civil aviation, it can be used as a resource for all heliports and by all heliport designers and, when necessary, for helicopter operations conducted at such heliports. 1.2.3 The objective is to provide a common resource for heliport design and information for the qualification and training of inspectorate staff, as well as heliport and operational personnel. 1.2.4 Part II specifies the design process and, where necessary, the operational procedures that inform the minimum dimensions for the defined areas on the heliport. It provides a framework for the delivery of conformant heliports in future environments as well as means for adapting existing heliports due to changes in the local environment. The provision and procedures in this document do not relieve the end user of their responsibility to ensure compliance with Annex 14, Volume II and, to the extent necessary, Annex 6 — Operation of Aircraft, Part III — International Operations — Helicopters. 1.3 CONTENTS OF DOCUMENT 1.3.1 Introduction Chapter 1 sets out the history, rationale and scope of Part II. 1.3.2 Site selection, management and heliport data Chapter 2 provides guidance on the choice and development of heliport sites, including minimizing the effects of noise and pollution on surrounding conurbations, and safeguarding the surfaces outside the confines of the heliport. The training of inspectorate staff and the certification and subsequent management of facilities, including safety management systems, will be included in a future edition. 1.3.3 Physical characteristics of onshore heliports 1.3.3.1 Chapter 3 introduces the concept of defined areas as self-contained objects along with their attributes and associations, before examining each in the context of operations to and within them. It provides examples of how such defined areas may be grouped, collocated and coincidentally sited. It introduces Performance Class 1 profiles that have a significant bearing on the size and design of defined areas. 1.3.3.2 Appendices are further dedicated to the design helicopter and its critical elements, surface loading with particular emphasis on airworthiness standards and their implication to the defined areas, establishing the requirements for dimensions of the surfaces required for Performance Class 1 operations, and the introduction of clearways beyond the physical boundary of the heliport – on the surface, above, and below the level of the site. 1.3.4 Obstacle environment Chapter 4 examines the requirement for obstacle surfaces and their application to normal and non-normal operations both with and without the use of Point in Space (PinS) procedures. Its appendix introduces guidance for elevating the clearway and surfaces above the obstacle environment, thus facilitating heliports in obstacle rich environments. 1.3.5 Visual aids Chapter 5 contains guidance for marking and lighting of defined areas. It contains examples of lighting systems that are now, in preference, situated on the landing surface rather than providing illumination of these areas from the periphery. Its appendices contain examples of guidance systems, as well as an example of a specification for a hospital heliport lighting system. 1.3.6 Heliport emergency response Chapter 6 addresses the two issues of heliport emergency planning and, where required, the provision of dedicated rescue and firefighting services. There are two Appendices: one providing a sample system for a task/resource analysis; and a second giving an insight into crashworthiness provisions for helicopters. SITE SELECTION, MANAGEMENT AND HELIPORT DATA 2.1 SITE SELECTION AND MANAGEMENT 2.1.1 Site selection General 2.1.1.1 Since helicopter operations can be provided in very close proximity to where there is often traffic, the selected site should be conveniently situated with regard to safety, ground transport access and adequate vehicle parking facilities. 2.1.1.2 To minimize noise disturbance, the ambient noise level should also be considered, particularly when near noise-sensitive buildings such as hospitals, schools and business premises and, especially in relation to areas beneath the approach and departure paths of helicopters. 2.1.1.3 Heliport design and location should be such that downwind operations are avoided and cross-wind operations are kept to a minimum (see Chapter 4, 4.1.1.9). These criteria should apply equally to surface level and elevated heliports. 2.1.1.4 Possible air traffic conflicts between helicopters using a heliport and other air traffic should be avoided. The need to provide air traffic control services may need to be examined. 2.1.1.5 For heliports used in Performance Class 2 (PC2) and 3 (PC3), the ground beneath the take-off climb and approach surfaces should permit safe one-engine-inoperative (OEI) landings or forced landings, during which injury to persons on the ground and damage to property are minimized and mitigated as needed. The provision of services in such areas should also minimize the risk of injury to the helicopter occupants. The main factors in determining the suitability of such areas will be the most critical helicopter type for which the heliport is intended and the ambient conditions. 2.1.1.6 The presence of large structures close to the proposed site may be the cause, in certain wind conditions, of considerable eddies and turbulence that might adversely affect the control or performance of the helicopters operating at the heliport. Equally, the heat generated by large chimneys under, or close to, the flight paths may adversely affect helicopter performance during approaches to land or climb out after take-off. It may be necessary to establish if such adverse conditions do exist and, if so, to determine possible mitigating and remedial action. 2.1.1.7 Other factors to be considered in the selection of a site are: a) high terrain or other obstacles, especially power lines, in the vicinity of the proposed heliport; b) existing development plans for the surrounding area; and c) if PinS operations are planned, the availability of suitable airspace for approach and departure procedures. 2.1.1.8 The essential components of a heliport are areas suitable for the take-off and approach manoeuvre, lift off and touchdown, and parking. 2.1.1.9 A site should have a simple layout which combines defined areas that have common characteristics; such an arrangement will require the smallest overall area. When the characteristics or obstacle environment of a particular site do not allow such an arrangement, the components may be separated but must be connected to other areas by helicopter taxiways or air taxi-routes. 2.1.2 Surface-level heliports 2.1.2.1 When heliports are planned at high elevations or in places of high temperatures, the effects of minimized air density and high temperature result in reductions in both helicopter engine performance and rotor performance. In some helicopters, the power available may be reduced below that which is required for the helicopter to climb vertically out of the ground effect without considerably reducing the gross take-off mass. 2.1.2.2 As a helicopter gains forward speed, the mass airflow through the rotor disc increases up to a certain speed and enhances lift. In consequence, the power required for horizontal flight is reduced, thus releasing more of the power available to be used for the climb. 2.1.2.3 In the field of commercial helicopter operations, an operation cannot be considered economically viable if the take-off mass is reduced to less than 85 per cent of the maximum mass. To avoid this, it may be necessary to provide an area over which the helicopter can accelerate safely to its climbing speed before leaving the ground effect. 2.1.2.4 Table II-2-1 gives guidance on the length of surface that should be provided for helicopters with limited climbing power for a selection of altitudes and temperature conditions. In calculating the climbing speed, a maximum rotation angle of 10° should be considered commensurate with passenger comfort. 2.1.2.5 Helicopter flight manuals contain performance graphs which indicate combinations of forward speed and height above ground in which flight should be avoided since, in the event of engine failure, the probability of a successful forced landing is remote (see Figure II-2-1). Therefore, in order to provide the helicopter with an area over which it can safely accelerate to avoid these unsafe combinations, it may be prudent to facilitate the surfaces suggested in Table II-2-1. Figure II-2-1. HV Diagram Table II-2-1. Acceleration distances required due to changes in altitude and temperature CLIMBINGSPEED 40 kts 50 kts 60 kts TEMPERATURE ISA-15°C ISA 1SA+15°C ISA-15°C ISA 1SA+15°C 1SA-15°C ISA 1SA+15°C HELIPORTELEVATIONfeet ACCELERATION DISTANCE(METRES (FEET)) Sea level 118(387) 124(408) 131(429) 184(604) 194(637) 204(670) 265(870) 280(918) 294(966) 1000 121(398) 128(420) 135(442) 190(622) 200(656) 210(690) 273(895) 288(945) 303(995) 2000 125(410) 132(433) 139(456) 195(640) 206(676) 217(712) 281(922) 297(973) 312(1 024) 3000 129(422) 136(446) 143(470) 201(659) 212(696) 223(733) 290(950) 306(1003) 332(1 056) 4000 132(434) 140(459) 148(484) 207(679) 219(717) 230(755) 298(978) 315(1 033) 332(1 068) 5000 137(448) 144(473) 152(498) 213(699) 225(739) 237(779) 307(1 007) 324(1 064) 342(1 121) 6000 141(462) 149(488) 157(514) 220(721) 232(762) 245(803) 316(1 038) 335(1 098) 353(1 158) 7000 145(475) 153(503) 162(531) 226(743) 240(786) 253(829) 326(1 070) 345(1132) 364(1193) 8000 149(490) 158(159) 167(548) 233(766) 247(811) 261(856) 336(1 103) 356(1 067) 375(1 231) 9000 154(505) 163(535) 172(565) 241(790) 255(836) 269(882) 346(1135) 366(1 202) 387(1312) 10000 159(521) 168(552) 178(583) 248(815) 263(863) 278(911) 358(1 174) 379(1 243) 400(1 312) 2.1.3 Elevated heliports Elevated heliports provide a range of safety and environmental benefits over heliports at ground level which include, but may not be limited to, improvements in aircraft and public security, a reduction in noise nuisance and downwash effects at ground level, and greater protection from new obstacles that inevitably will grow up from time to time in the congested areas of cities. 2.1.3.1 Design considerations — environmental effects 2.1.3.1.1 Purpose-built elevated heliports are relatively streamlined structures usually fabricated from aluminium or steel. In isolation, they would present little disturbance to the wind flow and helicopters would be able to operate safely to them in a (more or less) undisturbed airflow environment. However, difficulties can arise if the wind has to deviate around the nearby buildings resulting in areas of flow distortion and turbulent wakes. 2.1.3.1.2 An elevated heliport in a congested hostile environment of a city or town, even when placed at an elevation that is above all other surrounding buildings, may still suffer to some degree from its proximity to tall and bulky structures sited around the heliport. Designers should create heliport designs that are safe and friendly for helicopter operations and that minimize the environmental effects which could have a detrimental impact on helicopter operations. 2.1.3.1.3 While it is a desirable feature for the heliport to be elevated as high as possible, for a heliport sited 60 m (196 ft) or more above ground level, the regularity of helicopter operations may be adversely affected in low cloud base conditions. In locations where weather patterns are such that low cloud bases occur on a regular basis, a trade-off may need to be struck between the height of the heliport above surrounding structures and its absolute height above ground level. 2.1.3.1.4 It is possible that heliports installed on the roofs of buildings will suffer to some degree from their proximity to adjacent tall buildings; it is sometimes impractical to site the heliport above every other tall structure. Any tall structure above, or in the vicinity of, the heliport may generate areas of turbulence or sheared flow downwind of the obstruction and thus potentially pose a hazard to the helicopter. The less aerodynamic (streamlined) the shape of the obstruction, and the broader the obstruction is to the flow, the greater will be the severity of the disturbance. The effect reduces with increasing distance downwind from the turbulent source. Ideally, a heliport should be located at least 10 structure widths away from any upwind structure which has a potential to generate turbulence. 2.1.3.1.5 An elevated heliport on a building should be located at or above the highest point of the main structure. This will minimize the occurrence of turbulence downwind of structures that are on the building. 2.1.3.1.6 The heliport should be located so that wind from the prevailing directions carry turbulent wakes away from the helicopter approach path(s). To assess if this is likely to be an issue, a designer should overlay the predominant wind direction vectors over the centre of the heliport to assess the likely impact on helicopter operations. 2.1.3.1.7 It is recommended, where practical, that the touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) be located over the corner of a building with as large an overhang as is practicable. In combination with an appropriate elevation and an essential air gap, the overhang will encourage the disturbed airflow to pass under the TLOF, leaving a relatively clean ‘horizontal’ airflow over the TLOF. It is further recommended that the overhang should be such that the centre of the TLOF is vertically above, or outboard of, the outside edge of the building’s superstructure. 2.1.3.1.8 The height of the heliport above ground level and the presence of an air gap between the TLOF and the supporting building are the most important factors in determining wind flow characteristics over and around the TLOF. In combination with an appropriate overhang, an air gap separating the heliport from the superstructure beneath will promote beneficial wind flow over the TLOF. 2.1.3.1.9 If no air gap is provided, wind conditions immediately above the TLOF could be severe, particularly if mounted on top of a large multi-storey building due to the slab-side effect. However, designing an air gap typically of between 3 m (10 ft) and 6 m (20 ft) will have the effect of removing obstructions in the airflow immediately above the TLOF. Heliports mounted on very tall accommodation blocks will require the largest clearances, while those on smaller blocks, and with a large overhang, will tend to require smaller clearances. A 3 m (10 ft) air gap is desirable, but for shallow superstructures of three storeys or fewer, a smaller air gap may be sufficient. 2.1.3.1.10 The air gap must be preserved throughout the operational life of the facility, and the area between the underside of the heliport and the superstructure of the building should not become a storage area for bulky items that might hinder the free-flow of air through the gap. 2.1.3.1.11 With respect to turbulence, the standard deviation of the vertical airflow velocity of 1.75 m/s should not be exceeded. Where this is significantly exceeded (i.e. where the limit exceeds 2.4 m/s), there is the possibility that operational restrictions may be necessary. 2.1.4 Heliport siting to minimize the effects on third parties 2.1.4.1 Integration of heliport traffic within airport terminal manoeuvring areas (TMA/TCA) 2.1.4.1.1 Helicopters can use steep climb angles during take-off manoeuvres. In addition, some procedures in the Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) require helicopters to initially move upwards and backwards before transitioning into forward flight. These may cause an unexpected triggering of traffic advisory systems on board nearby aircraft, sometimes when flying well above the heliport area or even though the planned flight trajectory of the helicopter is intended to ensure that it remains separated from other traffic at all times. 2.1.4.1.2 Where heliports need to be located within the vicinity of large aerodromes, the siting and design of FATOs should be carefully considered to minimize the interactions between heliport traffic and pre-existing aerodrome traffic. An operational study of helicopter flight-path trajectories should determine whether conflict detection by on board traffic advisory systems or ground surveillance radars is likely to occur. 2.1.4.1.3 Where interactions cannot be avoided, coordination between the heliport and helicopter operators, as well as the relevant air traffic services, should determine the appropriate operational measures to ensure there is no conflict (i.e. there is compatibility) between the heliport and aerodrome traffic. 2.1.4.2 Wake vortex mitigation 2.1.4.2.1 Helicopters in flight generate a wake turbulence in the shape of two parallel and counter rotating vortices originating respectively from the left and right edges of the main rotor disk and trailing behind the helicopter along its flight path. As a general rule, wake vortices linger for approximately 2 minutes before decaying and sink slowly towards the ground at a rate of about 300 feet per minute. While there are no conclusive wake vortex models for rotorcraft, there is evidence that helicopters generate significantly more severe wake vortices than fixed wing aircraft of similar masses. 2.1.4.2.2 The siting of a heliport should therefore be such as to limit the wake turbulence encounter risk for aircraft operating from surrounding aerodromes, especially where the traffic-mix includes light aircraft which are especially vulnerable to wake vortices. 2.1.4.2.3 Where simultaneous independent operations of helicopters and other aircraft are considered, the siting of the FATO should allow for the minimum separations which would be required between the other aircraft and an aeroplane 10 times the weight of the considered helicopter. 2.1.4.2.4 Where the FATO cannot be sited to provide the desired separation between heliport traffic and traffic vulnerable to helicopter wake encounters, coordination between the heliport and helicopter operators, as well as the relevant air traffic services, should determine the appropriate operational measures to mitigate the wake turbulence encounter risks. 2.1.4.3 Rotor downwash considerations 2.1.4.3.1 When manoeuvring at slow speeds, especially during take-off and landing, helicopters generate significant rotor downwash extending out to a distance of 2 to 3 rotor diameters below the generating aircraft. This downwash produces effects comparable to high and gusty wind conditions which may cause light or insecure cladding and other light objects and structures to become detached. 2.1.4.3.2 The design of a FATO should minimize the exposure of persons or loose objects to the downwash of helicopters. Within a distance of 3 rotor diameters from the FATO, no loose objects or light cladding should be allowed in areas which might be overflown by helicopters at low level, and no non-essential personnel should be present in these areas during helicopter operations. The backwards or sideways initial climb phase of PC1 operations should also be considered when assessing areas sensitive to the potential exposure to helicopter rotor wash. Experience suggests, when adopting these procedures, the characteristics of the downwash may exhibit a hard jet on the surface, which though localized, can nevertheless be quite intense. 2.1.4.3.3 Provided the elements of the infrastructure surrounding the heliport are designed to withstand gusty conditions up to Beaufort scale 10/11, no extra measures should be required to protect the structure against regular planned helicopter operations. 2.1.4.4 Helicopter noise exposure mitigation 2.1.4.4.1 Helicopters generate high noise levels and, although most heliports are not intended to accommodate continuous traffic flows, the overflight of even infrequent helicopter operations can generate a significant disturbance to third parties. 2.1.4.4.2 Noise and nuisance can be minimized by locating the heliport on or near the highest part of the estate and by planning the flight paths to avoid unnecessarily low transits over sensitive areas. 2.1.4.4.3 Where heliports need to be located in cities or other inhabited areas, in order to mitigate the disturbance caused by helicopter noises, it is recommended the FATO and the take-off and approach procedures and paths be designed to limit the effective perceived noise in decibels (EPNdB) of the helicopters the heliport is intended for, to 60 dB calculated on the outside walls of residential buildings and 60 dB inside other buildings such as offices and facilities open to the public where noise disturbance is sensitive. 2.1.4.5 Fumes and air pollution 2.1.4.5.1 Helicopters may generate some fumes and emit various levels of pollutants depending on engines types and operational procedures. Newer generation helicopter engines tend to be cleaner but turbine engine operations, especially at low power settings may generate fumes and unpleasant hydrocarbon smells. 2.1.4.5.2 Ingestion of such effluents in air conditioning equipment of buildings surrounding a heliport can be avoided by careful positioning of air intakes with regard to their proximity to the heliport, and to prevailing wind directions. Design of exhausts in any case should cater for high winds and prevent ingestion from outside by means of over pressuring and fitment of cowlings. 2.1.4.6 Vibrations 2.1.4.6.1 Helicopters may generate vibration either through transmission of the engine and rotor mechanical vibrations or through the buffeting of the rotor airflow against surrounding horizontal or vertical building surfaces. 2.1.4.6.2 Vibration effects can be exacerbated by reverberation due to the pressure waves emitted by a helicopter reflecting off, and being amplified by, surrounding vertical surfaces. 2.1.4.6.3 The design of the heliport should minimize the risk of transmitting unwanted vibrations to nearby facilities e.g. a non-purpose-built heliport sited on top of a hospital where delicate surgical procedures are taking place. On an elevated purpose-built facility set above surrounding buildings, this effect is likely to be minimal, if it exists at all. 2.2 HELIPORT DATA 2.2.1 Aeronautical data 2.2.1.1 The specifications concerning the accuracy and integrity classification of heliport-related data are contained in the PANS-AIM (Doc 10066), Appendix 1. 2.2.1.2 Detailed specifications concerning digital data error detection techniques are contained in the PANS-AIM (Doc 10066). 2.2.2 Heliport dimensions and related information The data specified in Annex 14, Volume II, Chapter 2.4, should be provided in the form and order specified in the PANS-AIM (Doc 10066), Appendix 3, AD 3. Heliports. 2.2.3 Declared distances The declared distances specified in Annex 14, Volume II, and in the PANS-AIM (Doc 10066), Appendix 3, AD 3.13 are normally associated with a heliport with a runway-type FATO. For a heliport with other than a runway-type FATO, these should be provided in a modified form. 2.2.3.1 Take-off distance available (for helicopters) 2.2.3.1.1 For a runway-type FATO, the take-off distance available should be the length of the FATO, plus the length of any clearway provided. The clearway is measured from the end of the FATO as far as the nearest upstanding obstacle in the direction of take-off, within the required width. 2.2.3.1.2 For other than a runway-type FATO, a virtual clearway might be provided in accordance with Appendix D to Chapter 3. In this case, when the clearway is not at the elevation of the FATO, the origin of the clearway should be provided as a height above, or below, the elevation of the FATO. The take-off distance available should be the horizontal distance from the back of the FATO to the end of the clearway. 2.2.3.2 Rejected take-off distance available (for helicopters) 2.2.3.2.1 For a runway-type FATO, the rejected take-off distance available should be the length of the FATO. 2.2.3.2.2 For other than a runway-type FATO, the rejected take-off distance available should be the FATO dimensions. When the FATO is not coincidental with the TLOF, a note should be added to indicate that only the TLOF has a surface area suitable for a rejected take-off (see also Appendix C to Chapter 3). 2.2.3.3 Landing distance available (for helicopters) The landing distance available should be the length of the FATO area plus any additional area declared available and suitable for helicopters to complete the landing manoeuvre from a height 15 m (50 ft) above the landing surface. When the FATO is not coincidental with the TLOF and does not have a (suitable) surface, a note should be added to indicate that only the TLOF has a surface area suitable for a OEI landing (see also Appendix C to Chapter 3). 2.2.4 Rescue and firefighting It is recommended that information concerning the level of protection provided at a heliport for helicopter rescue and firefighting be made available. The level of protection, where appropriate, should be expressed in terms of the category of rescue and firefighting services as described in Annex 14, Volume II, Chapter 6, Table 6-1. 2.3 CERTIFICATION OF HELIPORTS To be completed in due course. 2.4 SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM To be completed in due course. 2.5 HELIPORT WINTERIZATION 2.5.1 Swirling snow raised by a helicopter’s rotor wash can cause the pilot to lose sight of the intended landing point and obscure objects that need to be avoided. The heliport should be designed to accommodate the methods and equipment used for snow removal. The heliport should allow the snow to be removed sufficiently so it will not present an obstruction hazard to the tail rotor, main rotor, or undercarriage and provide visibility of all required heliport markings and lights. 2.5.2 Heliports at which there is an expectation for helicopters to operate regularly in sub-zero conditions may wish to incorporate a heating system to prevent the build-up of snow and ice throughout the entire landing area. 2.5.2.1 Aluminium, widely used in the construction of purpose-built heliports, is known to be a good conductor of heat (having about three times the thermal conductivity of steel), and electrical heating cables can be integrated in the aluminium planking profiles (materials used for cabling should not have a detrimental effect on heliport surface friction and ideally should not protrude above surface level). In consideration of the poor thermal performance of concrete (low conductivity, high inertia), heat tracing electrical cables are not recommended for use with a concrete surface. An efficient electrical heat tracing system incorporated into the heliport design should remove or minimize the labour-intensive need to clear snow and ice manually. 2.5.2.2 Alternatively, heating of the operational zones may be achieved with systems that use hot liquids. To prevent icing of the surface, the temperature does not need to be more than 5°C. On elevated heliports, it is possible to obtain good results at low cost utilizing the liquid used for heating the building. 2.6 SAFEGUARDING OF HELIPORTS 2.6.1 The specifications in Annex 14, Volume II, Chapter 4, describe the airspace around heliports to permit safe helicopter operations and prevent, where appropriate State controls exist, heliports from becoming unusable by the growth of obstacles around them. This is achieved by establishing a series of obstacle limitation surfaces that define the limits to which objects may project into the airspace. 2.6.2 Safeguarding assesses the implications of any development being proposed within the vicinity of an established heliport to ensure, as far as practicable, that the heliport and its surrounding airspace is not adversely impacted by the proposal, thus ensuring the continued safety of helicopters operating at the location. 2.6.3 Safeguarding is the process by which the heliport operator can, in consultation with the local authority and within their capability, protect the environment surrounding the heliport from developments that have the potential to impact on the heliport’s operation and/or business. 2.6.4 Heliport safeguarding covers several aspects. Its purpose is to protect: a) the airspace around a heliport to ensure no buildings or structures may cause danger to aircraft either in the air or on the ground. This is achieved through the provision of the ‘obstacle limitation surfaces’ (OLS)1; b) all elements of heliport lighting by ensuring that they are not obscured by any proposed development and that any proposed lighting, either temporary or permanent, cannot not be confused for aeronautical ground lighting. c) the heliport from any increased wildlife strike risk, in particular, bird strikes, which pose a serious threat to flight safety (e.g. the proximity of a garbage and waste disposal site); d) heliport operations from interference by any construction processes through the production of dust and smoke, temporary lighting or construction equipment impacting on navigational aids; and e) helicopters from the risk of collision with obstacles through appropriate lighting. All the above should be taken into account by the heliport operator when assessing development proposals. 2.6.5 For the purposes of safeguarding, a layout plan should be provided showing key dimensions, such as heliport elevation, TLOF size, FATO size, safety area size, clearway(s), distance from safety area or clearway perimeter to property edges, and approach/departure paths showing locations of buildings, trees, fences, power lines, obstructions (including elevations), schools, places of worship, hospitals, residential areas, and other significant features. 2.6.6 The above mentioned layout plan should be shown together with transitional surfaces, virtual clearways and obstacle limitation surfaces, with the altitude of their origins if elevated. 2.6.7 All information should be displayed on a safeguarding map specified under the PANS-AIM (DOC 10066), Appendix 3 (AD 3.23 – Charts related to a heliport), or a topographical map provided for this purpose. 2.6.8 Appendix A to Chapter 2 provides a sample of an aviation safeguarding procedure. 2.7 INSPECTOR QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING To be completed in due course. Appendix A to Chapter 2 SAMPLE AVIATION SAFEGUARDING PROCEDURE 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Once a heliport has been established, the facility should be safeguarded against the growth of obstacles that could compromise and restrict the facility, or even prohibit its use due to the number of obstructions around the facility. 1.2 Without formal safeguarding arrangements in place, it is difficult to control the growth of obstacles beyond the boundary of the heliport. It is preferable to establish a formal safeguarding arrangement as described herein. 2. PURPOSE Describes the process to follow to protect the heliport against the growth of obstacles. 3. RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1 The owner or operator of the heliport is responsible for: a) providing and updating the safeguarding map and distribution lists; b) ensuring that the landing site remains fit for purpose and safe for use by helicopter operators; c) conducting a safeguarding assessment whenever a proposed development may impact the heliport; d) notifying the helicopter operators whenever an unannounced object is constructed within 1.5 km of the heliport boundary; and e) notifying the appropriate authority if an object (such as a crane) with a potential to be an obstacle to helicopter operations has been erected without prior knowledge, and request the issuance of a NOTAM by the appropriate authority. 3.2 Helicopter operators should be encouraged to respond to a safeguarding consultation by the owner or operator of the heliport and provide technical input into the heliport operator’s safety assessment. 3.3 Where formal safeguarding arrangements are in place, the local planning authority is responsible for consulting the owner or operator of the heliport whenever a development is being proposed within 1.5 km of the heliport. 4. INITIAL ACTIONS FOR SETTING UP A SAFEGUARDING ARRANGEMENT 4.1 Write or visit the local planning authority to discuss and agree on a safeguarding arrangement. 4.2 If appropriate, lodge a safeguarding map with the local planning authority to denote the areas of consultation. The safeguarding map should contain at least the boundary of the agreed safeguarding area, with an indication of the protected surfaces within that area. 4.3 Once agreed, request confirmation from the local planning authority that formal arrangements have been established. 5. CONDUCTING A SAFEGUARDING ASSESSMENT The following procedures should be followed: a) record all details received from the local planning authority or developer on Form 1 (see Form 1: Safeguard Assessment); b) where possible, conduct a safeguarding assessment (in relation to the protected surfaces); c) forward Form 1 to primary operators (including search and rescue (SAR)) using the heliport requesting urgent comment and objections; d) respond to the application within a 21-day period; e) where an objection has been identified, notify the local planning authority or developer as early as possible; and f) where appropriate, request the local planning authority to confirm whether the objection has been upheld1. FORM 1: SAFEGUARDING ASSESSMENT Hospital Name: Heliport Type: Surface level / Mounded / Raised / Elevated (Strike-through as appropriate) TYPE OF APPLICATION: FULL □ DATE RECEIVED. OUTLINE □ DATE REPLIED. TEMPORARY CRANES* □ (Reply within 21 days) OTHER □ *Notice to Airmen may be necessary (NOTAM) BRIEF DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT Ordnance Survey Coordinates (Easting/Northings) Height of Structure Above Ground Level Height of Ground Level at proposed location Overall maximum height of proposed structure SUMMARY OF SAFEGUARDING ASSESSMENT: FORWARDED TO HELICOPTER OPERATORS FOR COMMENT: YES NO□ Note: Consultation should include the Search and Rescue Operator NAME OF OPERATOR No 1: NAME OF OPERATOR No 2: NAME OF OPERATOR No 3: RESPONSE TO LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY/DEVELOPER Objection No Objection No Objection but □ with comment □ Additional Comment: □ PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ONSHORE HELIPORTS 3.1 GENERAL 3.1.1 Introduction 3.1.1.1 A heliport consists of a number of essential components or defined areas; these are the basic building blocks of the design process. Note.— The inclusion in Annex 14, Volume II of an objective, attributes or detailed specifications does not imply that a defined area has to be provided. 3.1.1.2 Each defined area has an objective consisting of a statement (or series of statements) describing usage and limitations, attributes (without values or detailed specifications) and necessary associations. The attributes for any defined area have to be satisfied even when associated (collocated1 or coincidental2) with another defined area; however, the more stringent Standard will always apply. The value or range of values of an attribute is specified as the design helicopter3. 3.1.1.3 The principle of encapsulation (the black-box approach) is important to the design concept: each defined area is described complete with its attributes, allowing it to be positioned in isolation, or in combination with other defined or subsidiary areas without the need for tables specifying separation distances. Encapsulation provides flexibility in design and objects can be present on the boundary of any defined and associated subsidiary area. 3.1.1.4 In this section, defined areas, subsidiary areas, attributes, associations and the concept of the design helicopter are introduced. In subsequent sections, each defined area is examined in detail with respect to the challenges presented by real life operations. Chapter 3 is concluded with a number of appendices having relevance to more than one type of defined area. 3.1.1.5 Only helicopters with a single main rotor are considered in this chapter. 3.1.2 Defined areas 3.1.2.1 Defined areas are divided into six categories: a) FATO; b) TLOF; c) helicopter stand; d) helicopter taxiway; e) ground taxi-route; and f) air taxi-route. 3.1.2.2 In addition to the defined areas, there are subsidiary areas which also have objectives: a) safety area; b) helicopter clearway; and c) protection area. 3.1.2.3 Where a defined area is coincidental or collocated with another (for example the FATO and TLOF, the stand and TLOF, the taxiway and taxi-route (ground or air)), the association is established in the objective. 3.1.2.4 The objective of each defined area is sufficiently flexible to allow methods of compliance that are suited to the operational requirements. 3.1.3 Attributes The most important of the attributes are those of ‘containment’, and ‘surface condition’. Some attributes are common to a number of defined or subsidiary areas; for this reason, unless there are specific issues that are associated with a specific defined or subsidiary area, the attribute may not be further addressed in the dedicated section. 3.1.3.1 Containment 3.1.3.1.1 Containment is an attribute which affords protection to the helicopter and permits safe clearance from obstacles to be established. Containment is one of two types: undercarriage containment or helicopter containment. 3.1.3.1.2 Undercarriage containment means that all parts of the undercarriage will be within the boundary of the defined area, e.g. the TLOF, stand or taxiway. Undercarriage containment is specified only when contact with the surface is intended. Containment will be dependent upon the anticipated type of arrival4, the amount of permitted manoeuvring, and errors of positioning when touching down or when ground taxiing. 3.1.3.1.3 Helicopter containment means that all parts of the helicopter will be within the boundary of the defined area, e.g. the FATO, stand or taxi-route. Helicopter containment always includes the main rotor and furthest part of the tail section (which might be the tail rotor, fenestron, etc.). Containment will be dependent upon the anticipated type of arrival, the amount of permitted manoeuvring and errors of positioning. 3.1.3.1.4 If a defined area (such as a TLOF or taxiway) provides only undercarriage containment, it should be collocated with a defined area that provides helicopter containment (a FATO, protection area or taxi-route). This should be specified in the association. 3.1.3.2 Surface conditions 3.1.3.2.1 The surface condition is an attribute that establishes the type of surface and relationship to associated areas, permitted presence of essential objects, surface loading, surface friction, resistance to rotor downwash, durability, and required drainage. Periodic inspections should ensure that the surface continues to meet the objective. 3.1.3.2.2 The type of surface will be conditional upon the type of area or whether it is intended for the helicopter to touchdown. If there is no intention to touchdown, the question of whether a surface is solid or not is a choice for the designer or is driven by other considerations such as lack of available surface area. Where helicopter containment (and protection from objects) only is required, the defined area may be in, or extend into space. When two areas are collocated, and both are solid, they should be contiguous and flush with each other. 3.1.3.2.3 The presence of essential objects and their maximum dimensions is dictated by the use of the area. 3.1.3.2.3.1 On a surface where touchdown is intended, objects whose function requires them to be located there (such as marker-lights, nets, tie-downs, deck integrated firefighting (DIFF) nozzles, etc.) may be allowed if they do not exceed a height of 2.5 cm, have chamfered vertical edges, and are not regarded as a hazard (mainly to skidded helicopters) or as obstacles. 3.1.3.2.3.2 On a surface where touchdown is not intended in a defined or subsidiary area, essential objects consisting of visual aids such as lighting may be permitted. Their permitted dimensions will be conditional upon location. When they are within the area of the FATO, their dimensions will be more limited than within the safety area. In practice, the inner boundary of the defined area normally defines the location and maximum dimensions of most essential objects. 3.1.3.2.4 Surface loading5 ensures adequate surface strength to permit a helicopter to touchdown, park or ground taxi without damage to the surface or helicopter. Surface loading will be either static, where only the mass of the helicopter is considered, or dynamic, where the mass times acceleration (a force comprising multiples of mass) is considered. 3.1.3.2.4.1 Static loading is discussed in Appendix B to Chapter 3 and, for elevated heliports, expanded in 3.1.8. 3.1.3.2.4.2 Dynamic loading is associated with any touchdown on a TLOF, or movement on a stand or taxiway. Surface loading will vary with the transfer of kinetic energy and its magnitude will be dependent upon the type of arrival and touchdown, or movement on the surface that can be expected or anticipated (see Appendix B to Chapter 3). Dynamic loading can be considered in four categories (the first three address the arrival of the helicopter and the last, other traffic on the surface): a) normal landing6: associated with the certification condition ‘limit load’ and should have no effect on serviceability; b) hard/heavy landing7: associated with the certification condition ‘ultimate load’ likely to result in some damage to the undercarriage; c) emergency landing8: associated with the ‘ultimate limit state’ having defined but arbitrary conditions; and d) use by vehicles and equipment in the ground handling of the helicopter. 3.1.3.2.4.3 Within those four categories: a) a normal landing is associated with an all engines operating (AEO) arrival, a rejected take-off or OEI landing in PC1, or engine failure in air taxi; b) a heavy landing is associated with an engine failure from an approach in PC2 and PC3 when not exposed9; and, c) an emergency landing is associated with an approach or departure in PC2 and PC3 when exposed. 3.1.3.2.4.4 The movement of personnel, vehicles and equipment used in the ground handling of helicopters should be considered. The surface loading might be higher than that required for the design helicopter depending on projected usage. 3.1.3.2.5 Durability of the surface is essential10. Traffic density must be considered to ensure that the condition of the surface remains as specified for the life of the facility (or the applicable maintenance period). 3.1.3.2.6 Resistance to rotor downwash is likely to be an issue on surfaces that are not paved. 3.1.3.2.6.1 Rotor downwash loads are approximately equal to the weight of the helicopter distributed uniformly over the disk area of the rotor which can be compared to generally high, gusty wind conditions. Tests have established that rotor downwash loads are generally less than the loads specified in building codes for snow, rain, or wind loads typically used in structural design calculations (AC 150/5390-2C). 3.1.3.2.6.2 Rotor downwash on unpaved surfaces could result in foreign object debris (FOD), injury to persons and damage to surrounding property. In order to prevent this, the surface should be treated to avoid break up resulting in debris that might be lifted and scattered by the downwash. 3.1.3.2.7 Friction to prevent the skidding of helicopters or slipping of personnel 3.1.3.2.7.1 The surface of the TLOF or stand should be skid-resistant to both helicopters and personnel, especially when the surface is wet. The surface should, if necessary, be rendered to provide additional friction, and all essential markings on the surface should be applied with non-slip material. 3.1.3.2.7.2 Whenever necessary, the heliport surface should be rendered so as to meet minimum friction coefficients (μ) acceptable to the appropriate authority, for example: not less than 0.6 inside the touchdown/position marking (TD/PM) circle and on the painted markings and 0.5 outside the TDPC. 3.1.3.2.7.3 A wide variety of suitable materials are commercially available and information on which system would be best applied in particular cases may be sought through an appropriate authority in each individual State. Guidance may also be given by the State on what minimum friction properties need to be achieved to ensure that a given surface is rendered skid-resistant to helicopters and is suitable for personnel using the heliport. The appropriate authority should advise how a heliport can be tested and re-tested to ensure compliance. Note.— It is recognized that certain aluminium heliports (especially elevated heliports) contain holes in the topside construction for the rapid drainage of fluids, including fuel spills which could occur, for example, if a helicopter’s fuel system is ruptured by the impact of a crash. In these cases, particular care should be taken to assess the quality of skid-resistance prior to the heliport going into service. 3.1.3.2.8 Required drainage. The slopes on the solid defined areas (or the surface itself) should be sufficient to prevent the accumulation of water or fuel on the area and allow rapid and effective drainage, but be within the sloping ground limitations of the design helicopter. The minimum slope of the surface should be in excess of 0.5 per cent. However, it should not exceed the value(s) specified for the defined area. The slope should be made without local indents to avoid ponding and should be such that the landing skid can lie as flat as possible on the surface. Sufficient ground stability of the helicopter should be achieved to avoid potential collisions of the tail and tail rotor with the surface. 3.1.3.2.9 Safety devices around an elevated heliport 3.1.3.2.9.1 Personnel protection safety devices such as perimeter safety nets or safety shelves should be installed around the edge of the elevated heliport, or a surface level heliport where there is a risk of persons falling11, except where structural protection already exists. They should not exceed the height of the outboard edge of the TLOF/FATO to avoid presenting a hazard to helicopter operations. The load bearing capability of the safety device should be assessed fit for purpose by reference to the shape and size of the personnel that it is intended to protect (see 3.1.3.2.9.5). 3.1.3.2.9.2 Where the safety device consists of perimeter netting, this should be of a flexible nature and be manufactured from a non-flammable material, with the inboard edge fastened just below the edge of the TLOF/FATO. The net itself should: a) extend in the horizontal plane beyond the edge of the TLOF/FATO to the distance required by State rules (e.g. EN 1263-1 and EN 1263-2) and in any case to at least 1.5 m; b) be arranged with an upward slope of approximately 10°12,13; and c) not act as a trampoline but exhibit properties that provide a hammock effect to securely contain a person falling or rolling into it, without serious injury. 3.1.3.2.9.3 When considering the securing of the net to the structure and the materials used, each element should meet adequacy of purpose requirements, particularly that the netting should not deteriorate over time due to prolonged exposure to the elements, including ultraviolet light. 3.1.3.2.9.4 Perimeter nets may incorporate a hinge arrangement to facilitate the removal of sacrificial panels to allow for periodic testing. 3.1.3.2.9.5 A safety net support assembly and its fixings to the heliport primary structure should be designed to withstand the static load of the whole support structure, the netting system and any attached appendages plus at least 125 kg load imposed on any section of the netting system (equivalent to a body falling onto the net from heliport level). 3.1.3.2.9.6 Where the safety device consists of safety shelving rather than netting, the construction and layout of the shelving should not promote any adverse wind flow issues over the FATO, while providing equivalent personnel safety benefits, and should be installed to the same minimum dimensions as the netting system, beyond the edge of the TLOF/FATO. It may also be further covered with netting to improve grab capabilities. 3.1.4 Associations 3.1.4.1 An association establishes the dependency between defined areas and defined and subsidiary areas. When an association is specified in the objective, compliance is necessary to ensure safety. 3.1.4.2 The most common use of an association is to ensure that defined areas are collocated. For example, the TLOF provides containment only for the undercarriage to ensure that the whole aircraft is contained; the TLOF is associated with a FATO or stand. 3.1.4.3 Similarly, in order to reduce the risk of damage to the helicopter straying outside the boundary of the FATO by the effect of turbulence or cross winds, errors in positioning or mishandling, the FATO is associated with a safety area. 3.1.5 The design helicopter 3.1.5.1 The introduction of the concept of a design helicopter permits a simplification of the process for establishing the limiting dimensions of defined areas. 3.1.5.2 When designing the heliport, the design helicopter having the largest set of dimensions and the greatest maximum take-off mass (MTOM) should be established. Although this might be informed by consideration of a particular type of helicopter, the resulting virtual type should consist of a set of limiting values from the population of helicopters for which the heliport has been designed (a full discussion of the concept of the design helicopter and its critical design elements can be found in Appendix A to Chapter 1). 3.1.5.3 The designer and heliport user should be assured that when a helicopter is within the D-value and maximum allowable mass (promulgated, and in most cases displayed on the FATO) and is operated in accordance with normal practices, all defined areas will be safe to use. 3.1.6 The manoeuvring helicopter For heliport design, the manoeuvring helicopter is a determining factor in establishing the minimum dimensions of most defined areas. Relevant sections address the issue of manoeuvring from the perspective of an approach to a FATO, or air and ground taxiing. However, a defining factor common to a number of areas is the turning manoeuvre, both in the hover and on the ground. For a discussion of the minimum dimension for turning in the hover and turning on the ground see Appendix A to Chapter 3, 3.5. 3.1.7 Designs with mixed surfaces 3.1.7.1 Sometimes the application of the objective or attributes for a defined area is complicated by availability of surface area. For example, a heliport may have a defined or subsidiary area wholly or partially projecting into space. This is more likely to apply to an elevated heliport rather than one on ground level. 3.1.7.2 This might result in a defined or subsidiary area surface that is partially solid and partially in space. Where this is the case, the part solid surfaces of collocated areas should be contiguous and flush. 3.1.8 Structural design of heliports 3.1.8.1 The heliport should be designed for the design helicopter, but should also consider other types of loading such as personnel, freight, snow, refuelling equipment, etc. For the purpose of design, it should be assumed that the helicopter will land on two main wheels, irrespective of the actual number of wheels in the undercarriage, or on two skids if they are fitted. The loads imposed on the structure should be taken as point loads at the wheel centres or contact area of the skids (see also Appendix B to Chapter 3). 3.1.8.2 An elevated heliport should be designed for the more conservative condition derived from consideration of Case A – Helicopter on landing (3.1.8.2.1) and Case B – Helicopter at rest (3.1.8.2.2). 3.1.8.2.1 Case A — Helicopter on landing An elevated heliport should be designed to withstand all the forces likely to act when a helicopter lands. The load and load combinations to be considered should include: a) Dynamic load due to impact on touchdown. This should cover both a normal landing and an emergency landing. For the former, an impact load of 1.5 x MTOM of the design helicopter should be used, while for an emergency landing an impact load of 2.5 x MTOM should be applied in any position on the TLOF , together with the combined effects of b) to g) inclusive. The emergency landing case should govern the design of the structure. b) Sympathetic response of the heliport. After considering the design of the heliport structures’ supporting beams and columns and the characteristics of the design helicopter, the dynamic load (see a) above) should be increased by a suitable structural response factor (SRF) to account for the sympathetic response of the heliport structure. The factor to be applied for the design of the heliport framing depends on the natural frequency of the surface structure. Unless specific values are available based upon particular undercarriage behaviour and deck frequency, a minimum SRF of 1.3 should be assumed. c) Over-all superimposed load on the heliport. To allow for snow load, personnel, freight and equipment loads, etc., in addition to wheel loads, an allowance of 0.5 kilonewtons per square metre (kN/m2) should be included in the design. d) Lateral load on the supports. The heliport and its supports should be designed to resist concentrated horizontal imposed actions equivalent to 0.5 x maximum take-off mass (MTOM) of the design helicopter, distributed between the undercarriages in proportion to the applied vertical loading in the horizontal direction that will produce the most severe loading for the structural component being considered. e) Dead load of structural members. This is the normal gravity load on the element being considered. f) Wind actions on the heliport. Wind actions on the structure should be applied in the direction, which together with the horizontal impact actions, produce the most severe load case for the component considered. The wind speed to be considered should be that restricting normal (non-emergency) helicopter operations at the landing area. Any vertical up and down action on the heliport structure due to the passage of wind over and under the FATO/TLOF should be considered. g) Punching shear. A check should be made for the punching shear from a wheel of the landing gear, or skid, with a contact area of 65 x 103 mm2 acting in any probable location. Particular attention to detailing should be taken at the junction of the supports and the surface. 3.1.8.2.2 Case B — Helicopter at rest In addition to Case A above, an elevated heliport should be designed to withstand all the applied forces that could result from a helicopter at rest; the following loads should be taken into account: a) Imposed load from helicopter at rest. All parts of the heliport should be assumed to be accessible to helicopters and should be designed to resist an imposed (static) load equal to the MTOM of the design helicopter. This load should be uniformly distributed between all the landing gear and applied in any position so as to produce the most severe loading on each element considered. b) Overall superimposed load. To allow for personnel, freight, refuelling equipment and other traffic, snow and ice, and rotor downwash effects etc., a general area-imposed action of 2.0 kN/m2 should be added to the surface. c) Horizontal actions from a tied down helicopter including wind actions. Each tie-down, where provided, should be designed to resist the calculated proportion of the total wind action on the design helicopter imposed by a storm wind with a minimum one-year return period. d) Dead load. This is the normal gravity load on the surface being considered and should be regarded to act simultaneously in combination with a) and b). e) Wind actions on the heliport. Wind loading should be allowed for in the design of the heliport. The 100-year return period wind actions on the heliport should be applied in the direction which, together with the imposed lateral loading, produces the most severe load condition on each structural element being considered. 3.2 FATO The FATO is an area over which a helicopter completes the approach manoeuvre to a hover or landing or commences the take-off. All approaches terminate at the FATO and all departures start there. 3.2.1 GENERAL Recalling the definition of FATO, there are various types, each characterizing ‘completed’ from a different perspective; some examples are: a) A PC2/3 FATO with an aiming point: an approach that is ‘completed’ with a hover (see Figure II-3-1); b) A PC2/3 FATO with a TLOF: an approach which is ‘completed’ with a normal touchdown (see Figure II-3-2); c) A PC1 FATO with a declared RTOD: an arrival (approach or rejected take-off) that may be ‘completed’ with a OEI touchdown (which may, or may not, include a run-on landing (see Figure II-3-3)); and d) A PC1 FATO without a declared RTOD: an arrival (approach or rejected take-off) that may be ‘completed’ with an OEI touchdown (without a run-on landing (see Figure II-3-4 and Figure II-3-5)). Figure II-3-1. PC2/3 FATO with an aiming point marking Figure II-3-2. PC2/3 FATO with a TLOF 3.2.2 FATO Attributes — Containment 3.2.2.1 PC2/3 FATO 3.2.2.1.1 Containment in a PC2/3 FATO is based on the space to transition to the hover from an approach and the subsequent necessity to manoeuvre; it is directly related to Design D. 3.2.2.1.2 Under normal operating conditions, the transition to a hover from an approach, without turns, can be contained within 1.5 x helicopter widths and 1.5 x helicopter lengths. 3.2.2.1.3 As indicated in Appendix A, 3.5.1, the space required for axial turns in the hover is 1.5 x Design D. 3.2.2.1.4 Based on the principles above, the minimum dimension of a FATO for unrestricted operations in PC2/3 is 1.5 x Design D. This dimension should be sufficient to provide containment of a helicopter during normal approach, departure and hover manoeuvres. 3.2.2.1.5 When there is a restriction on the direction of arrival, departure, touchdown and manoeuvring, the width of the FATO may be reduced to 1.5 x helicopter widths. Before this reduction is applied, it will be necessary to establish how the restriction on manoeuvring is to be marked and promulgated. 3.2.2.2 PC1 FATO 3.2.2.2.1 The dimension of the PC1 FATO, providing containment for operation in PC1, is not directly related to Design D but to adequate provision of space for the rejected take-off or OEI landing (see Appendix C to Chapter 3). Nevertheless, the minimum dimension for a PC1 FATO is set to 1.5 x Design D (as for PC2/3 and for the same reasons); operation in PC2/3 may be possible depending on the heliport use and limitations. 3.2.2.2.2 When considering the amount of area to be set aside for the FATO, it is important for the designer to consider the range of Category A procedures that could be employed before making a final determination. As this is a function more related to operations than heliport design, it may be necessary to seek guidance from operational experts. 3.2.2.2.3 The size of the rejected take-off area will vary with the type of procedure employed; the ‘clear area’ procedure 14 (Figure II-3-3) will require a longer FATO but should generally permit higher masses than ‘short field’ (Figure II-3-4) or ‘helipad’ (Figure II-3-5). Figure II-3-3. PC1 (runway) FATO with a declared RTOD Figure II-3-4. PC1 (short field) FATO with or without a provided RTOD Figure II-3-5. PC1 (helipad) FATO without a declared RTODRH15 3.2.2.2.4 For a heliport designed for any specific type of PC1 procedure, the size of the FATO is important because the larger it is, the greater the population of helicopters able to use it. It should not be assumed that the reject distance for a large helicopter is greater than that for a smaller one. Failing to take this into consideration might result in an operational limitation for some helicopters that are within the D-Value and Maximum Allowable Mass but cannot operate within the declared distances of the heliport. This is more likely to occur with the helipad than the clear area procedure. 3.2.2.2.5 For PC1 operations, the rejected take-off distance required (RTODRH, provided in the RFM) should be less than or equal to the rejected take-off distance available (RTODAH, declared by the heliport operator) as shown in Figure II-3-6. 3.2.2.2.6 For all PC1 heliports, the FATO includes the RTOD: for the clear area procedure, the RTOD will be declared distance; for the helipad procedure, there will be no declared RTOD, only a FATO. When promulgating a declared distance, the relevance must be made clear. Figure II-3-6. Relationship between RTODRH and RTODAH (operational limitation) The RTOD in the RFM or Category A supplement (see Appendix C to Chapter 3) 3.2.2.2.7 For most clear area procedures, the RTOD with complete helicopter containment will be provided in the Category A Supplement; in this case, the FATO will be coincidental with the TLOF. However, that is not always the case and it may be necessary to check with the manufacturer that full containment in accordance with the guidance has been provided. 3.2.2.2.8 A reasonable pointer to the presence of doubt is when the drawing in the RFM does not appear to cover the front part of the rotor and rear part of the helicopter; the indicative drawing appears only to show distance with respect to a reference point on the helicopter; or another term is used instead of RTOD. 3.2.2.2.9 When the RTOD with complete containment is not provided, adding 1 x Design D to the RFM dimension should provide a dimension that includes containment. The absence of RTOD for the short field procedure 3.2.2.2.10 RTOD is not a term that is usually associated with the short field procedure. Any number of alternative terms may be in use – none of which is likely to have a meaning in regulatory language. In the absence of certainty, adding 1 x Design D to the RFM dimension will ensure containment. The absence of RTOD for the helipad procedure 3.2.2.2.11 RTOD is a term that is almost never seen in the RFM for the helipad procedure. The term that is most often used is ‘the minimum elevated heliport size demonstrated’ (or another term approximating to that meaning). This term indicates that the dimension of the surface area (together with the necessary visual cues) only has been demonstrated and provided. 3.2.2.2.12 It may not be easy to establish the limiting dimension unless the heliport designer (or relevant subject matter expert) has surveyed, or is familiar with, all types that are likely to use the heliport. It would be wrong to assume that the declared dimension for a large helicopter will be greater than that for a smaller one. 3.2.2.2.13 When the limiting dimension has been established, if it is based upon ‘the minimum elevated heliport size demonstrated’, adding 1 x Design D to the ‘the minimum … sizes demonstrated’ will ensure containment. 3.2.3 FATO Attributes — Surface conditions 3.2.3.1 The requirement for a solid surface was removed from the FATO in Amendment 9 to Annex 14, Volume II. It is now unspecified and left to the designer. Where, as in 3.2.1 (b) to (d) a touchdown is expected, there will be a requirement for a TLOF and surface conditions will be specified there. 3.2.3.2 When the FATO is solid and not collocated with a TLOF, the surface should not present a hazard for a forced landing. 3.2.3.3 When the FATO is collocated with a TLOF, the designer should ensure that: a) when solid, the FATO has a surface that is contiguous and flush with the TLOF. Although not intended for the placement or movement of a helicopter undercarriage on it, the FATO should have a surface that permits the movement of personnel, vehicles and equipment used in the loading, unloading or ground handling of the helicopter. The overall slope in any direction on a solid FATO should not exceed 2 per cent except for elongated FATOs. This should enable sufficient drainage; b) the plane of the FATO should extend horizontally from the lowest elevation of the edge of the TLOF; and c) essential objects consisting of visual aids such as lighting and firefighting systems may be contained within the boundary of the FATO. As it is likely that the tail rotor will traverse above such systems, they should not exceed a height of 5 cm above the plane of the FATO. 3.2.3.4 The removal of the requirement for a surface permits the use of a virtual FATO for operations in PC2/3 when its location is obvious and therefore does not need to be marked, such as a virtual FATO over water alongside a pier containing one or a number of stands. A helicopter could arrive to the hover alongside the pier before moving (air transiting) to one of the stands. The dimensions of the FATO should enable containment without markings. This type of operation is similar to that for offshore installations where the approach is normally to the side of the helideck before transitioning over the deck to land. 3.2.4 FATO associations and subsidiary areas 3.2.4.1 Safety area 3.2.4.1.1 The purpose of the safety area is to provide an extension to the FATO to compensate for errors of manoeuvring under challenging environmental conditions. 3.2.4.1.2 Containment. The safety area extends outwards from the periphery of the FATO for a fixed distance of the greater of 3 m or 0.25 Design D. Because it is fixed distance, it is imperative that the helicopter is not deliberately displaced from the TD/PM because it could result in the loss of containment shown in Figure II-3-7. Figure II-3-7. Deliberate Misplacement within the FATO 3.2.4.1.3 Surface conditions. Surface conditions of the safety area are similar to those for the FATO as stated in 3.2.3. Essential objects such as visual aids and firefighting systems may be contained in the safety area to a height specified in Annex 14, Volume II. It is likely that such objects, which may be larger than those permitted in the FATO, will be located at, or just within, the inner boundary of the safety area. 3.2.4.1.4 The surface of a solid safety area should not exceed an upward slope of 4 per cent outwards from the edge of the FATO. 3.2.4.2 Protected side slope 3.2.4.2.1 For a visual heliport, or a heliport with a PinS approach procedure without a proceed visually instruction, there is no requirement for a transitional surface; in the absence of any further provisions, this would allow unlimited obstacles at the boundary of the safety area. 3.2.4.2.2 The protected side slope is intended to address this by providing a protected surface to a distance (and height) of 10 m (33 ft) rather than the 45 m (150 ft) of the transitional surface. Although the standard requires a protected side slope only on one side of the FATO, it would be preferable for the designer to provide side slope protection around all those parts of the FATO not covered by the obstacle limitation surfaces (take-off climb/approach surface), in accordance with Annex 14, Volume II, 3.1.14. 3.2.4.2.3 The FATO may be of any shape, and even though the protected side slope extends from the safety area, designers should be aware that, as shown in Figure 4-1 of Annex 14, Volume II, there might be small spaces between the take-off climb and approach surfaces and safety area; these should meet the requirement for the safety area and not the protected side slope. 3.2.4.2.4 Where take-off climb and approach surfaces are not diametrically opposed, the protected side slope should cover the whole of the area between the obstacle limitation surfaces. This may sometimes extend beyond 180⁰. 3.2.4.3 Helicopter clearway 3.2.4.3.1 The helicopter clearway, when provided, extends beyond the FATO, to permit a departing helicopter to accelerate in near level flight to achieve a safe climbing speed. 3.2.4.3.2 The length of the helicopter clearway should permit the achievement of the TODRH conditions, i.e. Vtoss and a positive rate of climb (+ROC), 10.7 m (35 ft) above the elevation of the helicopter clearway, at or before the outer boundary. The width of the helicopter clearway should be the specified width or diameter of the FATO plus the safety area or the reference circle (see Chapter 4, 4.1.1.8). 3.2.4.3.3 For operations in PC1, the TODRH should be equal to or less than TODAH, as shown in Figure II-3-8. Annex 6, Part III, permits an alternative to this when, following an engine failure, the helicopter is able to clear all obstacles in the continued take-off path by a vertical margin of 10.7m (35ft) (see Figure II-3-9). This alternative can be facilitated with the use of a virtual clearway (see Appendix D to Chapter 3) and appropriate procedures (see Appendix A to Chapter 4). Figure II-3-8. Relationship between TODRH and TODAH (operational limitation) Figure II-3-9. Alternative procedure from Annex 6, Part III 3.2.4.4 Back-up area 3.2.4.4.1 A back-up procedure, i.e. without a lateral component, is one of the PC1 helipad profiles provided in RFMs, along with the dimensions of the backup area. The back-up area should consist of two elements: an ascent/descent path/surface and an obstacle limitation surface (see Figures II-3-10 to II-3-12). The dimensions of these are normally contained in tabular form in the Category A supplement of the RFM. Figure II-3-10. Back-up area 3.2.4.4.2 The ascent/descent path/surface: the path of the helicopter in the back-up procedure. It represents: a) the AEO climb to the TDP; b) the OEI descent to the FATO following the failure of an engine before reaching the TDP; c) where the landing decision point (LDP) is sited coincidentally with the TDP: the AEO, or if an engine fails at or after reaching the LDP the OEI, descent to the FATO. 3.2.4.4.2.1 The characteristics should be: a) a sloping inverted isosceles triangle with its vertex at the centre of the TLOF, legs splayed 10 per cent (day) or 15 per cent (night) either side of the centre line of the FATO, and its base at the highest projected TDP for the procedure; and b) a slope, measured in the vertical plane containing the centre line, allowing use by representative types using the PC1 heliport; a gradient of 1:1.5 is recommended. 3.2.4.4.3 The obstacle limitation surface is the boundary of the area that is obstacle-free which, when used in conjunction with the defined ascent/descent path/surface, should provide clearance from obstacles. 3.2.4.4.3.1 The characteristics of the obstacle limitation surface should be: a) an inner edge horizontal and equal in length of the specified width of the FATO plus the safety area, perpendicular to the centre line and located at the edge of the safety area. The elevation of the inner edge should be the elevation of the safety area at the point on the inner edge that is intersected by the centre line of the obstacle limitation plane; b) two side edges originating at the ends of the inner edge diverging uniformly at a specified rate from the vertical plane containing the centre line of the FATO (the specified rate is 10 per cent for day operations and 15 per cent at night); c) an outer edge horizontal and perpendicular to the centre line at a specified height above the elevation of the FATO (the highest TDP for the procedure); and d) a slope, measured in the vertical plane containing the centre line, related to the ascent/descent path/surface, allowing adequate clearance from obstacles; a gradient of 1:2 is recommended. Note.— The divergence between the slope of the ascent/descent path and the slope of the obstacle limitation surface should be at least 12.5 per cent. 3.2.4.4.4 Where the back-up area overlays the take-off climb/approach surface, no further provision by the heliport designer should be necessary. Where the back-up area does not overlay the take-off climb/approach surface, a generic ascent/descent path/surface and obstacle limitation surface should be provided. 3.2.4.4.5 When the PC1 procedure includes a lateral element, the ascent/descent surface and obstacle limitation surfaces should be as shown in Appendix A to Chapter 4, 2.1. Figure II-3-11. Back-up area (showing representative types as D-size circles at their TDP – oblique view) Figure II-3-12. Back-up area (showing representative types at their TDP- side view) 3.3 TLOF 3.3.1 General 3.3.1.1 Annex 14, Volume II, states that there will be at least one TLOF on a heliport. It further states that there will be a TLOF whenever a touchdown is intended at a FATO or on a stand. However, that does not preclude, for example, a manoeuvre where the helicopter air taxis from a FATO and then touches down on a taxiway16 to complete its movement to the stand. 3.3.1.2 Furthermore, Annex 14, Volume II, 3.1.29, states that every TLOF ‘shall be provided with markings which clearly indicate the touchdown position and, by their form any limitations on manoeuvring’. The intent of this statement is to make clear that, regardless of which type of touchdown is performed, the integrity of the defined area and the safety of the helicopter depends on the touchdown being accurately conducted on the TD/PM. 3.3.1.3 There are four basic types of TLOF: in each case, the arrival and touchdown can be viewed from different perspectives: a) TLOF within a PC2/3 FATO: a touchdown following an approach; b) TLOF within a stand: a touchdown following a taxi manoeuvre; c) TLOF within a PC1 helipad FATO: a touchdown (from an approach or rejected take-off) that can be completed with OEI touchdown (without a run-on landing); and d) TLOF within an elongated PC1 FATO with or without a declared RTOD: a touchdown (from an approach or rejected take-off) that can be completed with OEI touchdown (which may, or may not, include a runon landing). 3.3.1.4 From the basic types of TLOF shown above, the touchdown could be from: a) hover taxi; b) PC1 rejected take-off or OEI approach – with or without forward speed; c) approach to the hover (the usual case); or d) PC2/3 approach when exposed. 3.3.1.5 In addition, the direction of arrival at the TLOF or subsequent manoeuvring may be subject to limitations; this could affect the heliport design process with respect to containment. 3.3.1.6 Annex 14, Volume II, is primarily concerned with the minimum dimension of a TLOF with respect to the design helicopter; the apparent result of this is a TLOF that is fixed in size and in a defined position with respect to the FATO or stand. However, that may not always be the case; some basic examples include: a) minimum sized TLOF in a minimum sized FATO; b) oversized TLOF that is coincidental with a minimum sized FATO; c) oversized TLOF in an oversized FATO; d) TLOF in an elongated FATO; and e) coincidental TLOF, PC1 FATO and compliant RTOD. 3.3.1.7 The TLOF should always be centred on the FATO or stand and, for an elongated FATO, centred on the longitudinal access. 3.3.1.8 If the TLOF and FATO are larger than the minimum dimensions, the designer has the possibility of offsetting the TDPC (not the TLOF). However, the centre of the TDPC in the offset position should be no closer to the boundary of the TLOF than 0.42 Design D and no closer to the boundary of the FATO than 0.75 Design D (as shown in Figure II-3-13) (regardless of the size of the TLOF or FATO, a TDPC should always have an inner diameter 0.5 Design D). Figure II-3-13. Offsetting the TDPC in an oversized TLOF and FATO 3.3.1.9 The offset TDPC is more appropriate for a PC2/3 than a PC1 TLOF as the limitations on placement are associated with the physical dimensions of the helicopter and not the required performance. 3.3.1.10 Additional TDPCs may be contained in a PC1 TLOF and may be offset if these meet the conditions stipulated in 3.3.1.8 (Figure II-3-13). However, there should be measures in place to ensure that only one TDPC in the TLOF is used at any one time in PC1 operations. 3.3.2 TLOF attributes: containment Containment of the undercarriage is assured by the provision of an adequately sized TLOF. 3.3.2.1 The TLOF within a PC2/3 FATO or stand 3.3.2.1.1 The size of the TLOF within a PC2/3 FATO or stand is directly related to the physical dimensions of the helicopter (for the FATO this should be the design helicopter, and for the stand the most demanding helicopter it is intended to serve), under all expected or anticipated conditions of arrival (approach or hover taxi) and positioning. The set of undercarriages of all single main-rotor helicopters of the same D can be contained, for omnidirectional positioning, within a circle of 0.83D: centred on the helicopter mid-point. 3.3.2.1.2 Where a restriction is placed on the direction of touchdown, e.g. the undercarriage may only be placed fore and aft direction, the width of the TLOF may be reduced to twice the undercarriage width. The use of undercarriage width in this case is possible because the configuration of the undercarriage with respect to the longitudinal axis has little bearing upon its lateral position. If this reduction in width is also associated with a reduced width of the FATO or stand, there will also be a restriction on manoeuvring. 3.3.2.1.3 For an elevated heliport with a collocated portion of the FATO in space, the safety of essential operations around the helicopter is considered. These operations include the offloading of passengers (sometime on a stretcher) or freight and movement around the helicopter for refuelling, maintenance or inspection, etc. In view of this, the minimum TLOF size, specified in Annex 14, Volume II, is 1 Design D unless collocated with a stand, or FATO with a solid surface of at least 1 x Design D. 3.3.2.2 The TLOF within a PC1 helipad FATO 3.3.2.2.1 The size of the TLOF within a PC1 helipad FATO is not directly related to the physical dimensions of the helicopter(s) but to the amount of surface that is required for a reject or OEI landing. 3.3.2.2.2 As discussed in Appendix C to Chapter 3, the minimum dimension will be the larger of three elements: a) minimum size of the surface to contain the undercarriage; b) aircraft performance scatter during the OEI landings to a specific reference point; and c) surface required to provide the minimum suitable visual cues for a safe OEI landing. 3.3.2.2.3 The minimum dimension will be provided in the RFM (probably) as ‘the minimum elevated heliport size demonstrated’. Note.— This is the term that is taken from certification guidance. However, manufacturers also apply this to surface-level heliports and use other terms approximating to that meaning. 3.3.2.2.4 When assessing the required TLOF size, a survey of the RFM helipad dimensions of all helicopters within the limits of the design helicopter should be considered. Targeting the dimensions on a more powerful type could limit the scope of PC1 operations at the heliport. 3.3.2.2.5 As in 3.3.2.1.3, a PC1 elevated heliport with a collocated portion of the FATO in space should have a TLOF of at least 1 x Design D. 3.3.2.3 TLOF within an elongated PC1 FATO with or without a declared RTOD 3.3.2.3.1 As with the helipad procedure, the size of the TLOF is that required for a reject or OEI landing (see Figures II-3-3 and II-3-4). 3.3.2.3.2 The minimum dimensions provided in the RFM are likely to be: a) for the runway-type (clear area) procedure, a weight/altitude/temperature (WAT) graph containing the RTOD; and b) for a short field/confined area procedure, a single dimension with some representative name. 3.3.2.3.3 If there is a declared RTOD in compliance with the certification guidance, containment of the whole helicopter will be included and the FATO and TLOF will be coincidental. 3.3.2.3.4 If there is a declared RTOD without full containment or a representative dimension, it is likely to represent only the required size of the TLOF. 3.3.2.3.5 When establishing the size of the TLOF, the PC1 dimensions for all helicopter types within the limits of the design helicopter should be considered. 3.3.3 The TLOF attributes — surface conditions 3.3.3.1 Surface loading 3.3.3.1.1 As specified in Annex 14, Volume II, the surface of the TLOF should have ‘…sufficient bearing strength to accommodate the dynamic loads associated with the anticipated type of arrival of the helicopter at the designated TLOF’. 3.3.3.1.2 The term ‘type of arrival’ is intended to provide a context that includes an engine failure, within which the required dynamic loading can be framed. There are three types of arrival: a) arrival at the TLOF in a stand from a taxi manoeuvre17, or the arrival from a PC1 rejected take-off or OEI landing; b) arrival from a PC2/3 approach or departure when not exposed to a surface or heliport platform; and c) arrival from a PC2/3 approach or departure when exposed to a surface or heliport platform. 3.3.3.1.3 These three types of arrival may be categorized respectively as: a) certification limit load (for normal touchdown), which is tested with an impact velocity of 1.98 m/sec; b) certification ultimate load (for a hard touchdown), which is tested with an impact velocity of 2.4 m/sec; or c) ultimate limit state (for the emergency touchdown), which relates to an impact velocity of 3.6 m/sec. 3.3.3.1.4 The dynamic loading of the surface should be in accordance with the type of arrival and touchdown. A more comprehensive discussion on the issue of surface loading can be found in Appendix B to Chapter 3. 3.3.3.2 The overall slope in any direction on a TLOF should not exceed 2 per cent except for elongated TLOFs. This enables sufficient drainage. The slope also enables helicopter landings when the mast moment indication is inoperative and slope landings with a slope of more than 5 per cent are prohibited. 3.3.4 TLOF associations The TLOF is always associated with either a FATO or stand. 3.4 HELICOPTER TAXIWAYS AND TAXI-ROUTES 3.4.1 General 3.4.1.1 The SARPs for taxiways and taxi-routes were extensively modified and simplified in the 4th Edition of Annex 14, Volume II. Encapsulation allows the adjacent siting of taxiways/taxi-routes, but the practice is not recommended or encouraged. 3.4.1.2 Helicopters engaged in air taxiing produce rotor downwash; its effects can be felt far beyond the boundaries of the air taxi-route, especially with larger helicopters. The effect of rotor downwash can be extremely destructive to light aircraft and to small buildings. It is recommended that air taxi-routes are sited to avoid locations where this might occur and, where possible, ground taxiing for larger helicopters (with a mass in excess of 3,175 kg) is facilitated. 3.4.1.3 To provide flexibility to the designer, taxiways/taxi-routes may be provided for helicopters that are smaller than the design helicopter. If these are provided, the capacity of the taxiway/taxi-routes should have markings to indicate limiting dimensions. Allowing smaller18 skidded helicopters to air taxi on ground taxiways/taxi-routes could be permitted by the heliport operator if the helicopter width is less than or equal to 0.5 times the width of the ground taxi-route. 3.4.1.4 Guidance on air transit is included in 3.4.4. Although no longer addressed in Annex 14, Volume II, such guidance is commonly employed at airports and aerodromes, and could be employed at larger heliports. It is a very efficient method of repositioning helicopters on large airports, especially when helicopters are operating to and from the aeroplane runways. 3.4.2 Taxiways 3.4.2.1 General A helicopter taxiway is intended to permit the surface movement of a wheeled helicopter under its own power. When a taxiway is intended for use by aeroplanes and helicopters, the provisions for taxiways included in Annex 14, Volume I, will be applicable, and the more stringent requirements should apply. A taxiway can be used by a wheeled helicopter for ground or air taxi when it is associated with the appropriately sized taxi-route. 3.4.2.2 Taxiway attributes Containment for the undercarriage is provided by the 2 x undercarriage width (UCW) specified in Annex 14, Volume II. A State could permit a taxiway of less than 2 x UCW if the objective of containment can be met. 3.4.2.1.3 Surface conditions 3.4.2.1.3.1 Ground taxiing is a dynamic manoeuvre and surface loading should be at least that for a normal touchdown. 3.4.2.1.3.2 The transverse slope should not exceed 2 per cent and the longitudinal slope, 3 per cent. This will enable sufficient drainage. The slopes also enable helicopter landings within the limitations of the corresponding RFM. 3.4.2.1.4 Associations The taxiway is associated with either a ground taxi-route or an air taxi-route. 3.4.3 Taxi-routes 3.4.3.1 Containment A taxi-route should provide containment of the whole helicopter when ground or air taxiing. The containment area is predicated upon the maximum displacement from the centreline when in motion. This is likely to be greater for air taxiing than ground taxiing and is reflected in the minimum dimensions. 3.4.3.2 Surface conditions 3.4.3.2.1 When a surface is solid, it should be resistant to the effects of rotor downwash and free of hazards. 3.4.3.2.2 When collocated with a taxiway, the taxi-route should be centred on the taxiway. When solid, it should be contiguous and flush with the taxiway. Essential objects such as markers for the taxiway should be located on the taxi-route so as to not present a hazard to the helicopter. 3.4.3.3 Ground taxi-route A ground taxi-route is intended to provide helicopter containment for a wheeled helicopter when ground taxiing (for a possible alleviation for air taxiing of smaller skidded helicopters, see 3.4.1.3). 3.4.3.4 Air taxi-route 3.4.3.4.1 A helicopter air taxi-route is intended to permit the movement of a helicopter above the surface at a height not above two rotor diameters and at ground speed less than 37 km/h (20 kts). 3.4.3.4.2 The probability of having to land on an air taxi-route does not justify a paved surface providing it is free of hazards that might prevent a safe forced landing and is resistant to the effects of rotor downwash. 3.4.3.4.3 The effect of downwash on other users and infrastructure should be considered when siting at an air taxi-route. Because of potential interference, adjacent siting of air taxi-routes is not recommended or encouraged. 3.4.3.4.4 The slopes of a solid surface of a helicopter air taxi-route should not exceed the slope landing limitations of the helicopter’s air taxi-route it is intended to serve. In any event, the transverse slope should not exceed 10 per cent and the longitudinal slope should not exceed 7 per cent. 3.4.4 Air transit routes 3.4.4.1 Ground and air taxiing by helicopters (primarily at an airport) are essentially slow manoeuvres and can prove to be economically and operationally embarrassing to helicopter and aeroplane operators alike. Therefore, when helicopters are required to move between widely spaced locations on an airport or aerodrome, it is desirable to allow air transit to permit the helicopter to fly more quickly while maintaining a safe manoeuvre capability. 3.4.4.2 Air transit should permit the movement of a helicopter above the surface, normally at a height not above 30 m (100 ft) above ground level and at ground speeds in excess of 37 km/h (20 kts). 3.4.4.3 Air transit, however, requires comparatively large amounts of airspace that is clear of obstacles, as well as corresponding areas of ground below suitable for safe emergency landings. 3.4.4.4 The width of an air transit route should not be less than that which would permit unhindered transit whilst allowing suitable space for errors in manoeuvring. 3.4.4.5 Variation in the direction of the centre line of an air transit route should be minimized such that the helicopter can be maintained in a level attitude when in flight. 3.4.4.6 Air transit routes should be selected to permit autorotative or OEI landings, minimizing injury to persons on the ground or water, or damage to property. 3.4.4.7 If it is planned to employ a virtual FATO as described in 3.2.3.4, the transit between the FATO and the stands could be by air transit. 3.5 APRONS AND STANDS In Annex 14, Volume 1, covering aerodromes, apron and stands have an interdependent relationship that results in provisions relating to their physical characteristics being contained and associated with the Aerodrome Design Manual (Doc 9157), Part 2. 3.5.1 The apron 3.5.1.1 The SARPs in Annex 14, Volume I, covering aprons, provide few Standards, relying instead on objective statements contained in a series of recommendations. The methods for meeting these objectives are contained in Doc 9157 (design principles and examples). 3.5.1.2 Where an apron is envisaged for a heliport, Annex 14, Volume I, and the relevant part of Doc 9157 should be used as a basis for its provision. 3.5.2 The stand 3.5.2.1 General 3.5.2.1.1 The stand is a defined area primarily intended to accommodate a helicopter, its passengers and crew, heliport ground handling staff and equipment used for purposes of loading or unloading passengers, mail or cargo, fuelling, parking or maintenance. Where air taxiing operations are conducted, it will contain a TLOF. The stand may be designed for a helicopter of any size up to the D-value of the heliport. 3.5.2.1.2 As with all defined areas, encapsulation allows the stand to be positioned in isolation, or in combination with other defined or subsidiary areas. In the following sections, examples of stands are shown; this is not intended to limit the freedom of the designer in providing combinations of stands meeting the Standards of Annex 14, Volume II. 3.5.2.1.3 Only the ground area and surface conditions are specified in Annex 14, Volume II, and not the airspace under which it is situated. For a PC2/3 heliport, it is advisable not to position a stand or stands underneath a flight path in order to avoid, in case of an emergency landing of a helicopter on departure or arrival, the risk of collision involving parked helicopters. 3.5.2.1.4 As with the TLOF, Annex 14, Volume II, 3.1.29, requires the stand to ‘…be provided with markings which clearly indicate the touchdown position and, by their form any limitations on manoeuvring’. The integrity of the stand and the safety of the helicopter are dependent upon manoeuvring and touchdown being accurately conducted on the markings provided. 3.5.2.2 Manoeuvring on the ground (wheeled undercarriage) For ground stands other than a taxi-through, manoeuvring with containment will depend on the radius curves and short lead-in/lead-out lines (between the curves). Each of these elements adds to the required dimensions of the stand (see Figure II-3-14). The radius curves should be within the limit of the radius of turn provided by the manufacturer19 (see also Appendix A to Chapter 3, 3.5.2). In the absence of substantiating data, the minimum radius of turn should be 0.5D. 3.5.2.3 Stand attributes — Containment 3.5.2.3.1 Containment is provided for the helicopter undercarriage and people and equipment necessary to carry out the functions performed on the stand. The minimum size for an air taxi or taxi-through stand is 1.2D (see Figure II-3-14); a ground taxi stand with entry/exit from a single side will require a greater area (see Figure II-3-15). 3.5.2.3.2 Containment of the helicopter is a function shared between the stand and its associated protection area as described in 3.5.2.5. Figure II-3-14. 1.2D Stand with a helicopter on the TDPC 3.5.2.3.3 For a ground-taxi stand with an entry/exit from one side the minimum, dimension should be 1.2D plus, on the longitudinal axis, 2 x the recommended radius + the length of the lead-in/lead out line20 between the two radii (see Figure II-3-15). A stand along with its two entry/exit lead-in lines is considered to be one integral unit and should satisfy the requirements for (taxi-route) containment only on the outer boundaries. Figure II-3-15. Bi-directional ground-taxi stand with entry/exit from one side 3.5.2.3.4 If a ground-taxi stand is made dual purpose (for example when allowing smaller helicopter types to air taxi), a TLOF with a TDPC, centred on the stand, should be provided (see Figure II-3-16). The related taxiway should, in that case, be of an appropriate size (see the conditional text in 3.4.1.3). Figure II-316. Bi-directional ground taxi stand with integrated TLOF 3.5.2.4 Stand attributes — Surface conditions 3.5.2.4.1 The helicopter stand has similar surface condition requirements as the TLOF with the exception of surface loading. For that reason, surface loading only is considered here. 3.5.2.4.2 For a stand without a TLOF, access will be by ground taxiing. Since ground taxiing is a dynamic manoeuvre, it is recommended that the surface loading is at least that for a normal touchdown. 3.5.2.4.3 For a stand with a TLOF, the area outside the TLOF does not need dynamic loading but, for safety reasons, it is recommended that it is the same as the TLOF. 3.5.2.4.4 For a stand that is used by vehicles and equipment in the servicing of aircraft, the surface should be capable of withstanding the traffic that is intended. Ground service vehicles and equipment might place a greater load on the stand (and TLOF) than a helicopter and this should be reflected in the surface loading (see also 3.1.8.3). 3.5.2.4.4 The mean slope in any direction on a stand should not exceed 2 per cent. This will enable sufficient drainage. The slope also enables helicopter landings when the mast moment indication is inoperative and slope landings with a slope of more than 5 per cent are prohibited. Wheeled helicopters can be manoeuvred without effects on the airframe of the helicopter. 3.5.2.5 Stand associations and subsidiary areas - Protection area The protection area serves a function similar to a combined FATO/SA; it extends outwards from the periphery of the stand and does not require a solid surface. 3.5.2.5.1 Containment 3.5.2.5.1.1 Helicopter containment provides for positioning within the stand and errors of manoeuvring. The size of the containment area is dependent upon the type of approach to the stand and limitations on manoeuvring. Figure II-3-17. Single stand with protection area – object on perimeter of stand 3.5.2.5.1.2 Turning stand. Where there are no limitations on manoeuvring, the protection area extends 0.4D from the periphery of the stand, regardless of whether it is approached from the hover or by ground-taxi. 3.5.2.5.1.3 Taxi-through stand. It has a protection area directly related to the size of the equivalent taxi-route. The protection area should be centred on the stand and have a minimum dimension of, for ground taxi, a ground taxi-route (1.5 x overall width of the largest helicopter it is intended to serve); or, for air taxi, an air taxi-route (2 x overall width). 3.5.2.5.1.4 Collocated stands. As with all defined areas, encapsulation allows stands to be located in isolation or in combination. Figure II-3-18. Ground taxi-through stands (with taxiway/ground taxi-route) Figure II-3-19. Air taxi-through stands (with air taxi-route) Figure II-3-20. Ground taxi stand with entry/exit from a single side 3.5.2.5.1.5 The protection area of stands may overlap when non-simultaneous operations are authorized (Figure II-3-21 shows a normal configuration and Figure II-3-22 shared protection areas). This relaxation is based upon the principle that encapsulation allows static objects to be contained on the boundary of any defined and associated subsidiary area (as per Figure II-3-17). An object in the adjacent stand should be contained entirely within the stand boundary and should be inactive. There should be positive control of taxiing in adjacent stands. All Stands Active Figure II-3-21. Turning stands with air taxi-routes: simultaneous use with all stands active Figure II-3-22. Turning stands with air taxi-routes: non-simultaneous use with outer stands active 3.5.2.5.2 Surface conditions 3.5.2.5.2.1 The protection area is not required to be solid and has attributes similar to those for a collocated FATO and safety area. Essential objects such as visual aids and firefighting systems may be contained in the protection area: a) for that part of the protection area up to 0.75D from the centre of the stand (the equivalent of the FATO), penetrating a plane 5 cm above the surface of the stand; and b) at or from 0.75D from the centre of the stand (the equivalent of the SA), penetrating a plane 25 cm above the stand sloping upwards and outwards at a gradient of 5 per cent. 3.5.2.5.2.2 The Standard allows essential objects up to 25 cm between all collocated stands, including those with a shared protection area, except for ground taxi-through stands with a protection area based upon ground taxi-routes, where they would be restricted to 5 cm. 3.5.2.5.3 When solid, the surface should not exceed an upward slope of 4 per cent outwards from the edge of the stand. The slope on a protection area is consistent with that of the safety area. Where several stands are combined and interconnected, the slope on the protection areas should not exceed the mean slope of the stands. Appendix A to Chapter 3 THE DESIGN HELICOPTER1 1. GENERAL 1.1 The introduction of the design helicopter in Annex 14, Volume II, removed the link between the design process and a specific type of helicopter. 1.2 This permits a simplification of the process - aggregating the most demanding set of helicopter dimensions into the design helicopter, which could then be used to set limits for defined areas. 1.3 In order to define the critical design helicopter, the following elements have to be established: a) MTOM; b) largest dimension of the helicopter with the rotors turning (D); c) largest width of the helicopter (which is generally accepted to be RD); d) largest UCW; e) largest containment area for all undercarriages (length and width (TLOF)); f) largest distance between the Main Rotor Centroid and the mid-point of the D; g) required dimensions for hover and, if applicable, ground turning; h) wheel/skid loading (to establish the surface loading requirements); i) fuselage length/width (for the RFFS calculations); and j) critical obstacle avoidance criteria for obstacle limitation surfaces. 1.4 Items a) and b) are not discussed here as they are the basic designators2; h) is discussed in Appendix B; and i) in Chapter 6. The remaining items will be examined in detail to see how they impact on each other and heliport design. Note.— To assist with this examination, data for analysis is taken from the (corrected) tables that are contained in Appendix B of AC 150/5390-2C issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 24 April 2012. 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 In the following sections, where possible3, each of the critical design elements is statistically analysed to establish how any existing figure/ratio stands up to examination. Where a figure/ratio has not been provided, there is a suggestion on what a representative figure for a critical element might reasonably be. 2.2 An FAA data set has been partitioned into subsets of Design D; any boundary chosen can be regarded artificial but there do appear to be natural boundaries at D values of 22 m (72 ft), 15 m (50 ft) and 12 m (40 ft). Where necessary, these boundaries have been used in the following analyses4. 2.3 Establishing the Design D will be one of the first choices of the designer; once decided, appropriate analysis of the data set can be undertaken. 3. CRITICAL DESIGN ELEMENTS 3.1 Rotor diameter (RD) or largest overall width 3.1.1 The rotor diameter (for single-main rotor helicopters5) represents the widest dimension of a helicopter when the rotors are turning; it is used to establish the width of areas where the helicopter is intended to travel bi-directionally, i.e. taxi-routes, taxi-through stands or the obstacle limitation surfaces. 3.1.2 The figure of 0.83D, i.e. a proportion of the Design D, has been used as the standard for largest over width (RD) of the design helicopter. The abbreviation RD was deleted from Annex 14, Volume II (although the term ‘rotor diameters’ is still used to define the outer width of the obstacle limitation surfaces); however, it is used in this appendix. 3.1.3 If data for all single rotor helicopters in FAA AC 150/5390-2C is examined, the result in Table II-3-A-1 is observed: Table II-3-A-1. Rotor Diameter Full Data Set (53 values) Mean 0.85D Minimum 0.75D Maximum 0.90D Values >0.83D 45 Values <=0.83D 8 Note.— For this analysis, the full data set was used as there was no statistically significant difference between the superset and three subsets. 3.1.4 It is clear from the analysis that the proportion of the D that represents the rotor diameter should not be 0.83D as only eight of the 53 helicopters examined fall within that value; for that reason, in Annex 14, Volume II, ‘overall width’ is used in its full form. Note.— It should be stressed, that the value chosen for the required area for undercarriage containment (TLOF) is not derived from the rotor diameter; it is just a co-incidence that the two values are the same. 3.2 Undercarriage width 3.2.1 The UCW represents the widest dimension of the undercarriage; it is used to establish the width of areas on which the helicopter is intended to travel, or be placed, bi-directionally, i.e. the taxiway or a TLOF with limited manoeuvring. 3.2.2 When introducing the design helicopter, it was considered that as many values as possible should be expressed as proportions of ‘D’. In order to establish whether this could be achieved for undercarriage widths, an analysis was carried out using the data in FAA AC 150/5390-2C with the results shown below. 3.2.3 Table II-3-A-2 shows an aggregation of the data to establish the mean/min/max values of UCW, and the proportion of that width to RD and D in multiples of 1.5 and 2 UCWs. The first section of the table uses the complete data set; subsequent rows have the results partitioned into subsets with the design helicopter D respectively set at 72 ft (22 m), 50 ft (15 m) and 40 ft (12 m) 6. Table II-3-A-2. Undercarriage widths Complete dataset from AC 150/5390-2C (including S64) UCW 1.5UCW 1.5 UCW/RD 1.5 UCW/D 2UCW 2UCW/RD 2UCW/D Mean 8.32 12.48 0.32RD 0.27D 16.64 0.43RD 0.36D Min 5.50 8.25 0.22RD 0.19D 11.00 0.30RD 0.26D Max 19.90 29.85 0.48RD 0.36D 39.80 0.64.RD 0.48D Design data (largest value and proportion of a Design D of 72 ft (22 m)) 14.00 21.00 0.35RD 0.29D 28.00 0.47RD 0.39D Design data (largest value and proportion of Design D of 50 ft (15 m)) 8.80 13.20 0.32RD 0.27D 17.60 0.43RD 0.36D Design data (largest value and proportion of Design D of 40 ft (12 m)) 8.80 13.20 0.40RD 0.34D 17.60 0.54RD 0.45D 3.2.4 The conclusion reached is that the UCW proportion in terms of RD and D do not follow a set pattern7; there is therefore no benefit in specifying the ratio of undercarriage width to proportions of either D or RD. 3.3 Required containment area for the undercarriage 3.3.1 Because of the containment area for the undercarriages of helicopters, ‘a heliport is intended to serve’ cannot be derived from a single type or common types; it is necessary to establish a sound method for producing a minimum dimension which can be regarded as safe. As shown below, this cannot just be a proportion of a specific helicopter type’s undercarriage length or width because the configurations of undercarriage vary so widely. Where a tail-dragger’s undercarriage might be displaced mainly behind the mid-point, that for the nose-wheel might be predominantly forward of that point. Both of these types, as well as skidded undercarriages, have to be considered in order to establish a safe minimum containment area as the first step8 towards defining a minimum size for the TLOF. 3.3.2 In previous years, the minimum area required for touchdown was established as1.5 times the length or the width of the undercarriage, whichever is the greater, of the largest helicopter the area is intended to serve. 3.3.3 This method is no longer appropriate; unlike the undercarriage width, which has a symmetrical distribution either side of the rotor centroid, the longitudinal distribution may have a forward or rearward bias. The effect of this can be seen from the S76 in Figure II-3-A-1(a representative modern medium twin), which has all wheels ahead of the helicopter mid-point. Note.— Whilst the undercarriage could be contained within its own length, this would result in the theoretical minimum containment area (for the whole helicopter) in an omnidirectional FATO being 1.5D rather than 1D. Figure II-3-A-1. S76 showing the absolute minimum undercarriage containment area 3.3.4 Under the previous Standard, the minimum size would have been 1.5 undercarriage lengths – i.e. 1.5 x 5 m = 7.75 m, when the minimum area to achieve undercarriage containment9 is 10.06 m (without contingency reserve) – i.e. more than twice the undercarriage length. 3.3.5 A similar situation exists for the AW139 in Figure II-3-A-2, where all wheels are also ahead of the helicopter mid-point and the minimum undercarriage containment area would also be more than twice the undercarriage length. Figure II-3-A-2. AW139 showing the absolute minimum undercarriage containment area 3.3.6 Analysis was undertaken to establish the minimum area (expressed as a ratio of D) in which all undercarriages of a design helicopter could be contained, and it was concluded that with the pilot positioned above the 0.5D circle, a centrally located TLOF needs to be in the order of 0.83D of the design helicopter to contain all elements of the undercarriage of helicopters studied. 3.3.7 The data in the RFM normally shows the distance to the back of the skid, or to the front wheel, from the rotor centroid. However, as has been observed, the TLOF is not sited with respect to the rotor centroid but the mid-point of the helicopter; data manipulation has yielded the (selected)10 results for wheeled helicopters shown in Table II-3-A-3: Table II-3-A-3. Static undercarriage containment (wheeled helicopters) Analysis of smallest required surface area for wheeled helicopters Type UC FWD or AFTof mid-point Length of UC (m) Smallest surfacearea (m) Smallest surface areaproportion of D SA330 FWD 4.05 8.38 0.46 AS332 /H215 FWD 5.27 8.35 0.45 SA360 AFT 7.23 10.66 0.81 AS365 FWD 3.64 7.37 0.54 EC155 /H155 FWD 3.91 7.88 0.55 LEONARDO 139 FWD 4.33 9.54 0.57 EC225 /H225 FWD 5.25 10.09 0.52 S61N AFT 7.16 8.13 0.37 UH 60 AFT 8.84 11.76 0.60 S76 FWD 5.00 10.06 0.63 3.3.8 As can be seen in Table II-3-A-3, where the ‘smallest surface area – proportion of D’ in the table exceeds 0.5D, the wheels will be outside the TD/PM – either FWD or AFT of the circle (in accordance with data shown in the table). 3.3.9 The smallest surface area (metres) depends upon the configuration of the undercarriage: where all parts of the undercarriage are either ahead or behind the mid-point of the helicopter, the smallest surface area will be more than double the length of the undercarriage11. 3.3.10 The smallest surface area shown is based upon absolute accuracy in aircraft geometry 12 and positioning without error. Clearly, neither of these assumptions can be relied upon in practice. 3.3.11 Less of a spread exists for skidded aircraft as can be seen from the (selected) results for skidded helicopters in Table II-3-A-4. Table II-3-A-4. Static undercarriage containment (skidded helicopters) Analysis of smallest required surface area for skidded helicopters Type UC FWD or AFT ofmid-point Length of UC (m) Smallest surfacearea (m) Smallest surface areaproportion of D B412 FWD 2.41 6.23 0.36 SA341 FWD 1.95 4.01 0.33 AS355 FWD 2.62 5.54 0.43 EC135 /H135 FWD 3.20 6.61 0.54 AS350 /H125 FWD 2.62 5.69 0.44 BO105 FWD 2.53 5.73 0.48 BK117 FWD 3.54 7.49 0.58 EC120 FWD 2.87 5.43 0.47 EC130/H130 FWD 3.20 6.57 0.52 EC145 /H145 FWD 2.90 6.28 0.48 3.3.12 As indicated in Annex 14, Volume II, the provision of a minimum size TLOF relies upon analysis of the data and the addition of a safety factor. Unlike containment in width 13, containment in length is a much more complex issue; it has to consider skidded helicopters, wheeled helicopters with nose wheels (tricycle) and also tail wheels (tail draggers) within a population of helicopters for which the heliport has been designed. 3.3.13 Table II-3-A-5 shows the mean, minimum and maximum values for wheeled and skidded undercarriages. As expected, the maximum data value in the table is dominated by the result for the SA360; in view of this, the wheeled data reproduced in the second table excludes the SA360. Table II-3-A-5. Mean undercarriage containment Smallest surface area as a proportion of D — wheeled (with outlier) Mean surface area 0.54D Minimum surface area 0.37D Maximum surface area 0.81D Smallest surface area as a proportion of D – wheeled (without outlier) Mean surface area 0.51D Minimum surface area 0.37D Maximum surface area 0.63D Smallest surface area as a proportion of D - skidded Mean surface area 0.46D Minimum surface area 0.33D Maximum surface area 0.58D 3.3.14 From this limited analysis, it is concluded that, leaving aside the predominant outlier (the AS360, which might have to be set aside and dealt with as a special case), positioning without taking errors into account requires at least a surface area of 0.63D for the population of helicopters. 3.3.15 Arriving at a safe and practical minimum size for the TLOF is not simple: adding a safety factor of 50 per cent would result in a minimum TLOF of: For the mean of 0.51D of wheeled helicopters: 0.76D Or the largest value of 0.63D of wheeled helicopters: 0.95D 3.3.16 However, in mitigation towards a figure of less than 0.95D, the errors in geometry of helicopters will rarely be more than 10 per cent; positioning errors, if the TD/PM is used, are likely to be less than 20 per cent. If both factors are applied to the maximum value, it would provide the following results: Adding the 10 per cent geometry errors to the largest value in wheeled helicopters: 0.63D + 10 per cent = 0.693D Adding the 20 per cent positioning errors 14 to this value would provide: 0.693D + 20 per cent = 0.83D 3.3.17 It is therefore concluded that, with the pilot positioned above the 0.5D circle, a TLOF needs to be 0.83D of the design helicopter to contain all elements of the undercarriage of helicopters studied. 3.3.18 However, there might be outliers like the AS 360, or the S-70, which require special treatment. It should also be understood that, because the contingency factor is smaller than normally provided in other annexes, deliberate misuse and non-compliance with positional marking conventions could result in a reduction in separation from obstacles to a hazardous level. 3.4 Distance between rotor-centroid and helicopter mid-point 3.4.1 In areas where turning is permitted, distance from obstacles depends on the turning circle of the helicopter i.e. the achievement of containment. The most natural method of performing an axial turn in a hover is to use the antitorque device to rotate the helicopter around the rotor-centroid. However, the rotor-centroid sits ahead of the helicopter mid-point by as much as 10 per cent of its length. 3.4.2 In the following analysis, an assumption is made that a helicopter will be situated in the centre of the defined area with the aid of a shoulder line or TD/PM (both of which provide a visual cue for the pilot that is set at 0.25D from the defined area centre point). 3.4.3 When the helicopter is accurately sited on its marking, the rotor-centroid sits one displacement value (green line above red line) ahead of the centre point of the defined area, as seen in Figure II-3-A-3. Figure II-3-A-3. Helicopter turning on rotor-centroid (black circle = 1.2D) 3.4.4 From any position on the TDPC, using the rotor centroid as a fulcrum, the rear of the helicopter will travel around a circle with a radius of 0.5D plus one displacement. The maximum travel will be 0.5D plus two displacements at the 180° turn point – after which the helicopter will start to return to the centre of its defined area. 3.4.5 Analysis of the data provides the information contained in Table II-3-A-6. Table II-3-A-6. Rotor-centroid displacement Displacement of rotor-centroid from helicopter mid-point (53 values) Mean displacement 0.08D Minimum displacement 0.05D Maximum displacement 0.13D 3.4.6 The data indicates that, for any defined area in which turns are conducted around the rotor-centroid when the helicopter is correctly positioned on the TDPC, containment would have to be predicated upon the D of the helicopter plus four displacement values (two when commenced at one starting position and two when commenced at the diametrically opposed starting position) Hence, a containment area using the mean displacement value in Table II-3-A-6 would have to be 1.32D. 3.4.7 This minimum size is predicated upon three assumptions: (1) that the helicopter is placed in the centre of the defined area; (2) that all axial turns are performed around the rotor-centroid; and (3) that all defined areas have an unrestricted potential for manoeuvring. Note.— There would be no benefit gained from attempting to place the helicopter with its rotor-centroid at the centre of the defined area. Any gain claimed would be based upon a false assumption that the helicopter could be accurately placed, and turned, without an external reference, by the ground or air crew. 3.5 Required dimensions for hover and ground turning 3.5.1 Turning in the hover 3.5.1.1 If a helicopter is precisely turned around its rotor centroid, its tail prescribes an circle with a diameter of 1.2D15 as shown in Figure II-3-A-4. Figure II-3-A-4. Helicopter rotating around its rotor centroid 3.5.1.2 If a helicopter is precisely turned around its centre point, it will be contained within a circle of 1D, as shown in Figure II-3-A-5. Figure II-3-A-5. Helicopter rotating around its centre point (showing the TDPC) 3.5.1.3 Aerodynamically, it is much easier to turn a helicopter around its rotor centroid because it makes best use of the anti-torque device. However, whilst this is the simplest and most efficient method of performing axial turns, it is not possible to maintain an accurate position in centre of the area. 3.5.1.4 Turning around the centre point of the helicopter is problematical because the pilot’s position would have to follow the TDPC, a combination of simultaneously turning and moving sideways which is difficult to do accurately given that the primary function of TDPC is to to provide accurate positioning cues for touchdown (i.e. the equivalent of the shoulder line) and not a reference for performing turns (manoeuvring). 3.5.1.5 In view of the potential errors in turning, helicopter containment for hover turning in the FATO is set to 1.5D. 3.5.2 Turning on the ground (wheeled undercarriage) 3.5.2.1 Theoretically, a wheeled helicopter can be turned around its rotor centroid; however, it can place an unacceptable strain on the undercarriage if the helicopter is forced to rotate in its own length. In addition, a short run along the longitudinal axis may be required for the releasing and setting of wheel locks. 3.5.2.2 If a helicopter is precisely manoeuvred around a radius-of-turn of 0.25D, it will be contained within a circle of 1.25D; and for a radius of turn of 0.5D, 1.75D, as shown in Figure II-3-A-6. 3.5.2.3 In practice, most wheeled helicopters will have a minimum radius of turn established by the manufacturer which should be used in the design process. In the absence of data, the minimum radius of turn should be 0.5D. Figure II-3-A-6. Helicopter rotating around a circle of radius of 0.25 D and 0.5 D 3.6 Critical obstacle avoidance criteria for obstacle limitation surfaces 3.6.1 When establishing the obstacle limitation surfaces described in Chapter 4, the designer should take note of the Category A procedures of the population of helicopter types for which the heliport is intended, to ensure that they are fully accounted for in the definition of the design helicopter (see 3.2.4.4, Appendix A to Chapter 3 and Appendix D to Chapter 4). A realistic range of temperatures and density altitudes should be used when making this determination. 3.6.2 It should be noted that, in the case of heliports utilising vertical procedures, the Category A supplements of older types might contain conservative or very conservative slopes. In these cases, the designer might have to limit the types of helicopter for which the heliport is designed. Appendix B to Chapter 3 SURFACE LOADING 1. GENERAL Surface loading has a substantial effect on the requirements for heliport design. Two terms commonly used in the provision of surface loading are defined in common language: a) static: having no motion; being at rest; quiescent1; and b) dynamic: of, or relating to energy or to objects in motion. 1.1 Static loading Static loading is not normally a critical design issue but might impact the safety of heliports if the distribution of undercarriage loading is not considered when establishing the attributes of the critical design helicopter2, which is then used to establish static loading. 1.2 Dynamic loading 1.2.1 With respect to the force that a helicopter exerts on a surface, a number of terms are used that are not universally defined, or have meanings that differ in reference documents. The three most commonly used terms with respect to a landing (touchdown) are normal, hard/heavy, and emergency: a) normal landing. A normal landing may not interfere with safe operations; it is represented by the Airworthiness Standards for Rotorcraft (e.g. FAA Part 29 or EASA CS 29)3 limit load, and relates to a contact velocity of 1.98 m/sec4; b) hard/heavy landing. A hard (or heavy) landing is not defined for helicopters; however, FAA Part 29 or EASA CS Part 29 stipulates that the ultimate load is one which the structure has to support without failure, i.e. the landing gear must withstand the ultimate load test without collapsing. In the FAA Part 29 or EASA CS Part 29 test, the vertical speed is set to 2.4 m/sec5. It is therefore reasonable to assume that a helicopter that has a contact velocity between 1.98 m/sec and 2.4 m/sec has been subject to a hard landing; and c) emergency landing. It is extremely difficult to establish the conditions of an emergency landing beyond the undercarriage collapse load. Therefore, any classification system that wishes to apply design criteria to an emergency landing would have to have set its own arbitrary limit. In this manual, that limit is set to 3.6 m/sec6 and 2.5 g. 1.2.2 Converting contact velocity to heliport design criteria requires that the impact loads associated with those speeds be assessed. In FAA Part 29 or EASA CS Part 29, the undercarriage is subject to a drop test from a height that will provide, at impact, the vertical speeds stated for the ‘normal’ and ‘hard landing’ conditions, respectively 1.98 m/sec and 2.4 m/sec. Following the limit tests, the undercarriage (or element being tested) is inspected for distortion or damage; for the ultimate limit test, some distortion is permitted 7. The resulting force at the contact points will depend on the attenuation qualities of the undercarriage; the lower the attenuation, the higher the force. 1.2.3 The result of the drop tests has relevance to the serviceability of the aircraft following a normal or hard/heavy landing but, alone, does not provide design criteria for the heliport. Figure II-3-B-1. Application of landing gear loading from FAA AC 150 5390-2C 1.2.4 The FAA employs a system provided in advisory circular AC 150 5390 which states8: “A dynamic load of 0.2 second or less duration may occur during a hard landing. For design purposes, assume dynamic loads at 150 per cent of the take-off weight of the design helicopter. When specific loading data is not available, assume 75 per cent of the weight of the design helicopter to be applied equally through the contact area of the rear two rear wheels (or the pair rear wheels of a dual-wheel configuration) of a wheelequipped helicopter. For a skid-equipped helicopter assume 75 per cent of the weight of the design helicopter to be applied equally through the aft contact areas of the two skids of a skid-equipped helicopter. Contact manufacturers to obtain the aft contact area for specific helicopters of interest.” (See Figure 3.25). 1.2.5 As is stated in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 19901-3: “Installations may be designed to accommodate a particular type of helicopter. Greater operational flexibility may result from a classification system of design.” 1.2.6 The classification system embodied in Annex 14, Volume II, is the design helicopter (see Appendix A). It is established after assessing the data (of the population of helicopters that the landing surface is intended for) provided by manufacturers with respect to the undercarriage drop tests and the wheel/skid loading forces. 1.2.7 With respect to the application of the design criteria, the following statements are taken from the Offshore Technology Conference (OTC) 2001/072, quoting ISO 19901-3: “A helicopter heavy landing may occur infrequently as a result of an unfavourable combination of factors such as bad weather, minor mechanical problems and slight pilot mishandling. The consequent actions on the helideck structure will be within the envelope for the emergency landing condition.” “The emergency landing condition is an accidental action condition expected to occur very infrequently and resulting from such serious events as loss of power, major pilot mishandling or fouling of landing gear during take-off and landing. Where the helicopter landing gear collapses, the body of the helicopter may then impact onto the deck, distributing the impact load further.” 1.2.8 The appropriate level of surface loading is that which matches the risk profile of the likely arrival. Whilst the emergency landing limit should be applicable to the TLOF of FATO, it should not be applicable to the TLOF in a stand. 2. PROVISION FOR SURFACE LOADING AND ITS ASSOCIATED TERMS 2.1 General 2.1.1 Annex 14, Volume II, relies on objective criteria leaving the precise methods of compliance to be described in guidance material in a State’s regulations. Terms used in the objective criteria include: a) withstand the traffic of helicopters that the area is intended to serve; b) have bearing strength sufficient to accommodate a rejected take-off by PC1 helicopters (i.e. helicopters operating in PC1); c) be capable of supporting, without structural damage, the helicopters that the heliport is intended to serve; d) routes selected permitting autorotative or OEI landings such that, as a minimum requirement, injury to persons on the ground or water, or damage to property are minimized; and e) be suitable for emergency landings. 2.1.2 In seeking to understand the intent of these objective terms, it is necessary to look at their meaning in an operational or airworthiness context. 2.2 Withstand the traffic of helicopters that the area is intended to serve 2.2.1 This term is considered to imply two objectives: a) the surface loading should be appropriate for the type of use intended; and b) the likely intensity of traffic must be considered to ensure that the surface loading remains as specified for the life of the facility (or the applicable maintenance period) i.e. it must be durable. 2.2.2 This objective was applied to the TLOF and ground taxiway of a surface level heliport, and the FATO/TLOF of an elevated heliport. In effect, all contact surfaces would support dynamic loading and be durable with respect to the intensity of usage. 2.2.3 When used without the type of helicopter specified, for example, a defined area such as an apron or stand for which access is provided to vehicles and equipment other than the helicopter, consideration of the additional required surface loading might be necessary. 2.3 Have bearing strength to accommodate a rejected take-off 2.3.1 Category A procedures are demonstrated, during the certification process, to result in a safe landing in a rejected take-off. These procedures are also routinely practiced at representative masses during the pilot proficiency checks to ensure that they can be conducted without damage to the helicopter or injury to occupant. 2.3.2 In view of the fact that these landings can be conducted with the ROD of 1.8 m/s (6 ft/sec), it is considered that the RTOD needs to meet the normal landing provision. 2.4 Be capable of supporting, without structural damage, the helicopters that the heliport is intended to serve 2.4.1 This objective previously applied only to the safety area that abutted the FATO to provide an area in which the helicopter might land in the case of errors of positioning. Because the probability of such an occurrence was small, this area was permitted to contain frangible items such as lights and navigational aids. 2.4.2 Recently, this property was removed from the Safety Area because it was no longer required to be a solid surface. 2.5 Routes permitting autorotative or one-engine-inoperative landings When used in an operational context, this was intended to describe a surface area where a safe forced landing could be achieved. 2.6 Be suitable for emergency landings 2.6.1 This objective was used for the air taxi-route: it could have meant one of two things: a) the surface below the air taxi-route could support the ultimate design load of a helicopter which has had an engine failure; or b) the surface below the air taxi-route was free of objects, other than those which are frangible and are permitted, such that any helicopter having an engine failure could land unimpeded. 2.6.2 Unlike the TLOF where the probability of a landing is 1, the probability of a landing in an air taxi-route is linked to failure of an engine. As indicated in Annex 6, Part III, the probability of an engine failure for modern engines is equal to or better than 1 x 10-5 (1:100 000) per flying hour. 2.6.3 As the duration of an air taxi is limited to the transit between FATO and stand and is unlikely to extend to more than two minutes, the probability of an emergency landing occurring on the air taxiway is no greater than 1:3 000 000 for a single and 2:3 000 000 for a twin engine. 2.6.4 The consequence of such a failure is putting the air taxiway out of commission for a short period. It is therefore unlikely that the authors intended that air taxi-route should be paved or provided with dynamic loading for an emergency landing. This would also have permitted a hover taxi from a FATO over water to a stand with a TLOF. 3. SUMMARY OF SURFACE LOADING Note.— If applying a type of loading provided in this manual causes difficulties in States which have already constructed their regulations, the objective text the Annex 14, Volume II, should be observed and the choice of methods of compliance decided by the State. 3.1 Static loading 3.1.1 If static surface loading is required for a defined area, the basis for that loading, as per guidance referenced by this appendix, should be applied: a) at the total contact surfaces of the wheeled undercarriage or skids; or b) at the main wheels. 3.1.2 Static loading is not equally distributed between wheels, or over the whole surface area of skids; this should be considered when establishing the attributes of the design helicopter. 3.2 Dynamic loading 3.2.1 With respect to the provision of dynamic loading (using the FAA Part 29, EASA CS Part 29 and the previous edition of this manual as reference points), there appear to be three divisions: a) Part 29 limit state (for normal touchdown): tested with an impact velocity of 1.98 m/sec; b) Part 29 ultimate state (for a hard touchdown): tested with an impact velocity of 2.4 m/sec; or c) ultimate limit state (for the emergency touchdown): relating to an impact velocity of 3.6 m/sec. 3.2.2 The force relating to a) and b) can be obtained from the test results performed during certification. The design helicopter should reflect the limits associated with the population of helicopters for which the heliport has been designed. The last is an arbitrary figure used since the advent of Annex 14, Volume II. 3.2.3 Limited conducted analysis indicates that the three basic values should be 1.5g, 2g, and 2.5g times the MTOM of the design helicopter (see also Chapter 3, 3.1.8). 3.2.4 As per Annex 14, Volume II, there are no assigned values to dynamic loading; that is left for a State to determine in accordance with its risk assessment. However, it is suggested that: a) the Part 29 limit state (normal touchdown) be applicable to: TLOF in a stand; and ground taxiway; b) the Part 29 ultimate state (hard touchdown) be applicable to: TLOF in a surface level FATO; c) the Heliport Manual ultimate limit state (emergency landing) be applicable to: TLOF of an elevated heliport. Appendix C to Chapter 3 ESTABLISHING THE REJECTED TAKE-OFF DISTANCE 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE ISSUE 1.1 There have been few changes to the helicopter certification standard in recent years. Although the last major revision of performance in the FAA Part 29 certification code (Amendment 29-39 - 1996) contained modification of the vertical profiles, the text still referred to the rejected take-off and landing distances and the necessity to include the entire helicopter, including the rotors, in the resulting dimensions. 1.2 For landing, and specifically for those Category A procedures with vertical components, additional guidance introducing a surface size was added, specifying that the minimum elevated heliport size demonstrated for the OEI approach procedure should also be provided in the Flight Manual. 1.3 For most procedures contained in the Category A Supplement of the Flight Manual, the minimum heliport size demonstrated might be the only dimension provided (thus serving both for take-off and landing) and, because there is no objective set in its provision, it has been used to reduce the minimum dimension for the Category A procedure to that of the ‘surface area requirement’ (undercarriage, not helicopter, containment). The consequence is that there may be no dimension in the RFM that provides for the safe containment of the entire helicopter during a rejected take-off or OEI landing. 2. ANNEX 14, VOLUME II AMENDMENT TO ADDRESS CERTIFICATION PRACTICES 2.1 Since a single dimension only may now be provided in RFMs, a revision was made in Annex 14, Volume II, objectives of the TLOF and FATO, to facilitate a solution and ensure continued safety: a) TLOF was amended to contain only the surface area and loading for containment of the undercarriage (this now correlates with the dimension provided in the Category A Supplement); and b) FATO was amended to strengthen the requirement for containment of the whole helicopter but the necessity for a solid surface area was removed. 2.2 The requirement of the (additional) FATO dimension is necessary to ensure protection of the helicopter from surrounding objects. This dimension can be derived (by the manufacturer) from ‘scatter plot’ data collected and recorded during the certification flight and acceptance trials. 2.3 In the absence of provision of the helicopter containment dimension, the addition of 1 x Design D to the dimension contained in the RFM Category A Supplement would ensure a safe FATO. In most cases, this would result in a slight addition to the minimum PC1 FATO dimension specified in Annex 14, Volume II. 3. RESOLUTION OF INCONSISTENCIES IN THE RFM (TLOF/FATO/RTODR) 3.1 The following is a description of the required dimension(s) (see Figure II-3-C-1 for a technical diagram): 3.1.1 The minimum demonstrated heliport size for the OEI approach procedure should be provided in the RFM. The minimum demonstrated heliport size represents the sum of: a) size of the surface area (TLOF) required to contain the undercarriage of the rotorcraft; b) aircraft performance scatter during OEI landings to a specific reference point; and c) distance required to provide the minimum suitable visual cues for a safe OEI landing. 3.1.2 It should be noted that the minimum demonstrated heliport size does not necessarily guarantee rotor containment. The minimum rotorcraft containment area is defined as the larger of either: a) minimum demonstrated heliport size; or b) overall length of the helicopter (including main and tail rotor tip paths) plus the performance scatter seen in the heliport size determination. 3.1.3 If the minimum rotorcraft containment area is larger than the minimum demonstrated heliport size, the minimum rotorcraft containment area (FATO) should also be provided in the RFM1. Figure II-3-C-1. Performance Class 1 TLOF/FATO (RTODR) dimensions Physical dimensions Undercarriage containment area (UC)/width/length Rotorcraft overall length (D) Reference area of 1D • Touchdown reference point Performance/measured information Touchdown performance scatter (aircraft reference point scatter – 2X) +*++++++++ Undercarriage containment area plus two times the touchdown performance scatter Minimum elevated heliport size demonstrated (AC 29-2C Para 29-75(b)(2)(vii) – includes UC +two times visual cues (2V) plus two times touchdown performance scatter (2X)) Minimum rotorcraft containment area (MRCA) – overal length (D) plus the touchdownperformance scatter (2X) Appendix D to Chapter 3 ESTABLISHING A VIRTUAL CLEARWAY Note.— See also Appendix A to Chapter 4 1. DEFINITIONS 1.1 A virtual clearway is a helicopter clearway that extends outside the boundary of the heliport and complies with the helicopter clearway Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) provided in Annex 14, Volume II, Chapter 3, 3.1.16 to 3.1.20, inclusive. 1.2 The minimum dip is the lowest level in the continued take-off or balked landing. 2. GENERAL 2.1 The virtual clearway allows: a) origin of the take-off climb surface to be extended beyond the boundary of a heliport so that a descent below the OLS in the TODRH can be avoided in the take-off phase of the profile; b) use of a variable TDP to raise the elevation of the origin of the OLS above obstacles within a close proximity of the heliport (i.e. those that are directly beneath the projected clearway); c) use of a variable TDP to raise the origin of the OLS above obstacles not in close proximity of the heliport (i.e. those beyond the projected clearway); or d) use of the drop-down profile on an elevated heliport (where the obstacle environment permits it). Note.— These elements apply also to clearance above obstacles in the balked landing. 2.2 Although not all current helicopter types have the appropriate Category A (variable TDP/LDP) procedures, sufficient numbers are now being deployed to make facilitation of the virtual clearway worthwhile. All types could take advantage of the ability to extend the origin of the OLS without the use of variable TDP/LDPs. Where a State permits the use of the virtual clearway: a) the heliport designer should ensure it is configured so as to permit use by the widest population of types and users; b) operational procedures should be in place to ensure that, following an engine failure in the continued take-off or balked landing, the min dip is set so that the helicopter is able to clear all obstacles in the virtual clearway by a vertical margin of 10.7 m (35 ft); and c) for the purposes of safeguarding, the virtual clearway should be regarded as one of the obstacle limitations surfaces (OLS). 3. DIMENSION OF A VIRTUAL CLEARWAY 3.1 The length of the virtual clearway should permit the achievement of the TODRH conditions, i.e. Vtoss and a positive rate of climb (+ROC), 10.7 m (35 ft) above the elevation of the virtual clearway, at or before the outer boundary. 3.2 The width of the virtual clearway should be the specified width/diameter of the FATO plus the safety area or, the reference circle (see Chapter 4, 4.1.1.8); or, when there is a lateral element, as shown in Appendix A to Chapter 4. 4. THE LOCATION OF A VIRTUAL CLEARWAY 4.1 The inner edge of a virtual clearway should be located at, directly above or directly below the outer edge of the safety area. 4.2 The inner edge of the take-off climb surface should be located at the outer edge of the virtual clearway. 4.3 A virtual clearway that is established at the elevation of the FATO may be used to extend the origin of the take-off climb surface to the outer edge of the virtual clearway (see Figure II-3-D-1). Figure II-3-D-1. Virtual clearway at elevation of the FATO 4.4 A virtual clearway that is established other than at the elevation of the FATO should be located at: a) the level of the highest obstacle in the clearway (see Figures II-3-D-2, II-3-D-4 and II-3-D-5); or b) an elevation to ensure that the OLS is above obstacles (see Figure II-3-D-3); the minimum dip should be no lower than 4.5 m (15 ft) above the clearway, providing the helicopter remains at least 35ft above any obstacle, or the surface, beneath the clearway Figure II-3-D-2. Virtual clearway above the level of the FATO (obstacles in clearway) Figure II-3-D-3. Virtual clearway above the level of the elevated FATO (obstacle in OLS) Figure II-3-D-4. Virtual clearway above the level of the elevated FATO Figure II-3-D-5. Virtual clearway below the level of the FATO 4.5 When the PC1 procedure includes a lateral element, the virtual clearway should be as shown in Appendix A to Chapter 4. OBSTACLE ENVIRONMENT 4.1 OBSTACLE LIMITATION SURFACES AND SECTORS 4.1.1 General 4.1.1.1 The specifications in Annex 14, Volume II, Chapter 4, define the airspace around heliports to be maintained free from obstacles so as to permit the intended helicopter operations at the heliports to be conducted safely and to prevent the heliports becoming unusable by the growth of obstacles around them. This is achieved by establishing a series of obstacle limitation surfaces that define the limits to which objects may project into the airspace. 4.1.1.2 In order to safeguard a helicopter during its approach to the FATO and in its climb after take-off, an approach surface and a take-off climb surface through which no obstacle is permitted to project is established for each approach and take-off climb path designated as serving the FATO. 4.1.1.3 The minimum dimensions required for such surfaces will vary considerably and depend on: a) helicopter size, its climb gradient, particularly for multi-engine helicopters with OEI, its approach speed and rate of descent on the final approach, and its controllability at such speeds; and b) conditions under which the approaches/departures are made, for example, whether from a VFR approach/departures or from a PinS approach/departure procedure with proceed visually instruction. 4.1.1.4 Once such surfaces are established, it may become necessary to remove existing obstacles which project through the surface and restrict the erection of new structures which would become obstacles (safeguarding is addressed in Chapter 2). Mobile or temporary objects such as cranes, lorries, boats and trains may be obstacles at times, in which case it might be necessary to delay helicopter operations until the obstacle is moved clear, or temporary operational limits are temporarily established (e.g. reduction of take-of mass). For longer lasting temporary obstacles, supplementary take-off climb or approach surfaces might have to be developed and promulgated. 4.1.1.5 In many instances, the presence of permanent, high obstacles such as radio masts, buildings or areas of high ground may preclude the provision of the required take-off climb/approach surfaces for a straight take-off climb or approach, whereas the criteria required for the surfaces would be feasible if: a) a curved flight path avoiding the obstacles is established (see 4.1.1.7); or b) the origin of the approach or take-off climb surfaces is elevated (see Appendix A to Chapter 4) with or without a turn. 4.1.1.6 For heliports used for operations in PC2 and PC3, approach and take-off climb paths may be selected to permit the safe forced landings or OEI landings that minimize personal injury on the ground or water, or property damage. The design helicopter and the ambient conditions will be factors in determining the suitability of such areas. 4.1.1.7 Turns in approach or take-off climb surfaces (see Figure II-4-1) 4.1.1.7.1 When selecting a curved flight path, the performance and handling characteristics of the helicopter, eluding undue discomfort to the helicopter passengers and minimizing noise nuisance by avoiding the overflying of populated areas, should be considered. 4.1.1.7.2 Practical studies have shown that for an average speed of 60 kts and a bank angle of 20°, helicopter handling and passenger comfort are within acceptable tolerances. These parameters lead to a radius of turn of 270 m, which should be regarded as a minimum. Figure II-4-1. Curved approach and take-off climb surface for all FATOs 4.1.1.7.3 In the case of an approach or take-off climb surface involving a turn: a) the lateral and vertical surfaces should be the same as those for a straight approach surface; b) for Category B or C slopes, the surface should not contain more than one curved portion, which can be placed anywhere on the length of the approach or take-off climb surface when meeting the conditions in 4.1.1.7.4 and 4.1.1.7.5 below; and c) for Category A slopes, more than one curved portion, separated by a straight section of more than 150 m, is permitted. 4.1.1.7.4 The sum of the radius of arc defining the centre line of the approach surface and the length of the straight portion originating at the inner edge should not be less than 575 m. Any combination of curve and straight portion may be established using the following formula: S+R ≥575 m and R ≥ 270 m where S = 305 m where S is the length of the straight portion and R is the radius of tum. 4.1.1.7.5 Because helicopter take-off performance is reduced in a turn, a straight portion along the take-off climb surface prior to the start of the curve should be considered for type B and C slopes; this will permit an AEO acceleration to achieve a stable climb attitude and speed before a turn is initiated. For a PC 1 heliport with a type A slope, the helicopter should be in a stable OEI climb before the end of the TODAH prior to reaching the OLS. Limits on bank angle and degradation of turns on performance in accordance with the RFM should be noted and applied to the design helicopter. Note.— At a PC 1 heliport with a type A slope, without an elevated OLS origin, operations in PC 2 and 3 can make use of the length of the TODAH to achieve a stable climb attitude and speed prior to reaching the OLS. 4.1.1.7.6 In lower than visual meteorological conditions (VMC), it may be difficult for a pilot to identify the boundaries or centre line of curved take-off climb or approach paths unless flown as a coupled approach. In the absence of such assistance, curved take-off and approach paths should be restricted to operations in VMC only. 4.1.1.8 Blending the spaces between the approach or take-off climb surface and safety area (see Figures II-4-2 to II-4-5) Note.— The reference circle is an inscribed circle inside the FATO/SA that is used for orienting the approach/take-off and climb surface, transition area and helicopter clearway. 4.1.1.8.1 Areas between the inner edge of the approach or take-off climb surface and the safety area, if any, should have the same characteristics as the safety area, since it would be unacceptable for such areas to have characteristics that were below the standards of either of the adjoining surfaces. 4.1.1.8.2 Figures II-4-2 to II-4-4 illustrate such areas by shading the relevant portions, but these are, of necessity, shown only for the basic configurations of FATO and safety area and are not drawn to scale. However, the planned direction of the approach surface may not be located in line with, or at a convenient 45° to the centreline of the FATO. Furthermore, the FATO, and thus the safety area, may be of irregular shape or be much larger than one which can only just accommodate a circle of the minimum specified dimensions. Figure II-4-2. Square FATO with reference circle and surfaces separated by 135⁰ Figure II-4-3. Octagonal FATO with reference circle and diametrically opposed surfaces 4.1.1.8.3 The issues involved with such deviations from the basic configurations are: a) where the inner edge should be located; and b) the shapes and sizes of the shaded areas may vary considerably. 4.1.1.8.4 To identify the shaded areas, if any, it is necessary to consider their side edges as extending from the ends of the inner edge to points where they meet the tangent of the reference circle at right angles to the centre line of the surface. The shaded areas will then be bounded by these side edges, the inner edge and the edges of the safety area. 4.1.1.8.5 Where the FATO is elongated, there should be two reference circles within the safety area, each located at the appropriate approach end of the safety area (see Figure II-4-4). Figure II-4-4. Rectangular FATO two reference circles and surfaces separated by $1 3 5 ^ { \circ }$ 4.1.1.8.6 Where a helicopter clearway has been established, the shaded area should be between the FATO/SA and helicopter clearway (see Figure II-4-5); the inner edge of the approach or take-off climb surface will abut with the helicopter clearway. Figure II-4-5. Rectangular FATO two reference circles and helicopter clearway 4.1.1.9 Number and separation of take-off and climb and approach surfaces 4.1.1.9.1 Heliport design and location should be such that downwind operations are avoided, crosswind operations are kept to a minimum and balked landings can be carried out with the minimum change of direction. 4.1.1.9.2 The heliport should have at least two take-off and climb and approach surfaces with a recommend separation of at least $\boldsymbol { 1 3 5 ^ { 0 } }$ (see Figure II-4-2) but ideally separated by 180⁰. Additional approach surfaces may be provided, the total number and orientation ensuring that the heliport usability factor will be at least 95 per cent for the helicopters the heliport is intended to serve. These criteria should apply equally to surface level and elevated heliports. 4.1.1.9.3 Where the aforementioned objectives cannot be met, the separation may be decreased or the number of take-off and climb and approach surfaces reduced to one in accordance with Appendix B to Chapter 4. 4.1.1.10 Slope design categories 4.1.1.10.1 The slope design categories in Table II-4-1 should not be restricted to a specific performance class and may be applicable to more than one. The categories depicted represent minimum design slope angles and not operational slopes. Consultation with helicopter operators will help to determine the appropriate slope category to apply according to the heliport environment and the helicopters the heliport is intended to serve. 4.1.1.10.2 Slope Category A generally corresponds with helicopters operated in PC 1 and characterizes the limited performance that is available with one engine inoperative. Acceleration to $\mathsf { V } _ { \mathsf { t o s s } }$ and a positive rate of climb is normally achieved over a helicopter clearway. Note.— The Category A slope is associated with an engine-failure in the take-off phase of flight for a helicopter operating in PC1 (Annex 6 — Operation of Aircraft requires operators to provide departure contingency procedures). It is likely to be paired with a superimposed Category B or C slope from the helicopter clearway, or immediately above the safety area (see Figures II-4-28 to II-4-32). Engine failure before 152 m (500 ft) might result in an aborted departure except in the case of operations where return to the heliport would not be a feasible option. 4.1.1.10.3 Slope Category B corresponds with helicopters operated AEO. The first section slope permits acceleration to the best rate-of-climb speed whilst remaining outside the avoid area of the height velocity diagram after which the second section slope is applied. Note.— The length of the first section equates to a generic equivalent to the RFM AEO take-off distance to 15 m (50 ft). 4.1.1.10.4 Slope Category C corresponds with helicopters operated AEO and characterizes a helicopter with sufficient performance to permit both acceleration and climb at the required slope. 4.1.1.10.5 Helicopters operating in all performance classes can meet the constraints of a Category C slope in the approach phase. Table II-4-1. Approach and take-off climb slope design categories Surface and dimensions Slope design categories A B C Approach and take-off climb surface: Length of inner edge Width of safety area Width of safety area Width of safety area Location of inner edge Safety area boundary Safety area boundary Safety area boundary (Clearway boundary if provided) Divergence: (1st and 2nd section) Day use only Night use 10% 10% 10% 15% 15% 15% First section: Length 3386m 245m 1220m Slope 4.5% 8% 12.5% Outer width (1:22.2) (1:12.5) (1:8) (b) N/A (b) Second section: Length N/A 830m N/A Slope N/A 16% N/A Outer width N/A (1:6.25) (b) N/A Total length from inner edge (a) 3386mc 1075mc 1220mc Transitional surface: Slope Height 50% (1:2) 50% (1:2) 50% 45md 45md (1:2) 45 md a. The approach and take-of climb surface lengths of 3 386 m, 1 075 m and 1 220 m associated with the respective slopes brings the helicopter to 152 m (500 ft) above FATO elevation. b. Seven rotor diameters overallwidth for day operations or 10 rotor diameters overall width for night operations. C. This length may be reduced if verical procedures are in place or increased if the approach surface is extended to meet the OCS of the PinS arrival/departure procedure. d. See Appendix A to Chapter 4, 2.1.1 4.1.2 Approach surface (see Figure II-4-6) Note.— For an approach surface with an elevated origin, see Appendix A to Chapter 4. Figure II-4-6. Generic approach/take-off climb surface 4.1.2.1 Description. An inclined plane or a combination of planes or, when a turn is involved, a complex surface sloping upwards from the end of the safety area and centred on a line passing through the centre of the FATO or the diameter of the reference circle. 4.1.2.2 Characteristics. The limits of an approach surface should comprise: a) an inner edge, horizontal and equal in length to the minimum specified width of the FATO plus the safety area, perpendicular to the centre line of the approach surface and located at: for a runway type FATO - the outer edge of the safety area; or for other than a runway type FATO - the outer edge of the reference circle; b) two side edges originating at the ends of the inner edge: for a FATO with a PinS approach procedure utilizing a PinS approach procedure with proceed visually instruction - diverging uniformly at a specified rate from the vertical plane containing the centre line of the FATO; or for a FATO other than with a PinS approach procedure with proceed visually instruction, diverging uniformly at a specified rate from the vertical plane containing the centre line of the FATO to a specified width and continuing thereafter at that width for the remaining length of the approach surface; and c) an outer edge horizontal and perpendicular to the centre line of the approach surface at a specified height above the elevation of the FATO. 4.1.2.3 The elevation of the inner edge should be the elevation of the safety area at the point on the inner edge that is intersected by the centre line of the approach surface. 4.1.2.4 The slope(s) of the approach surface should be measured in the vertical plane containing the centre line of the surface. 4.1.3 Transitional surface (see Figure II-4-7) Note.— For take-off climb and approach surfaces with elevated origins see Appendix A to Chapter 4. 4.1.3.1 General 4.1.3.1.1 A FATO with a PinS approach/departure procedure with proceed visually instruction may be used in conditions that are below those required for VFR flight. Consequently, seeing and avoiding obstacles that are outside the OLS whilst manoeuvring to maintain the required flight path add to the workload of the pilot. 4.1.3.1.2 For the safety of a helicopter which becomes displaced from the centre line while executing a PinS approach/departure procedure with proceed visually instruction, a transitional surface should be provided, although not a necessity for heliports which will only be used in VMC. Figure II-4-7. Transitional surface 4.1.3.2 Description. A complex surface bounded by a lower and upper edge and sloping upwards and outwards from one to the other (see Figure II-4-7 and Appendix A to Chapter 4). 4.1.3.3 Characteristics. The limits of a transitional surface should comprise: a) a lower edge beginning at the point where the approach surface and upper edge of the transitional surface are at the same height, then extending downwards and along the side of the approach surface to the inner edge of the approach surface and from there along: for a runway-type FATO the length of the side of the safety area parallel to the centre line of the FATO; or for other than a runway-type FATO, along the tangent of the reference circle parallel, and equal in length, to its diameter. b) an upper edge located at a specified height above the FATO. 4.1.3.4 The elevation of the lower edge should be: a) along the side of the approach surface, equal to the elevation of the approach surface at that point; and b) along the safety area or tangent to the reference circle, equal to the elevation of the plane of the FATO, taking account of any drainage slope. 4.1.3.5 The transitional surface should have a slope of 50 per cent (1:2) (see Table II-4-1) measured in the vertical plane at right angles to the centre line of the FATO. 4.1.4 Take-off climb surface (see Figure II-4-6) Note.— For a take-off climb surface with an elevated origin see Appendix A to Chapter 4. 4.1.4.1 During the take-off climb manoeuvre, far more power is required from the helicopter engines than is required during the descent or an approach to the hover or landing. If, during the take-off or climb phases, one engine becomes inoperative, even greater power is required from the remaining engine. However, in many helicopter types, the single engine is unable to supply the power required to sustain the best rate of climb obtainable with both engines operative, and so a lower rate and angle of climb must be accepted. 4.1.4.2 Description. An inclined plane, a combination of planes or, when a turn is involved, a complex surface, sloping upwards from the end of the safety area or helicopter clearway and centred on a line passing through the centre of the FATO. 4.1.4.3 Characteristics. The limits of a take-off climb surface should comprise: a) an inner edge horizontal and equal in length to the minimum specified width of the FATO plus the safety area, perpendicular to the centre line of the take-off climb surface and located at: for a runway type FATO - the outer edge of the safety area; for other than a runway type FATO - the tangent of the outer edge of the ‘reference circle’; or the outer edge of the helicopter clearway; b) two side edges originating at the ends of the inner edge and diverging uniformly at a specified rate from the vertical plane containing the centre line of the FATO to a specified final width and continuing thereafter at that width for the remaining length of the approach surface; and c) an outer edge horizontal and perpendicular to the centre line of the take-off climb surface and at a specified height above the elevation of the FATO. 4.1.4.4 The elevation of the inner edge should be the elevation of the safety area at the point on the inner edge that is intersected by the centre line of the take-off climb surface except that when a helicopter clearway is provided, the elevation should be equal to the highest point on the ground on the centre line of the helicopter clearway (for a take-off climb surface with an elevated origin, see Appendix A to Chapter 4). 4.1.4.5 The slope should be measured in the vertical plane containing the centre line of the surface. 4.2 APPLICATION OF OBSTACLE LIMITATIONS 4.2.1 General 4.2.1.1 The obstacle limitation requirements for ground level and elevated heliports will be the same. For elevated heliports, the specified surfaces should be defined relative to the horizontal plane at the elevation of the FATO. 4.2.1.2 The following obstacle limitation surfaces should be established for a FATO at a heliport other than one with a PinS approach/departure procedure with proceed visually instruction: a) take-off climb surface; and b) approach surface. 4.2.1.3 The following obstacle limitation surfaces should be established for a FATO at a heliport with a PinS approach/departure procedure with proceed visually instruction: a) take-off climb surface; b) approach surface; and c) transitional surface. 4.2.1.4 The dimensions of the take-off climb approach surfaces should be considered in two parts. 4.2.1.4.1 In the first part, the lateral edges of the surface diverge from the direction of the centre line by 10 per cent each side for daylight operations and 15 per cent each side for night operations (see Figures II-4-8 and II-4-9). The divergence should extend until the over-all width of the surface has reached, for daylight operations 7, and for night operations 10,times the rotor diameter of the design helicopter. The increase in divergence and width at night is to allow for lack of visual references. 4.2.1.4.2 In the second part, the width of the surface should remain constant at the 7 or 10 rotor diameter dimensions, as appropriate. Figure II-4-8. Take-off climb/approach widths (to scale with 15 m D-value) Figure II-4-9. Take-off climb/approach widths (schematic) 4.2.2 Approach surface for a FATO without a PinS approach/departure procedure with proceed visually instruction (see Figure II-4-10) Note.—For a heliport with an approach surface with an elevated origin, see Appendix A to Chapter 4. Figure II-4-10. Day approach surface without a PinS approach/departure procedure with proceed visually instruction (15 m D-value) 4.2.2.1 The slope should be 12.5 per cent until the surface reaches a height of 152 m (500 ft) above the elevation of the inner edge. 4.2.3 Approach surface for a FATO at a heliport with a PinS approach/departure procedure with proceed visually instruction Note.— For a schematic view of a PinS direct-VS with descent point from the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS, Doc 8168), see Figures II-4-12 and II-4-14. For a 3D scaled representation of the procedure with an OLS divergence of 15 per cent and a MAPt/DP of 228 m (750 ft), see Figures II-4-13 and II-4-15. 4.2.3.1 Annex 14, Volume II, permits a minimum OLS final width of 7 RD by day and 10 RD by night. In parallel, Figure II-4-14 taken from the PANS-OPS shows an instant narrowing of the obstacle clearance surface (OCS) at the MAPt from for example, RNP 0.3, 1480 m (0.8 NM) to 120 m (half width 740 m to 60 m). It is therefore recommended that: a) the lateral edges of the OLS should diverge by 15 per cent for the length of the surface; b) the surface should extend to the height of the PinS OCS then level out and continue horizontally until it reaches the OCS at the DP; and c) the slope of the surface should be 12.5 per cent until levelling out (see 4.1.1.10.5). Note.— Other slope design categories may be used. 4.2.3.2 The transitional surface should (see Figures II-4-7 and II-4-11): a) extend along the sides of the approach surface to a height of 45 m above the elevation of the FATO; and b) slope upwards and outwards by 50 per cent from the lower edge until it reaches the upper edge at a height of 45 m (150 ft). Figure II-4-11. Recommended approach surface for a PinS approach/departure procedure with proceed visually instruction (schematic) Figure II-4-12. Direct-VS with DP (schematic) Figure II-4-13. Direct-VS with a full 15 per cent divergence, DP at 228 m (750 ft) and OCS at 152 m (500 ft) Figure II-4-14. Direct-VS (schematic) Figure II-4-15. Direct-VS with a full 15 per cent divergence, MAPt at 228 m (750 ft) and OCS at 152 m (500 ft) 4.2.4 Take-off climb surface for a FATO at a heliport without a PinS departure pocedure with proceed visually instruction 4.2.4.1 The divergence should be identical for all slope design categories as specified in 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2. 4.2.4.2 The length of each design category should be the distance corresponding to a height of 152 m (500 ft) above the FATO elevation. 4.2.4.3 For a slope of design Category A, the slope of the surface should be 4.5 per cent and the total length from the inner edge, 3 386 m (1.8 NM) – see Figures II-4-16 and II-4-17. Figure II-4-16. Night category A slope (15 m D-value) Figure II-4-17. Category A slope with helicopter clearway 4.2.4.4 For a slope of design Category B, the slope of the first section should be 8 per cent and the length from the inner edge, 245 m. The slope of the second section should be 16 per cent and the length from the end of the first section, 830 m. The total length from the inner edge should be 1075 m (0.58 NM), see Figure II-4-18. 4.2.4.5 For a slope of design Category C, the slope of the surface should be 12.5 per cent and the total length from the inner edge, 1 220 m (0.66 NM), see Figure II-4-19. Figure II-4-18. Night Category B slope (15 m D-value) Figure II-4-19. Night Category C slope (15 m D-value) 4.2.5 Take-off climb surface for a FATO at a heliport with a PinS departure procedure with proceed visually instruction Note.— For a 3D scaled representation of the procedure with an OLS (level OCS) divergence of 15 per cent, 12.5 per cent gradient, IDF of 198 m (650 ft) and RNP 0.3 dimensions, see Figure II-4-20. 4.2.5.1 Although Annex 14, Volume II, permits a minimum OLS width of seven rotor diameters by day, and 10 rotor diameters by night, it is recommended that: a) the lateral edges of the OLS should diverge by 15 per cent for the length of the surface; b) the OLS should extend to where it reaches a height of 30 m (100 ft) below the initial departure fix (IDF) minimum crossing altitude (MCA) then level out and continue horizontally to the position of the latest IDF; and c) the slope of the OLS should be 12.5 per cent until levelling out. Note.— Other slope design categories may be used. Figure 4-II-20. Direct-VS with 15 per cent divergence, 12.5 per cent gradient, IDF at 198 m (650 ft) and RNP 0.3 dimensions ELEVATING THE ORIGIN OF THE TAKE-OFF CLIMB OR APPROACHSURFACES AND UTILIZING PC1 VERTICAL PROCEDURES 1. GENERAL 1.1 Elevating the take-off climb or approach surfaces achieves the criteria for the obstacle clearance by repositioning the origin of the take-off and climb surface above the obstacle environment (see Figures II-4-A-1 to II-4-A-5). Figure II-4-A-1. Helicopter clearway and OLS raised by 30 m (100 ft) (oblique view) Figure II-4-A-2. Helicopter clearway and OLS raised by 30 m (100 ft) (side view) 1.2 Although a helicopter operating in PC1 can climb vertically with all engines operating, following an engine failure, it has limited ability to maintain height or climb until it attains its take-off safety speed or best rate of climb speed. 1.3 Manufacturers have overcome this potential weakness by utilising the AEO vertical climb performance to the TDP and increasing potential energy (in the form of height) whilst retaining the ability to reject the take-off and return to the heliport safely with OEI should an engine fail before the TDP. 1.4 At TDP, the available potential energy allows height to be converted into forward speed in the continued take-off, whilst accelerating to the take-off safety speed or OEI best rate of climb speed. Vertical clearance from obstacles is achieved by locating the TDP at a suitable height above the helicopter clearway. Where there are lateral and vertical elements, clearance from obstacles is facilitated by the widened helicopter clearway and the transitional surface (see Figure II-4-A-3). Figure II-4-A-3. Various types shown as D-size circles at their TDPs for an elevated helicopter clearway and OLS 1.5 This works in the opposite sense for the approach to a heliport with an elevated OLS (see Figure II-4-A-6). The helicopter slows from its approach speed arriving at the LDP with sufficient potential energy (height) to accelerate to best rate of climb speed and clear obstacles in a balked landing (in effect the helicopter clearway) or land OEI at the heliport. 1.6 The obstacle environment, origin and slope of the approach surface of a heliport utilizing elevated procedures are unlikely to be the same as those for the take-off climb surface. The heliport designer’s responsibility is to specify the obstacle limitation surfaces; the helicopter operator’s responsibility is to ensure that the procedures and flight profiles for take-off, landing and balked landing are specified accordingly. Turns, as specified in 4.1.1.7 may be used (see Figure II-4-A4). Figure II-4-A-4. Helicopter clearway and OLS raised with turn Figure II-4-A-5. Helicopter clearway and OLS raised by 30 m (100 ft) (looking along) 2. ELEVATING THE TAKE-OFF CLIMB SURFACE The surfaces described below should be provided. 2.1 The OLS should have a category A slope. 2.2 When there is no lateral element (see Figure II-4-A-6): a) the backup surface and ascent/descent path/surface described in Chapter 3, 3.2.4.4 (see also Figure 3.10); and b) the helicopter clearway as described in 2.3.3 a) to c) with a width equal to the specified width/diameter of the FATO plus the safety area. 2.3 When there is a lateral element (see Figure II-4-A-1): 2.3.1 The transitional surface (the red surfaces) should: a) establish the lateral boundary to obstacles surrounding the FATO and at the side of the helicopter clearway and OLS; and b) be as specified in 4.1.3 above, except that the upper edge of the transitional surface should be extended vertically by the amount that the helicopter clearway and OLS are elevated, and the surface should continue around the back of the FATO/SA. Note.— As can be seen from Figure II-A-4-2, at the origin of the helicopter clearway, the lower edge of the transitional surface descends down to the safety area before continuing along and around it. 2.3.2 The helicopter ascent/descent surface (the blue conical surface) should: a) allow an AEO climb to the TDP (at the upper edge of the conical surface) remaining clear of obstacles whilst keeping the FATO in sight: and for an engine failure up to and including the TDP, an OEI controlled descent clear of obstacles until landing at the FATO; or for an engine failure at or after the TDP, an OEI continued take-off; and b) with a transitional surface slope of 1:2 (260) be an inverted half-cone with a recommended slope of 1:1.5 (34⁰) with its origin at the centre of the reference circle and its upper edge no less than 30 m above the level of the helicopter clearway. Note.— The divergence between slope of the ascent/descent surface and the slope of the obstacle limitation surface should be at least 12.5 per cent. 2.3.3 The helicopter clearway (the semi-transparent green surface) should: a) establish the vertical boundary of permitted obstacles immediately below the take-off surface, above which the helicopter should remain whilst accelerating to its recommended climbing speed; b) be as specified in Appendix D to Chapter 3; c) be of sufficient length that it will permit the achievement of the TODRH for the population of helicopters for which the heliport is intended (300 m is recommended); and d) be of sufficient width that it meets the surface of the transitional slope at the specified height above the FATO –i.e. with a transitional surface of 50 per cent, it is extended on each side at twice the height of the elevation. Note.— With a clearway elevation above 30 m (100 ft), the width of the take-off climb surface may exceed 10 rotor diameters. Figure II-4-A-6. Helicopter clearway and OLS raised by 30 m (100 ft) without lateral element) 3. ELEVATING THE APPROACH SURFACE Note 1.—The approach flight path and the location of and/or conditions (speed/height) at the LDP are operational issues. The LDP can be anywhere on the approach flight path prior to, or at, the ascent/descent surface. The conditions up to the LDP should be such that initiation of a balked landing will not result in a descent below: the approach path; and 11 m (35 ft) above obstacles in the balked landing path (when the balked landing is conducted over an existing take-off path, the minimum height will be the height of the elevated clearway plus 11 m (35 ft). If the approach and takeoff climb surfaces are separated a turn may be required; the LDP should therefore be at a point where a balked landing can be conducted safely. Note 2. — Passing the LDP (the last point at which a balked landing can be initiated) represents a commitment to land regardless of where the LDP is situated. As the helicopter approaches the ascent/descent surface, it will be in a decelerative phase to the point where the correct altitude, speed, and attitude, for the descent down to the FATO, is attained (for a true vertical descent, this will be in the hover, for other profiles there will be a defined, residual ground speed). Note 3. — The backup and ascent/descent surfaces for the arrival will normally be those provided for the departure; when there is separation, these surfaces should be reoriented to the approach heading. When there is a lateral element, the transitional surface will be effective only prior to penetration of the backup protection surface. 3.1 The approach surface should have a Category C slope (a gradient of 12.5 per cent) with its inner edge at, or (nominally) directly above the outer edge of the safety area. Note. — Nominally, because the approach surface will be intersected by the backup (obstacle limitation) surface provided to protect the ascent/descent path (see Figure II-A-4-9). 3.2 The inner edge of the approach surface should be elevated to a height providing obstacle clearance in the approach. 3.3 When there is a lateral element (see Figures II-4-A-7 and II-4-A-8); a) the conical ascent/descent surface should be centred on the approach heading; b) the upper edge of the transitional surface should be extended vertically by the amount that the OLS is elevated; and c) the inner edge of the approach surface should be of sufficient width to meet the surface of the transitional slope at the specified height above the FATO. Note. — When the origin is elevated above 100 ft, the width of the approach surface may exceed 10 rotor diameters. 3.4 When there is no lateral element: a) the backup surface and ascent/descent surface should be centred on the approach heading. b) the inner edge of the approach surface should be the width of the FATO and safety area (see Figure II-4-A-9); 3.5 If the upper edge of the approach surface is located at 152 m (500 ft), the overall length will be reduced. Figure II-4-A-7. Approach surface to 15 m (50 ft with lateral element) Figure II-4-A-8. Approach surface elevated to 30 m (100 ft) (with lateral element) Figure II-4-A-9. Approach surface (without lateral element) 4. VERTICAL PROCEDURES WITH LATERAL TRANSIT ON A SINGLE SIDE In some urban environments, there may be a need to operate close to obstacles that prevent symmetrical application of obstacle clearance, for example, buildings close to one side of the FATO/SA. This can be achieved safely with vertical procedures having a lateral element restricted to one side only as shown in Figures II-4-A-10 to 11-4-A12. Figure II-4-A-10. Single side vertical (rear view) Figure II-4-A-11. Single side vertical procedure (oblique view) Figure II-4-A-12. Single side vertical procedure (front view) Appendix B to Chapter 4 SINGLE TAKE-OFF AND CLIMB AND APPROACH SURFACE To be completed in due course. Chapter 5 VISUAL AIDS Note 1.— The numbers and letters used in the illustrative figures of this chapter may not be of the form and proportion of numbers and letters shown in Figure II-5--6. Note 2.— A heliport meant for use by day in VFR will need to display markings only. On the other hand, if the heliport is intended for use by night or in restricted visibility conditions by day or night it will need to be lighted as well. The marking and lighting aids described in this chapter support the Standards of Annex 14, Volume II, and have been developed primarily to support non-precision approaches and operations in visual meteorological conditions. Note 3.— Before operations are conducted at night with night vision imaging systems (NVIS) into a heliport, it is important to establish the compatibility of the NVIS system with all heliport lighting. As not all NVIS are the same, compatibility should be assessed by the helicopter operator prior to use. 5.1 INDICATORS 5.1.1 Wind direction indicator. The wind direction indicator provides a visual indication of the wind direction and gives an indication of wind speed. Each heliport should be provided with at least one wind direction indicator. 5.1.2 An indicator should be a truncated cone as shown in Figure II-5-1. The cone should be of either a single colour (white or orange) or a combination of two colours (orange and white, red and white or black and white). The indicator should be sited to avoid the effects of turbulence and should be of sufficient size to be visible from helicopters flying at a height of 200 m. Where a touchdown and lift-off area may be subjected to a disturbed air flow, additional small lightweight wind vanes located close to the area may prove useful. Figure II-5-1. Wind direction indicator 5.2 MARKING AIDS The following markings will prove useful under the conditions specified for each aid at a heliport intended for operation by day: a) heliport identification marking; b) maximum allowable mass marking; c) D-value marking; d) final approach and take-off area perimeter marking or markers for surface level heliports; e) final approach and take-off area designation marking for runway-type FATOs; f) aiming point marking; g) touchdown and lift-off area perimeter marking; h) touchdown/positioning marking; i) heliport name marking; j) helicopter taxiway marking and markers; k) helicopter air taxi-route markers; l) helicopter stand marking; m) flight path alignment guidance marking; and n) obstacle marking. 5.2.1 Heliport identification marking 5.2.1.1 The heliport identification marking provides an indication of the presence of a heliport to the pilot by its form, likely usage and the preferred direction(s) of approach. 5.2.1.2 The marking consists of a white letter “H” (see Figure II-5-3) or, for a heliport located at a hospital, a red letter “H” on a white cross (see Figure II-5-4) with minimum dimensions as shown in Figure II-5-2. The marking is located at the centre of the final approach and take-off area or when used in conjunction with designation markings for a runwaytype FATO at each end of the area with the location and dimensions shown in Figure II-5-11. Figure II-5-2. Hospital heliport identification marking (dimensions) Figure II-5-3. Heliport identification marking with TDPC (location) 5.2.1.3 The heliport identification marking should be oriented with the cross arm of the H at right angles to the preferred final approach direction. Figure II-5-4. Heliport identification marking with TDPC (hospital) 5.2.1.4 If the touchdown/positioning marking is offset, the heliport identification marking should be established in the centre of the offset TDPC as shown in Figure II-5-5. Figure II-5-5. Heliport identification marking (offset TD/PM) 5.2.2 Maximum allowable mass marking 5.2.2.1 The markings display the mass limitation of the heliport and make it visible to the pilot from the preferred final approach direction(s). 5.2.2.2 The display of the allowable maximum mass is derived from the design helicopter and is intended to ensure that only helicopters with a take-off or landing mass equal to or less than the maximum allowable mass use the heliport. The examples below show non-whole numbers and are there mainly to assist operators in understanding how their types fit into the designation. Note.— The maximum allowable mass represents the limitation on a helicopter’s actual mass on arrival or departure and could be less than the MTOM of the type concerned. 5.2.2.3 The style and dimensions of the numbers and letters of the marking should correspond to those shown in Figure II-5-6. Representation of the maximum allowable mass should be: a) when expressed in metric units, a two-digit number showing the mass to the nearest 1 000 kg (e.g. 03, 04 or 13), or two or three digit number with a decimal point showing the mass to the nearest 100 kg (e.g. 2.9, 3.6 or 12.6), followed by the letter “t” to indicate the mass in tonnes; and b) when expressed in imperial units (United States), a two or three-digit number with a decimal point showing the mass rounded to the nearest 100 lbs, with 50 lbs rounded up (e.g. 15 750 lbs. marked as 15.8), without a letter suffix. 5.2.2.4 The following examples illustrate both methods using the mass of existing types (figures are for illustrative purposes only; they may have changed during the development of a helicopter type due to mass growth): Sikorsky S92A: Metric: MTOM 12 565 kg, would be 13t or 12.6t; or Imperial: MTOM 28 000 lbs, would be 28.0. EC 135T2: Metric: MTOM 2 910 kg, would be 03t or 2.9t; or Imperial: MTOM 6 400 lbs, would be 6.4. A109: Metric: MTOM 3 600 kg, would be 04t or 3.6t; or Imperial: MTOM 6 000 lbs, would be 6.0. 5.2.2.5 Maximum mass markings should be displayed on the surface (TLOF or FATO) where they are readable from the preferred approach directions. The recommended locations are shown in Figure II-5-13. 5.2.2.6 When the maximum mass is in imperial units it should be shown in a box outlined in black. The numbers of the marking should have a colour contrasting with the background, preferably white, with the dimensions shown in Figure II-5-7. The box should be displayed on the lower right of the surface (TLOF or FATO) when viewed from the preferred approach direction. Figure II-5-6. Form and proportion of numbers and letters Figure II-5-7. Maximum mass and D-values shown in imperial units 5.2.3 D-value marking 5.2.3.1 The marking provides the pilot with the D-value of the largest helicopter that can be accommodated on the heliport. It is essential information for every heliport as it represents the value on which the standard sized TDPC, TLOF, FATO and stands are based. Note.— Smaller stands with reduced sized TLOFs and TD/PMs are permitted. 5.2.3.2 The D-value is derived from the design helicopter and is displayed to ensure that only helicopters with a ‘D’ less than or equal to the D-value use the heliport. The numbers of the marking should have a colour contrasting with the background and should have the following characteristics: a) for a D-value of less than 15 m, a minimum height of 60 cm, each with a proportional reduction in width and thickness; b) for a D-value of 15 m to 30 m, a minimum height of 90 cm; and c) for a D-value of 30 m or greater, a minimum height in accordance with Figure II-5-6. 5.2.3.3 The D-value should be expressed to the nearest whole number and displayed as whole metres without a letter prefix (metric) or the letter ‘D’ with dimensions in whole feet (imperial). 5.2.3.4 The following examples illustrate both methods using the ‘D’ of existing types: Sikorsky S92A: Metric: D of 20.88 m would be 21; or Imperial: D of 68.49 ft would be D68. EC 135T2: Metric: D of 12.20 m would be 12; or Imperial: D of 40.00 ft would be D40. A109: Metric: D of 13.05 m would be 13; or Imperial: D of 42.80 ft would be D43. 5.2.3.5 The D-value marking should be displayed on the surface (TLOF or FATO) where it is readable from the preferred approach directions. The recommended locations are as shown in Figure II-5-13. 5.2.3.6 When the design-D is in imperial units it should be shown in a box outlined in black. The marking should have a colour contrasting with the background, preferably white, with the dimensions shown in Figure II-5-7. The box should be displayed on the lower right of the surface (TLOF or FATO) when viewed from the preferred approach direction. 5.2.4 Perimeter marking or markers for surface level solid FATO 5.2.4.1 The marking or markers provide, where the perimeter of the FATO is not self-evident, an indication of the area that is free of obstacles and in which the intended procedures, or permitted manoeuvring, may take place. 5.2.4.2 FATO markings or markers, when required, should be located at the edge of the FATO with the corners marked. 5.2.4.3 For a runway-type FATO, the spacing of the markings or markers should not exceed 50 m and: a) the marking should be a rectangular white stripe with a length of 9 m, or one fifth of the side of the FATO which it defines, and a width of 1 m as shown in Figure II-5-8 (for guidance on the lighting elements see 5.3.7); or b) the marker should be of the dimension shown in Figure II-5-9; the colour should contrast effectively against the operating background and be red-and-white (as shown), or a single colour of orange or red. 5.2.4.4 For other than a runway-type FATO: a) the perimeter should be marked (for guidance on the lighting elements see 5.3.7): when paved, by white dashed lines; or when unpaved, by white flush in-ground markers as shown in Figure II-5-10; and b) the FATO perimeter markings or marker segments should be 1.5 m in length and 30 cm in width with end spacing of not less than 1.5 m and not more than 2 m. Figure II-5-8. Perimeter marking for runway-type FATO Figure II-5-9. Perimeter marker for runway-type FATO Figure II-5-10. Perimeter marking for other than a runway-type surface level FATO 5.2.5 Designation marking for runway-type FATOs 5.2.5.1 The designation marking for runway-type FATOs provides an indication of the magnetic heading of the FATO. 5.2.5.2 The marking identifies a particular FATO and should be displayed only where it is necessary to distinguish one FATO from another. The designation should be a two-digit number in the form and proportions shown in Figure II-5- 6. When the runway heading is a single-digit number, it should be preceded by a zero. 5.2.5.3 The marking should consist of the runway designation marking supplemented by a letter “H” as shown in Figure II-5-11. Figure II-5-11. Designation markings for runway-type FATO 5.2.6 Aiming point marking 5.2.6.1 The marking provides a visual cue indicating to the pilot: a) the preferred approach/departure direction; b) the point to which the helicopter approaches to the hover before positioning to a stand where a touchdown can be made; and c) on a runway-type other than the FATO, that the surface is not intended for touchdown. 5.2.6.2 An aiming point marking should be displayed when it is intended for a pilot to make an approach to the hover at a particular point in the final approach and take-off area. The aiming point should be located: a) for a runway-type FATO, at the termination point of the intended approach; and b) for runway-type other than the FATO, at the centre of the FATO. 5.2.6.3 The marking should be an equilateral triangle with the dimensions shown in Figure II-5-12, and with the bisector of one of the angles aligned with the preferred approach direction. The sides of the triangle should be composed of continuous white lines, except for hospital sites where the lines may be red (to contrast with the white cross) as shown in Figure II-5-13. Figure II-5-12. Aiming point marking Figure II-5-13. Aiming point marking on a hover FATO 5.2.7 Touchdown and lift-off area perimeter marking 5.2.7.1 The touchdown and lift-off area perimeter marking provides the pilot with an indication of an area: a) that is free of obstacles; b) that has dynamic load bearing; and c) in which, when positioned in accordance with the TD/PM, undercarriage containment is assured. 5.2.7.2 The marking should be located at the edge of the TLOF and consist of a continuous white line at least 30 cm wide. 5.2.8 Touchdown/positioning marking 5.2.8.1 The touchdown/positioning marking (TD/PM) provides visual cues which permit a helicopter to be placed in a specific position (touchdown), or manoeuvred (positioned), such that when the pilot’s seat is above the marking, the undercarriage is within the load-bearing area and all parts of the helicopter are clear of obstacles by a safe margin. 5.2.8.2 The TD/PM is critical to the design of heliports because it provides the visual cues on which containment is dependent. 5.2.8.3 The TD/PM is provided in two forms: a) straight lines, sometimes accompanied by shoulder lines and radius curves (see Figure II-5-18); examples are: a centre line in a taxiway; a centre line with lead-in/lead-out lines and shoulder lines, in a taxi-through stand or restricted TLOF; or a centre line with lead-in/lead-out lines, radius curves and shoulder lines in a stand; and Note.— A TD/PM with straight lines indicates that turns are not permitted on that section. In 5.3, almost all figures showing the TLOF are shown with a TDPC; this is because it is the most likely to have a TDPC. b) a touchdown positioning circle (TDPC) in a TLOF, exceptionally with a prohibited landing sector. 5.2.8.4 The TDPC should be a yellow circle with an inner diameter equal to: half the D of the D-value of the design helicopter (TLOF in a FATO – see Figure II-5-14); or, the largest helicopter for which the area is intended (TLOF in a stand). 5.2.8.5 The line width for TD/PMs for a heliport should be at least 0.5 m, but ideally 1 m. 5.2.8.6 The prohibited landing sector marking should be used when it is necessary to prevent the tail rotor being placed over a specific area, e.g. an ingress or egress point (see Figure II-5-15). The prohibited sector marking should be diametrically opposite from the avoid area and consist of hatched lines overlaying the TDPC and extending to the perimeter of the TLOF. The hatched-line width should be half the width of the TDPC line and be painted in red (it may be necessary to underpaint the marking to provide an adequate contrast). Figure II-5-14. Touchdown positioning circle (TDPC) dimensions Figure II-5-15. Prohibited landing sector marking 5.2.9 Heliport name marking 5.2.9.1 The heliport name marking provides a means of identifying a heliport and can be seen and read from all directions of approach. 5.2.9.2 The name should only be provided if it there is insufficient alternative means of visual recognition. 5.2.9.3 When provided, the marking should consist of the name or the alphanumeric designator of the heliport as used in radio communications (R/T). The colour should contrast with the background and where possible be white and the characters of the marking should be: a) for a runway-type FATO, not less than 3 m in height; b) for a surface level FATO, other than a runway-type, not less than 1.5 m in height; and c) for an elevated heliport, not less than 1.2 m in height. Note— To allow for recognition of the facility further back in the approach, consideration should be given to increasing the character height of the heliport name marking from 1.2 m to 1.5 m. 5.2.9.4 Where the character height is 1.5 m, the character widths and stroke widths should be in accordance with Figure II-5-6. The character widths and stroke widths of nominal 1.2 m characters should be 80 per cent of those prescribed by Figure II-5-6. Where the heliport name marking consists of more than one word it is recommended that the space between words be approximately 50 per cent of character height. 5.2.10 Helicopter taxiway marking and markers 5.2.10.1 The helicopter taxiway markings and markers provide the pilot with visual cues to guide movement along the taxiway without being a hazard to the helicopter. 5.2.10.2 Helicopter taxiway centre line markings should be a continuous yellow line 15 cm in width. Unpaved surfaces which will not accommodate painted markings should be marked with flush in-ground yellow markers, 15 cm in width and 1.5 m in length, spaced at intervals of not more than 30 m on straight sections and not more than 15 m on curves, with a minimum of four equally spaced markers per curved section. 5.2.10.3 A centre line marking is all that is necessary to provide the pilot with visual cues to guide movement along the taxiway. Edge markings or markers should be used only when, for safety reasons, it is necessary to mark the boundaries of the taxiway. 5.2.10.4 Helicopter taxiway edge markings should be a continuous double yellow line each of 15 cm in width, spaced 15 cm apart. They should be located at 1 m to 3 m beyond the edge of the taxiway and should be retro-reflective blue. The marked surface as seen by the pilot should be a rectangle and have a minimum viewing area of 150 cm. Markers commonly used are cylindrical in shape. The design of the marker should be lightweight and frangible to the undercarriage and, when installed, should not exceed 25 cm total height above the mounting surface (see Figure II-5-16). Figure II-5-16. Helicopter taxiway edge marker 5.2.11 Helicopter air taxi-route marking and markers 5.2.11.1 The helicopter air taxi-route markings and markers provide the pilot with visual cues to guide movement along the air taxi-route. 5.2.11.2 Where an air taxi-route is collocated with a taxiway, the centre line markings will be those of the taxiway. 5.2.11.3 Where an air taxi-route is not collocated with a taxiway: a) on a paved surface, the centre line should be marked with a yellow line 15 cm in width; and b) on an unpaved surface that will not accommodate painted markings, the centre lines should be marked with markers as shown in Figure II-5-17. These markers should be located along the centre line of the air taxi route, spaced at intervals of not more than 30 m on straight sections and 15 m on curves; and c) the surface of the marker as viewed by a pilot should be a rectangle with a height to width ratio not greater than 3:1 and have a minimum area of 150 cm. The marker should show three horizontal bands coloured yellow, green and yellow respectively and should not exceed 35 cm above ground or snow level. Note.— When markers are used, the air taxi-manoeuvre may be less accurate than when following a centre line marking. For that reason, the designer should ensure that the air taxi-route with markers is not sited in close proximity to other taxi-routes (see also Chapter 3, 3.4.1.2). Figure II-5-17. Air taxi-route marker 5.2.12 Helicopter stand marking 5.2.12.1 The helicopter stand markings provide the pilot with a visual indication of: a) an area that is free of obstacles in which permitted manoeuvring and all necessary ground functions may take place; b) when required, mass and D-value limitations; and, c) guidance for manoeuvring and positioning of the helicopter within the stand using TD/PMs. 5.2.12.2 The stand perimeter should be marked: when it is paved, by a yellow line or, when it is unpaved, by flush in-ground markers (see Figure II-5-18). If there is a restriction on the direction of travel, arrows should be provided. 5.2.12.3 Where the stand is designed to accommodate helicopters smaller than the design helicopter, a box containing the limiting D and mass should be displayed on the lead-in line (see Figure II-5-19). Note.— The limiting mass may not be necessary but is provided to avoid confusion with respect to the units used in the D-value. Figure II-5-18. Stand markings Figure II-5-19. Restricted size stand 5.2.13 Flight-path alignment guidance marking 5.2.13.1 The flight path alignment guidance marking provides the pilot with a visual indication of the available approach and/or departure path direction(s). 5.2.13.2 It should be in a contrasting colour, preferably white, and placed as shown in Figure II-5-21, with the dimensions shown in Figure II-5-20. Figure II-5-20. Flight-path alignment guidance marking (dimensions) Figure II-5-21. Flight path alignment guidance marking (example) 5.2.14 Obstacle marking All obstacles should be marked following the specifications in Annex 14, Volume I, Chapter 6. 5.3 LIGHTS 5.3.1 General 5.3.1.1 The guidance contained in this section addresses four issues for operations at night (or in reduced visibility): a) distinguishing one defined area from another; b) providing conspicuity for acquiring visual contact with the heliport; c) providing guidance in the approach and departure phases of flight; and d) providing visual cues to allow accurate manoeuvring and placement of the helicopter when within the bounds of the heliport. 5.3.1.2 Defined areas may exist in isolation or be collocated or coincidental with each other. The Standards reflect this and although there are provisions for lighting in all defined areas, it is the context of the operation that determines the combination of visual cues required. This is no more evident than in the requirement for lighting in the TLOF, where its location and operational use affect the lighting requirements. 5.3.1.3 The introduction of more powerful helicopters and the subsequent reduction in the size of required surfaces, along with the transfer of functionality from the FATO to the TLOF, has shifted the balance of lighting to the TLOF from the FATO (which can now be in space or not a load-bearing surface). As more elevated heliports and smaller surface level heliports are built, the amount of surface available to accommodate approach lighting systems will be reduced. Fortunately, this has coincided with the improvement of lighting sources, but it has placed the additional function for provision of conspicuity on the TLOF. 5.3.1.4 As the viewing range from the lighting source decreases, the possibility for glare becomes an issue. This is countered through the design of the light by shaping the beam so that intensity decreases with elevation, as seen in Figure II-5-22, illustration 5. With the helicopter on the final stage of the approach, the look-down angle between the pilot and the TLOF will steepen – consequently the light will be viewed outside of the main beam. However, for a category A profile with an extensive vertical element (for some types up to 122 m (400 ft) above the heliport), the lighting still has to provide sufficient visual cues for an OEI landing or a rejected take-off. Calculations using Allard’s Law1 show that, even from 122 m (400 ft), the lighting levels between 20⁰ and 90⁰ provide adequate visual references at extended LDP/TDPs to allow the pilot to touchdown aided by the lit TLOF markings, where provided (see Appendix C to Chapter 5, 1.6). 5.3.1.6 The technical standard for colours of aeronautical ground lights, markings, signs and panels is contained in Annex 14, Volume I, Appendix 1. These standards include filament-type, solid-state lights sources and trans-illuminated panels (arrays of segmented point source lighting (ASPSL) and luminescent panels (LPs). Wherever a colour is referred to in this manual, the specifications in that appendix should apply. 5.3.1.7 The use of ASPSL and LPs in the following sections does not preclude the use of single light source inset lights to illuminate the TD/PM or other markings within the TLOF. However, if inset lights are used, the State should ensure that the intent of Annex 14, Volume 1, Appendix 1 and illustration 6 of Figure II-5-22 are observed, as well as adequate provision of shape information. Figure II-5-22. Isocandela diagrams of lights meant for visual heliports 5.3.2 Heliport beacon 5.3.2.1 When long-range visual guidance is necessary and not provided by other visual means, or when identifying the heliport is difficult due to surrounding lights, a heliport beacon should be provided. 5.3.2.2 The heliport beacon should be designed to emit a repeated series of equally spaced short duration white flashes in the format shown in Figure II-5-23. To ensure that pilots are not dazzled during the final stages of the approach and landing, especially at night, brilliancy control (with 10 per cent and 3 per cent settings) or shielding should be provided. The effective light intensity distribution of each flash should be as shown in Figure II-5-22, Illustration 1. Figure II-5-23. Heliport beacon flash characteristics 5.3.3 Approach lighting system 5.3.3.1 An approach lighting system provides an indication of the preferred approach direction to either enhance the closure rate information to pilots at night or to provide approach guidance for non-precision approaches. 5.3.3.2 Approach lights should be located in a straight line along the preferred direction of approach. The basic system consists of a row of three lights spaced uniformly at 30 m intervals with a crossbar 18 m in length at a distance of 90 m from the perimeter of the final approach and take-off area. The number of lights along the row should be increased to at least seven, extending over a distance of 210 m for non-precision approaches and/or where the identification of the approach lighting system may be difficult. 5.3.3.3 The lights should be omnidirectional steady white lights except that beyond the crossbar either omnidirectional steady or flashing white lights may be used. The light distribution of steady and flashing lights should be as indicated in Figure II-5-22, Illustrations 2 and 3, respectively. However, for a non-precision final approach and take-off area, the intensity of the lights should be increased by a factor of 3. Three different configurations of the approach lighting system are shown in Figure II-5-24. Figure II-5-24. Three different configurations of an approach lighting system 5.3.4 Flight path alignment guidance lighting system 5.3.4.1 Flight path alignment guidance lighting provides the pilot with a visual indication, at night, of the available approach and/or departure path directions. This system should be combined with flight path alignment guidance markings. 5.3.4.2 A flight path alignment guidance lighting system is beneficial in cases where limited amount of surface, on the approach to the FATO and/or TLOF, precludes the use of an approach lighting system (see 5.3.3). It allows flexibility because it may be sited on one or more of the TLOF, FATO, safety area or any suitable surface in the immediate vicinity. 5.3.4.3 The system should consist of a row of three or more lights spaced uniformly a total minimum distance of 6.2 m. Intervals between lights should not be less than 1.5 m and should not exceed 3 m as shown in Figure II-5-20. Where space permits, there should be five lights. The lights should be steady omnidirectional inset white lights. The distribution of the lights should be as indicated in Figure II-5-22, Illustration 5. 5.3.4.4 A suitable control should be incorporated to allow for adjustment of light intensity to meet the prevailing conditions and to balance the flight path alignment guidance lighting system with other heliport lights and general lighting that may be present around the heliport. 5.3.5 Visual alignment guidance system 5.3.5.1 The visual alignment guidance system provides conspicuous and discrete cues to assist a pilot to attain, and maintain, a specified approach track to a heliport when it is impracticable to install an approach lighting system. 5.3.5.2 A visual alignment guidance system should serve the approach to a heliport where one or more of the following conditions exist especially at night: a) obstacle clearance, noise abatement or traffic control procedures require a particular direction to be flown; b) the environment of the heliport provides few visual surface cues; and c) it is physically impractical to install an approach lighting system. 5.3.5.3 For details on visual alignment guidance systems, and a specimen system, see Appendix A to Chapter 5. 5.3.6 Visual approach slope indicator 5.3.6.1 The visual approach slope indicator provides conspicuous and discrete colour cues within a specified elevation and azimuth to assist a pilot to attain, and maintain, the approach-slope necessary to deliver the helicopter to a desired position within a FATO. 5.3.6.2 Standard visual approach slope indicator systems for helicopter operations include, but are not restricted to: a) precision approach path indicator (PAPI); b) abbreviated precision approach path indicator (APAPI); or c) helicopter approach path indicator (HAPI). 5.3.6.3 A visual approach slope indicator system should be provided to serve the approach to a heliport, whether or not the heliport is served by other visual approach aids or by non-visual aids, where one or more of the following conditions exist, especially at night: a) obstacle clearance, noise abatement or traffic control procedures require a particular slope to be flown; b) the environment of the heliport provides few visual surface cues; and c) the characteristics of the helicopter require a stabilized approach. 5.3.6.4 The characteristics of the PAPI and APAPI light units should correspond to those specified in Annex 14, Volume I, except that the angular size of the on-slope sector should be increased to 45 minutes. For further guidance on PAPI and APAPI light units, reference should be made to the Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 4 — Visual Aids (Doc 9157). 5.3.6.5 If required, and when limitations at an elevated heliport preclude the installation of a multi-unit system such as the PAPI or APAPI, a single unit indicator, such as the HAPI, should be installed (the characteristics of the HAPI should correspond to those specified in Appendix B to Chapter 5). Note.— Other systems meeting the objective of the PAPI, APAPI or HAPI may be approved by the appropriate authority. 5.3.7 FATO lighting systems for surface level heliports 5.3.7.1 The final approach and take-off area lighting system provides to the pilot operating at night an indication of the shape, location and extent of the FATO. 5.3.7.2 Where the FATO has a solid surface, lights should be used to delineate the boundaries of the FATO, unless the extent of the FATO is self-evident or the FATO and TLOF are (or are nearly) coincidental, in which case the TLOF lighting system should be used. 5.3.7.3 The lights should be fixed omnidirectional lights showing white with the intensity and beam spread of the lights as indicated in Figure II-5-22, Illustration 4. Where the intensity of the light varies, it should show variable white. Solid state lights and filament light sources should conform to the chromaticity specifications of Annex 14, Volume 1, Appendix 1, 2.3 e) and 2.1.1 e), respectively. 5.3.7.4 The lights placed along the edge of the FATO should be evenly spaced as follows: a) for a FATO in the form of a square or rectangle: at intervals of not more than 50 m, with a minimum of four lights on each side including a light at each corner (see Figures II-5-8 and II-5-25); or b) for a FATO of any other shape: at intervals of not more than 5 m, with a minimum of ten lights. Figure II-5-25. Lighting system for surface level FATO 5.3.8 Aiming point lights 5.3.8.1 Aiming point lights provides a visual cue to the pilot at night indicating the preferred approach/departure direction and, where the FATO is not intended for touchdown, the point to which the helicopter approaches to a hover before positioning to a TLOF, where a touchdown can be made. 5.3.8.2 An aiming point lighting system should consist of evenly spaced omnidirectional white lights as shown in Figure II-5-25 with the intensity and beam spread of the lights of those in Figure II-5-22, Illustration 4. Solid state lights and filament light sources should conform to the chromaticity specifications in Annex 14, Volume 1, Appendix 1, 2.3.1 e) and 2.1.1 e), respectively. 5.3.9 TLOF lighting system 5.3.9.1 General 5.3.9.1.1 The touchdown and lift-off area lighting system provides illumination of the TLOF and required elements within. The necessary elements of the lighting system depend on the siting of the TLOF and its context. 5.3.9.1.2 As well as the TLOF lighting itself, the TLOF may contain elements that are individually illuminated. Examples are: a) TD/PM; and b) heliport identification marking (the ‘H’ or cross marking at a hospital). 5.3.9.1.3 For a TLOF in any location, the lighting system should provide sufficient illumination of the surface to enable a pilot, when in close proximity to the TLOF, to identify and use the TD/PM to accurately place the helicopter. This is the basic level of illumination for example, for the TLOF in a stand, where the objective may be met by the use of ambient lighting or apron or stand floodlighting. 5.3.9.1.4 For a TLOF in a FATO, in addition to 5.3.9.1.3, the lighting system should provide sufficient illumination to allow the pilot, when on the final approach, to distinguish the TLOF from other defined areas on the heliport. 5.3.9.1.5 For a TLOF in a FATO on an elevated heliport, the lighting system should, in addition to 5.3.9.1.3 and 5.3.9.1.4 allow: a) visual acquisition from a range that has been established with respect to the requirements of the heliport; and b) sufficient shape cues to permit an appropriate approach angle to be established. Note.— An acceptable approach angle can be established when the TLOF perimeter lighting and/or TDPC illumination are used to provide an indication of the shape of the landing surface. When the approach angle is steep, the TLOF (lighting) will appear in full detail with a round appearance; when shallow, the TLOF (lighting) will appear in little detail as a straight line; when the approach angle is neither steep nor shallow, the TLOF (lighting) will appear to be oval (for illustration purposes, see an example with the illuminated TDPC, Figure II-5-26). Figure II-5-26. Example of the TDPC as a visual approach cue 5.3.9.1.6 At elevated heliports, surface texture cues within the TLOF are essential for helicopter positioning during the final approach and landing. Such cues can be provided using various forms of lighting (ASPSL, LPs, floodlights or a combination of these lights, etc.) in addition to perimeter lights. Best results have been demonstrated by the combination of perimeter lights and ASPSL in the form of encapsulated strips of light emitting diodes (LEDs) and inset lights to identify the TD/PM and heliport identification markings. 5.3.9.1.7 ASPSL/LPs should have a minimum width of 6 cm and conform to the chromaticity and luminance of Annex 14, Volume I, Appendix 1, 3.4. Unless otherwise specified, the housing cover should be of the same colour as the marking it defines. 5.3.9.1.8 When the ASPSL/LPs are within the TLOF and to avoid a trip hazard, the height of the lighting segments and any associated cabling should be as low as possible and not exceed 25 mm above the surface of the TLOF. The segments should not present any vertical outside edge greater than 6 mm without chamfering at an angle not exceeding 30° from the horizontal. Lighting components, fitments and cabling should be able to withstand a pressure of at least 2,280 kPa (331 lbs/in), without damage. The overall effect of the lighting segments and cabling on deck friction should be minimized. 5.3.9.2 TLOF perimeter lighting 5.3.9.2.1 TLOF perimeter lights should be evenly spaced omnidirectional lights showing green with the intensity and beam spread of the lights of those indicated in Figure II-5-22, Illustration 5. Solid state lights and filament light sources should conform to the chromaticity of Annex 14, Volume I, Appendix 1, 2.3.1 c) and 2.1.1 c), respectively. 5.3.9.2.2 TLOF perimeter light segments: ASPSL/LPs should be evenly spaced and emit green light when they are used to define the boundary of the area. The light distribution should be as shown in Figure II-5-22, Illustration 6. 5.3.9.3 TLOF floodlighting 5.3.9.3.1 Floodlighting, where provided, should be arranged to provide an average horizontal illuminance of at least 10 lux with a uniformity ratio of 8 to 1 (average to minimum) on the surface of the touchdown and lift-off area. 5.3.9.3.2 For many heliports, it may not be possible to achieve the uniformity ratio of 8 to 1 over the entire surface, given the fixture height limitations. Depending upon the distance and angle of projection, the centre portion of the TLOF may have a darkened appearance (the black hole effect). In this circumstance, a combination of floodlighting and ASPSL/LP lighting may prove more effective in providing adequate surface texture cues, including an indication to the pilot of where the helicopter needs to touchdown. This could include, for example, yellow ASPSL/LP lighting of the TDPC. It is essential, therefore, that any floodlighting arrangements take full account of these problems. 5.3.9.3.3 Floodlighting systems, even when properly aligned, can adversely affect the visual cueing environment by reducing the conspicuity of TLOF perimeter lights during the approach and by causing glare during the hover and landing. These undesirable effects are exacerbated when the surface is wet. The lighting should be adequately shielded, e.g. fitted with louvres, to ensure that the source of light is not directly visible to a pilot at any stage of landing. 5.3.9.4 TDPC lighting 5.3.9.4.1 The TDPC lighting should comprise a concentric circle of at least 16 discrete lighting segments situated within 10 cm of the mean radius of the TDPC marking. 5.3.9.4.2 When located on a heliport at a hospital, or at sites where trolley access is required, up to four gaps between 1.5 m and 2.0 m, for a hospital site aligned with the ‘arms’ of the white cross, may be provided to permit access (as shown in Figure II-5-27). Figure II-5-27. TLOF lighting at an elevated hospital site (with trolley access) 5.3.9.4.3 In the populated circumference (quadrants in the case of a hospital site), the lighting segments should provide coverage of at least 50 per cent and be equidistantly spaced at intervals of not more than 1 m. 5.3.9.5 Heliport identification marking lighting 5.3.9.5.1 The ‘H’ lighting 5.3.9.5.1.1 The ‘H’ should be outlined with green edge lighting consisting of sub-sections between 80 mm and 100 mm wide as shown in Figure II-5-28. The mechanical housing should be coloured white. 5.3.9.5.1.2 If a sub-section is made up of individual lighting elements (e.g. LED’s), they should be of nominally identical performance (i.e. within manufacturing tolerances) and be equidistantly spaced within the sub-section to aid textural cueing. Minimum spacing between the illuminated areas of the lighting elements should be 3 cm and maximum spacing 10 cm. 5.3.9.5.1.3 If the sub-section comprises a continuous lighting element (e.g. fibre optic cable, electro luminescent panel), to achieve textural cueing at short range, the element should be masked at 3.0 cm intervals on a 1:1 mark-space ratio. Figure II-5-28. ‘H’ lighting Figure II-5-29. Heliport cross lighting 5.3.9.5.2 Cross lighting at a hospital heliport 5.3.9.5.2.1 The white cross marking should be lit using green right-angled lit chevron markings located adjacent to each of the four internal corners of the 9 m x 9 m white cross. Each chevron should be 1.5 m to 1.6 m x 1.5 m to 1.6 m in size and be spaced by 4.0 m to 4.5 m as shown in Figure II-5-29. 5.3.9.5.2.2 The cross marking should comprise sub-sections of between 80 mm and 100 mm wide. Where applicable, the gaps between them should not be greater than 10 cm. The mechanical housing should be coloured white. Note.— A specimen lighting scheme designed for a hospital heliport that employs a number of the enhancements described above is contained in Appendix C to Chapter 5. 5.3.9.6 The TLOF in a surface level FATO 5.3.9.6.1 This lighting system should consist of one or more of the following: a) perimeter lighting; b) floodlighting (see Figure II-5-30); or c) ASPSLs or LPs (on their own only when FATO lights are available as shown in see Figure II-5-31). 5.3.9.6.2 ASPSL/LPs to identify the TD/PM, heliport identification marking and/or floodlighting should be provided for heliports intended for use at night when enhanced surface texture cues are required. Figure II-5-30. Surface level FATO and TLOF with floodlighting Figure II-5-31. Surface level FATO with perimeter and TDPC lighting 5.3.9.6.3 Perimeter lights 5.3.9.6.3.1 Perimeter lights should be placed along the boundary of the TLOF or within a distance of 1.5 m from the edge and uniformly spaced at intervals of not more than 5 m. Figure II-5-32. Surface level heliport perimeter and TDPC lighting (Square TLOF) 5.3.9.6.3.2 Where the TLOF is rectangular or square, there should be a minimum of four lights on each side including a light at each corner; this will result in a minimum of twelve lights (Figure II-5-32 shows a TLOF of 20 m which, because of minimum spacing requirements, has five lights on each side). Figure II-5-33. Surface level heliport perimeter and TDPC lighting (Octagonal TLOF) Figure II-5-34. Surface level heliport perimeter and TDPC lighting (Circular TLOF) 5.3.9.6.3.3 Where the TLOF has more than four sides, there should be a minimum of three lights on each side including a light at each corner; this will result, for an octagonal TLOF, in sixteen lights as shown in Figure II-5-33. 5.3.9.6.3.4 Where the TLOF is circular, the perimeter lights should be located on straight lines in a pattern which will provide information to pilots on drift displacement. Where it is not practicable to so locate the lights, they should be evenly spaced around the perimeter of the area at the appropriate interval except that over a sector of 45° the lights should be placed at half spacing as in Figure II-5-34 (where flight path alignment guidance lighting is provided, additional lights should not be necessary). There should be a minimum of fourteen lights. 5.3.9.6.3.5 Perimeter lights should be fixed omnidirectional lights showing green. The light distribution of perimeter lights should conform to that specified in Figure II-5-22, Illustration 5. 5.3.9.6.4 Perimeter light segments 5.3.9.6.4.1 ASPSL/LPs should be placed along the marking designating the edge of the TLOF and be equally spaced with a distance between adjacent panel ends of not more than 5 m. The total length of ASPSL/LPs in a pattern should not be less than 50 per cent of the length of the pattern. 5.3.9.6.4.2 Where the TLOF is a rectangle or square, there should be a minimum of three ASPSL/LPs on each side of the TLOF with one at each corner as in Figure II-5-35. Figure II-5-35. Surface level heliport ASPSL/LPs (Square TLOF) 5.3.9.6.4.3 Where the TLOF is a circle, the panels should be located on straight lines circumscribing the area as in Figure II-5-36. There should be a minimum of nine ASPSL/LPs. Figure II-5-36. Surface level heliport ASPSL/LPs (Circular TLOF) 5.3.9.6.4.4 ASPSL/LPs should emit green light when they are used to define the boundary of the area and the light distribution should be as shown in Figure II-5-22, Illustration 6. 5.3.9.6.5. Enhanced texture cue lighting 5.3.9.6.5.1 Floodlights should be located so as to avoid glare to pilots at the final stages of approach and landing, and the arrangement and aiming of the lights should be such that shadows are kept to a minimum. 5.3.9.6.5.2 The TD/PM and/or the heliport identification marking should be provided in accordance with 5.3.9.4 and 5.3.9.5. 5.3.9.7 The TLOF on an elevated heliport FATO 5.3.9.7.1 The touchdown and lift-off area lighting system at an elevated heliport provides visual acquisition from a defined range and sufficient shape cues to permit an appropriate approach angle to be established. 5.3.9.7.2 The lighting should consist of: a) perimeter lights; and ASPL/LPs, to identify the TD/PM; or floodlighting, to illuminate the TLOF. Note.— Perimeter light segments may not be suitable for elevated heliports because of limited conspicuity compared to perimeter lights. 5.3.9.7.3 Perimeter lights should be as specified in 5.3.9.6.3, except that they should be installed at a spacing of not more than 3 m (see Figure II-5-37). 5.3.9.7.4 ASPSL/LPs or floodlighting should be provided at elevated heliports to offer surface texture cues within the touchdown and lift-off area. These cues are essential to ensure accuracy of positioning for the helicopter during the final approach and hover to landing. Figure II-5-37. Elevated heliport perimeter, heliport identification and TDPC lighting 5.3.9.7.5 When ASPSL/LPs are used on an elevated heliport to enhance the surface texture cues, they should not be placed adjacent to the perimeter lights. Suitable locations include around a touchdown positioning marking circle or coincident with the heliport identification “H” marking or cross marking (see Figure II-5-37). 5.3.10 Helicopter stand lighting 5.3.10.1 The helicopter stand lighting provides illumination of the stand surface and associated markings, assists the manoeuvring and positioning of a helicopter, and allows essential operations around the helicopter to be conducted safely. 5.3.10.2 This may be achieved with apron floodlighting or ambient lighting. Guidance on apron floodlighting is given in the apron floodlighting section in the Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 4 — Visual Aids (Doc 9157). 5.3.10.3 Helicopter stand floodlights should provide adequate illumination, with a minimum of glare to the pilot of a helicopter in flight and on the ground, and to personnel on the stand. Floodlights should be arranged and aimed such that a helicopter stand receives light from two or more directions to minimize shadows 5.3.10.4 The spectral distribution of stand floodlights should be such that the colours used for surface and obstacle marking can be correctly identified. 5.3.10.5 Horizontal and vertical illuminance should be sufficient to ensure that visual cues are discernible for required manoeuvring and positioning, and essential operations around the helicopter can be performed expeditiously without endangering personnel or equipment. 5.3.11 Helicopter taxiway/air taxi-route lighting 5.3.11.1 The taxiway/air taxi-route lighting provides illumination of the markings or markers. 5.3.11.2 Helicopter taxiways should be lighted in the same manner as a taxiway meant for use by aeroplanes (see Annex 14, Volume I, Chapter 5). 5.2.11.3 When not collocated with a taxiway, air taxi-route markings should be lighted as for taxiways; air taxi-route markers should be internally illuminated or rendered retro-reflective. 5.3.12 Obstacle marking and lighting 5.3.12.1 Obstacle lighting 5.3.12.1.1 An obstacle at a heliport should be lit in the same manner as at an airport as per the specifications in Annex 14, Volume I, Chapter 6. 5.3.12.1.2 Where a heliport is isolated or rarely used and to avoid unnecessary light pollution, obstacle lighting may be activated at the time of use. 5.3.12.2 Obstacle floodlighting It is preferable for some structures, such as trees and towers, to be illuminated by floodlights as an alternative to fitting intermediate steady red lights, provided that the lights are arranged such that they adequately illuminate the structure and do not dazzle the helicopter pilot. Appendix A to Chapter 5 VISUAL ALIGNMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM 1. GENERAL 1.1 The visual alignment guidance system first introduced in Chapter 5, 5.3.5 is designed to give visual indications of the correct track. This system is mainly recommended to serve the approach to a heliport where one or more of the following conditions exist, especially at night: a) when obstacle clearance, noise abatement or traffic control procedures require a particular direction to be flown; b) where the environment of the heliport provides few visual surface cues; and c) when it is physically impractical to install an approach lighting system. 1.2 The system provides a minimum of three discrete signal sectors giving “offset to the right”, “on track” and “offset to the left” indications. Note.— When installed and used in the prescribed manner, a visual alignment guidance system will provide a safe lateral clearance from obstacles when on final approach. 1.3 The material in this chapter provides guidance in the application of Chapter 5, 5.3.5, considering that visual alignment guidance systems: a) of different designs may be in use; and b) may be installed on heliports with widely varying physical characteristics. 2. TYPE OF SIGNAL 2.1 The signal of the visual alignment guidance system should be such that there is no possibility of confusion between the system, and any associated visual approach slope indicator or other visual aids. 2.2 The system should avoid the use of the same coding as any associated visual approach slope indicator. 2.3 The use of the system should not significantly increase the pilot workload and the signal format should be unique and conspicuous in all operational environments for which it is intended to use the visual alignment guidance system. 3. LAYOUT AND SETTING ANGLE 3.1 The visual alignment guidance system should be located such that a helicopter is guided along the prescribed track towards the final approach and take-off area, and should be placed at its downwind edge and aligned along the preferred approach direction. 3.2 The system should be capable of adjustment in azimuth to within ±5 minutes of arc of the desired approach track. 3.3 Where the lights of the system need to be seen as discrete sources, light units should be located such that at the extremes of the system coverage the angle subtended between units as seen by the pilot should not be less than 3 minutes of arc. The angle subtended between light units of the system and other lights of comparable or greater intensity should also not be less than 3 minutes of arc. This can be met for lights on a line normal to the line of sight if they are separated by 1 m for every kilometre of viewing range. 3.4 The divergence of the “on track” sector of the system should be 1° on either side of the centreline (see Figure II-5-A-1). Figure II-5-A-1. Divergence of the “on track” sector 4. BRILLIANCY A suitable intensity control should be provided so as to allow adjustment to meet the prevailing conditions and to avoid dazzling the pilot during approach and landing. When the system is used in conjunction with a visual approach slope indicator, the intensity settings should be compatible. 5. CHARACTERISTICS 5.1 In the event of the failure of any component affecting the signal format, the system should be automatically switched off. The characteristics of the obstacle protection surfaces specified for PAPI, APAPI and HAPI systems should apply equally to the visual alignment guidance system (see Figure II-5-B-4). 5.2 The light units should be so designed that deposits of condensation, ice, dirt, etc., on optically transmitting or reflecting surfaces can be removed to ensure they will not interfere with the light signal and will not cause spurious or false signals to be generated. 6. INITIAL FLIGHT INSPECTION A flight inspection of a new installation is recommended to confirm the correct operation of the system. The inspection should include checks of the divergence of the “on track” sector, azimuth and vertical coverage, range, brilliancy control and compatibility with the approach slope indicator. 7. ROUTINE INSPECTION 7.1 The initial setting will be accomplished either by the manufacturer’s agent or under strict compliance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions. Thereafter, a suitable routine inspection schedule should be established to ensure that the system remains operationally safe. 7.2 A routine check should be made on the visual alignment guidance system to ensure that: a) all lamps are lighted and illuminated evenly; b) no evidence of damage is apparent; c) the signal format is correct; d) the optically transmitting or reflecting surfaces are not contaminated; and e) the control systems are operating properly. 8. OBSTACLE CONSIDERATIONS The angle of azimuthal setting of the system should be such that during an approach, the pilot of a helicopter at the boundary of the “on track” signal will clear all objects in the approach area by a safe margin. The characteristics of the obstacle protection surface specified in Appendix B to Chapter 5, 1.15.2, Table II-5-B-2 and Figure II-5-A-2 for visual approach indicators should equally apply to the system. Figure II-5-A-2 Siting of the alignment guidance system 9. EXAMPLE OF AN ALIGNMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM 9.1 Description. An example of a visual alignment guidance system is illustrated in Figure II-5-A-2. The system consists of six pulsing units arranged in two groups of three units, each as indicated in Figure II-5-A-2. One group is located on the left side of the approach track and the other group on the right side. The system works as follows: a) when on the correct approach track, the pilot will see the two light units designated as 3R and 3L simultaneously flashing like a runway threshold identification light as specified in Annex 14, Volume I, Section 5.3.9; and b) when to the left or right of the correct approach track, the pilot will see three lights flashing one after another indicating the direction of correction, for example, 1L, 2L, 3L if the pilot is to the left of the correct approach track. 9.2 Location. The system should preferably be located on the downwind edge of the final approach and take-off area as shown in Figure II-5-A-2. The separation distances between the light units should be as shown in that figure. Where a HAPI is used in conjunction with the visual alignment guidance system, the HAPI should be sited behind the alignment guidance system and at the centre of units 3R and 3L. A spacing of 4 to 5 m between light units 3R and 3L might prove to be adequate where a HAPI is collocated with the system. Where sufficient room is available, the HAPI may be installed aligned with the units of the system and at the centre of units 3R and 3L. 9.3 Signal format. The signal format of the visual alignment guidance system includes three discrete signal sectors providing “offset to the left”, “on track” and “offset to the right” signals as shown below. The “offset sector” flash characteristics are shown in Figure II-5-A-3 and Table II-5-A-1. The system also includes two additional narrow sectors providing “slightly offset” signals. In these “slightly offset” sectors, the system shows two white lights flashing in sequence, still indicating the direction of correction. Figure II-5-A-3. Offset touchdown marking 9.4 Setting of the system. The divergence of the “on track” sector of the system should be set at 1° as shown in Figure II-5-A-1. The system is generally housed in a casing similar to that used for PAPI. 9.5 Light distribution. The system should have the same coverage as envisaged in the Heliport Manual, for a visual slope indicator system meant for helicopter operations. This would ensure that a pilot will not lose the signals of either system when they are used in conjunction. The light units have a peak intensity of 15 000 cd. 9.6 The system provides intensity settings of 100 per cent, 30 per cent and 10 per cent capable of being remotely controlled by the pilot from the helicopter. Table II-5-A-1. Visual Alignment Guidance System (Light coding) Sector Offset to the left On track Offset to the right Signal Three white lights flashing in sequence from left to right Two white lights flashing together (3R and 3L) Three white lights fl ashing in sequence from right to left (1R, 2R and 3R) Appendix B to Chapter 5 HELICOPTER APPROACH PATH INDICATOR 1. GENERAL 1.1 The HAPI defined in Chapter 5, 5.3.6, is designed to give visual indications of the desired approach slope and any vertical deviation from it. 1.2 A HAPI should be located such that a helicopter is guided to the desired position within the FATO so as to avoid dazzling the pilot during final approach and landing. This will usually entail the HAPI being located adjacent to the nominal aiming point and aligned in azimuth with the preferred approach direction. 1.3 HAPI is a single unit device providing one normal approach path and three discrete deviation indications. Note.— The helicopter (visual) approach path indicator system is closely associated with the safety of helicopter operations. It is considered desirable to remind users of this manual that the system, when installed and used in the prescribed manner, will provide a safe margin, clear of all obstacles when on final approach. HAPIs may be installed on heliports with widely varying physical characteristics. 2. TYPE OF SIGNAL 2.1 The signal format of the HAPI should include four discrete signal sectors, providing an above slope, an on slope, a slightly below slope and a below slope signal. 2.2 HAPI is a projector unit producing a light signal, the lower half of which is red and the upper half of which is green. An occulting device creates at the top of the green signal, and at the bottom of the red signal, a flashing effect as shown at Figure II-5-B-1. Figure II-5-B-1. HAPI light unit 2.3 The signal repetition rate of the flashing sector should be at least 2 Hz. The on to off ratio of pulsing signals should be 1 to 1 and the modulation depth at least 80 per cent. The angular size of the on slope sector should be 45 minutes and the angular size of the slightly below sector should be 15 minutes. 2.4 The angle of elevation setting of HAPI should be such that during an approach the pilot of a helicopter observing the upper boundary of the below slope signal will clear all objects in the approach area by a safe margin. 2.5 The light distribution of the HAPI in red and green colours should be as shown in Figure II-5-22, Illustration 4. The transmittance of a red or green filter should be greater than 85 per cent at the maximum intensity setting. At full intensity the red light should have a Y coordinate not exceeding 0.320 and the green light should be within the boundary specified for Annex 14, Volume I, Appendix 1, 2.3.1 (c). Note.— Care should be taken in the design to minimize spurious signals between the signal sectors and the azimuth coverage limits. A larger azimuth coverage may be obtained by installing the HAPI system on a turntable. Figure II-5-B-2. HAPI signal format 3. EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS 3.1 The colour transition between the adjacent sectors of the signal in the vertical plane should appear to an observer at a distance of not less than 300 m to occur within a vertical angle of not more than 3 minutes. 3.2 The occulting device should be so designed that, in case of failure, no light will be emitted in the failed flashing sector. 4. SETTING ANGLES 4.1 During manufacture, the centre of the plane of transition between the steady-red and green signals should be aligned precisely with the unit’s horizontal axis (Figure II-5-B-2, HAPI light unit). The unit setting angle and the centre of the on-course sector are not the same. Thus, the setting angle should be related to the red-green boundary (see Section 13). 4.2 A HAPI system should be capable of adjustment in elevation to any desired angle between 1° and $1 2 ^ { \circ }$ above the horizontal, with an accuracy of ±5 minutes of arc. 4.3 The HAPI units should be so designed that in the event of a vertical misalignment exceeding $\pm 0 . 5 ^ { \circ }$ , the system will switch off automatically. If the flashing mechanism fails, no light will be omitted in the failed flashing sectors. 5. BRILLIANCY A suitable intensity control should be provided to allow adjustment to meet the prevailing conditions and to avoid dazzling the pilot during approach and landing. 6. MOUNTING 6.1 Firm bases are essential for HAPI units as for any precision system. The design of the mounting should, therefore, be such as to provide maximum stability. 6.2 The HAPI system should be mounted and sited as low as possible so as not to constitute a hazard to helicopters. 7. BLAST RESISTANCE The HAPI system should maintain its setting angle when exposed to rotor downwash and environmental conditions. 8. RESISTANCE TO FOREIGN MATTER 8.1 The HAPI should be designed as a sealed unit to prevent the ingress of foreign matter and formation of salt deposits on the lens systems. 8.2 The unit should be constructed of materials resistant to corrosion. 9. CONDENSATION AND ICE Low-power heater elements (50 to 100 W) may be needed to prevent the formation of condensation and ice on optically transmitting or reflecting surfaces, i.e. lenses of light units. Operation of light units at a lower power setting (20 W per lamp), when the unit is not in use, has also been shown to be a satisfactory method of prevention. Units which do not have some means of keeping the lens glasses warm need an adequate, full-intensity warm-up period before use to disperse condensation or remove ice from the lenses. The appropriate warm-up time for a HAPI unit should be established. 10. INITIAL FLIGHT INSPECTION A flight inspection of a new installation is recommended to confirm the correct operation of the system. The inspection should include checks of the azimuth coverage, range, setting angle, brilliancy control and compatibility with the ILS or MLS (if provided). 11. Routine inspection 11.1 The initial setting-up will be accomplished either by the manufacturer’s agent or under strict compliance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions. Thereafter, a suitable routine inspection schedule should be established to ensure that the system remains operationally safe. 11.2 A regular check should be made on HAPI systems to ensure that: a) all lamps are lighted and illuminated evenly; b) no evidence of damage is apparent; c) the signal format is correct; d) the change of signals is coincident for all optical elements in a HAPI unit; e) the lenses are not contaminated; and f) the control systems are operating properly. 12. METHOD OF CHECKING The setting angle is checked using a clinometer or an equivalent means set to the appropriate angle and placed on the checking datum. Errors in excess of 3 minutes of arc should be corrected. 13. LAYOUT AND ELEVATION SETTING ANGLE 13.1 The HAPI unit should be located as to avoid dazzling pilots at the final stages of the approach and landing. The minimum setting angle of HAPI is 1°. On a surface-level heliport or on an elevated heliport, HAPI should preferably be installed either on the left or on the right side of the final approach and take-off area. It can, at times, be desirable to have it on the axis of the preferred approach. In those cases, the HAPI unit should be placed on the centre of the inner edge of the final approach and take-off area. 13.2 When placed on a turntable, on an elevated heliport the HAPI system can be aligned to the desired approach axis. 13.3 Examples of HAPI with three difference settings are illustrated in Figure II-5-B-3. Figure II-5-B-3. HAPI with three difference settings 14. CLEARANCE FROM FATO The HAPI unit should not penetrate any obstacle limitation surface. 15. OBSTACLE CONSIDERATIONS 15.1 An obstacle protection surface should be established when it is intended to provide a visual approach slope indicator system. The characteristics of this surface i.e. origin, divergence, length and slope should correspond to those in the relevant column of Table II-5-B-2 and Figure II-5-B-4. New objects or extensions of existing objects should not be permitted above an obstacle protection surface except when, in the opinion of the appropriate authority, the new object or extension would be shielded by an existing immovable object. Guidance is provided in the Airport Services Manual, Part 6 — Control of Obstacles (Doc 9137). Table II-5-B-2. Dimensions of the obstacle protection surface Surface and dimensions FATO Length of inner edge Width of safety area Distance from end of FATO 3 m minimum Divergence 10 per cent Total length 2 500 m 15.2 Existing objects above an obstacle protection surface should be removed except when, according to the appropriate authority, the object is shielded by an existing immoveable object, or following an aeronautical study it is determined that the object will not adversely affect the safety of helicopter operations. In cases where an existing object could adversely affect the safety of helicopter operations, one or more of the following measures should be taken: a) suitably raise the approach slope of the system; b) reduce the azimuth spread of the system so that the object is outside the confines of the beam; c) displace the axis of the system and its associated obstacle protection surface by no more than 5 degrees; and/or d) suitably displace the FATO and install a visual alignment guidance system. Note: the HAPI should be located with the confines of the dotted lines either side of the FATO unless the width of the ‘obstacle protection surface’ is adjusted accordingly. Figure II-5-B-4. Obstacle protection surface 15.3 The location and approach angle of HAPI may be influenced by the presence of obstacles in the approach area. The area to be surveyed is shown in Table II-5-B-2 and Figure II-5-B-4. 15.4 Table II-5-B-2 shows the dimensions and divergences of the obstacle protection surface for the three types of visual approach slope indicators meant for use at heliports. These surfaces are derived from the approach surfaces specified in Annex 14, Volume II, Chapter 4 and Appendix 2. 15.3 The azimuth spread of the light beam should be suitably restricted where an object located outside the obstacle protection surface of the HAPI system, but within the lateral limits of its light beam, is found to extend above the plane of the obstacle protection surface, and an aeronautical study indicates that the object could adversely affect the safety of operations. The extent of the restriction should be such that the object remains outside the confines of the light beam. Appendix C to Chapter 5 EXAMPLE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM SPECIFICATIONFOR A HOSPITAL HELIPORT LIGHTING SYSTEM 1. OVERALL OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT 1.1 The whole lighting configuration should be visible over a range of 360° in azimuth. 1.2 The visibility of the lighting configuration should be compatible with operations in a meteorological visibility of 3 000 m. 1.3 The lighting configuration aids the helicopter pilot perform the necessary visual tasks during approach and landing as detailed in Table II-5-C-1. Table II-5-C-1. Visual tasks during approach and landing Phase ofapproach Visual task Visual cues/ aids Desired range (NM) 3 000 m met. vis. Heliport locationand identification Search for heliport within thehospital complex. Shape of heliport,colour of heliport,luminance of heliport,perimeter lighting. 1.1(2 km) Final approach Detect helicopter position inthree axes.Detect rate of change ofposition. Apparent size/shape andchange of size/shape ofheliport.Orientation and change oforientation of known features/markings/lights. 0.75(1.4 km) Hover andlanding Detect helicopter attitude,position and rate of change ofposition in three axes (sixdegrees of freedom). Known features/ markings/lights.Heliport texture. 0.03(50 m) 1.4 The minimum intensities of the lighting configuration should be adequate to ensure that, for a minimum meteorological visibility (met. vis.) of 3 000 m and an illuminance threshold of 10-6.1 lux, each feature of the system is visible and useable at night from ranges as follows: a) perimeter lights are to be visible and usable at night from a minimum range of 1.1 NM; b) TDPC on the heliport is to be visible and usable at night from a range of 0.75 NM; and c) cross marking is to be visible and usable at night from a range of 0.375 NM. 1.5 The design of the perimeter lights, TDPC and cross marking should be such that the luminance of the perimeter lights is equal to or greater than that of the TDPC segments, and the luminance of the TDPC segments equal to or greater than that of the cross marking. 1.6 Some onshore operations at heliports with difficult obstacle environments have access to Category A procedures with vertical components of up to 122 m (400 ft). This extensive vertical component places the helicopter in the 20⁰ to 90⁰ sector where the minimum lighting intensities for the components are as follows: Table II-5-C-2. Lighting intensity Component Minimum intensity (cd)for elevationsfrom 20°to 90° Comments Perimeter lights 3.0 See Table Il-5-C-4 TDPC 0.375 0.5 m segment - see Table ll-5-C-5and Figure ll-5-C-2 Cross marker 0.1 1.5 m limb - see Table ll-5-C-6 1.7 Assuming an eye illuminance threshold = -6.0 log lux (see Annex 3 — Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation, Attachment D) and a minimum meteorological visibility of 3 000 m, Allard’s Law predicts the following maximum ranges Table II-5-C-3. Conspicuity ranges Component Range (m) Detectable Conspicuous* Perimeter lights 1034 690 TDPC 481 297 Cross marker 278 164 *It is common practice to increase the required intensity by half in order (i.e. multiply by √10) toensure that the light source is conspicuous rather than just detectable. In this case, the minimumintensities are divided by V10 to calculate the reduced range for conspicuity. 1.8 For the worst case, the maximum range at which the component (cross marker limb) will be conspicuous is 162 m (533 ft), easily encompassing the height of Category A procedures. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Lighting element. A lighting element is a light source within a segment or sub-section and may be discrete (e.g. LED) or continuous (e.g. fibre optic cable, electro luminescent panel). An individual lighting element may consist of a single light source or multiple light sources arranged in a group or cluster and may include a lens/diffuser. 2.2 Segment. A segment is a section of the TDPC lighting. For the purposes of this specification, the dimensions of a segment are the length and width of the smallest possible rectangular area that is defined by the outer edges of the lighting elements, including any lenses/diffusers. 2.3 Sub-section. A sub-section is an individual section of the cross marking lighting. For the purposes of this specification, the dimensions of a sub-section are the length and width of the smallest possible rectangular area that is defined by the outer edges of the lighting elements, including any lenses/diffusers. 3. THE PERIMETER LIGHT REQUIREMENT 3.1 Configuration. Perimeter lights spaced at intervals no more than 3 m should be fitted around the perimeter of the landing area of the heliport as described in Chapter 5, Section 2. 3.2 Mechanical constraints. The perimeter lights should not exceed a height of 25 cm above the surface of the heliport. 3.3 Light intensity. The minimum light intensity profile is given in Table II-5-C-4. No perimeter light should have an intensity of greater than 60 cd at any angle of elevation. Note that the design of the perimeter lights should be such that the luminance of the perimeter lights is equal to or greater than that of the TDPC segments. Table II-5-C-4. Minimum light intensity profile for perimeter lights Elevation Azimuth Intensity (min) 0^to 10°$ $- 1 8 0 ^ { \circ } \ t \circ + 1 8 0 ^ { \circ }$ 30 cd ${ > } 1 0 ^ { \circ } \ \mathrm { t o } \ 2 0 ^ { \circ }$ $- 1 8 0 ^ { \circ } \ t \circ + 1 8 0 ^ { \circ }$ 15cd $> 2 0 ^ { \circ } \mathrm { ~ t o ~ } 9 0 ^ { \circ }$ $- 1 8 0 ^ { \circ } \ t \circ + 1 8 0 ^ { \circ }$ 3cd 3.3 Colour. The colour of the light emitted by the perimeter lights should be green and should conform to the chromaticity specifications in Annex 14, Volume I, Appendix 1, 2.3.1 (c). Note.— The above assumes that solid state light sources are used. Annex 14, Volume I, Appendix 1, 2.1.1 (c), should be applied if filament light sources are used. 3.4 Serviceability. The perimeter lighting is considered serviceable provided that at least 90 per cent of the lights are serviceable, and providing that no two adjacent lights are unserviceable. 4. THE TDPC REQUIREMENT 4.1 Configuration 4.1.1 The lit TDPC should be superimposed on the yellow painted marking such that it is concentric with the painted circle and contained within it. It should comprise one or more concentric circles of at least 16 discrete lighting segments of at least 40 mm minimum width. 4.1.2 A single circle should be positioned such that the radius of the circle formed by the centreline of the lighting segments is within 10 cm of the mean radius of the painted circle. Four gaps of between 1.5 m and 2.0 m, aligned with the ‘arms’ of the white cross, should be provided to permit stretcher trolley access. 4.1.3 The lighting segments should be of such a length as to provide coverage of between 50 per cent and 75 per cent of the circumference populated by lighting segments (i.e. the four 1.5 to 2 m access gaps are to be excluded from this calculation), and be equidistantly placed with the gaps between them not less than 0.5 m. The mechanical housing should be coloured yellow. 4.2 Mechanical constraints 4.2.1 The height of the lit TDPC fixtures (e.g. segments) and any associated cabling should be as low as possible and should not exceed 25 mm above the surface of the heliport when fitted. To avoid a trip hazard, the segments should not present any vertical outside edge greater than 6 mm without chamfering at an angle not exceeding 30° from the horizontal. 4.2.2 The overall effect of the lighting segments and cabling on deck friction should be minimized. Wherever practical, the surfaces of the lighting segments should meet the minimum deck friction limit coefficient (µ) of 0.6, e.g. on non-illuminated surfaces. 4.2.3 The TDPC lighting components, fitments and cabling should be able to withstand a pressure of at least 2 280 kPa (331 lbs/in2), without damage. 4.3 Intensity 4.3.1 The light intensity for each of the lighting segments, when viewed at angles of azimuth over the range + 80° to -80° from the normal to the longitudinal axis of the strip (see Figure II-5-C-1) should be as defined in Table II-5-C-5. 4.3.2 For the remaining angles of azimuth on either side of the longitudinal axis of the segment, the maximum intensity should be as defined in Table II-5-C-5; the minimum intensity values are not applicable. Note 1.— The intensity of each lighting segment should be nominally symmetrical about its longitudinal axis. Note 2.— The design of the TDPC should be such that the luminance of the TDPC segments is equal to or greater than those of the cross chevrons. Table II-5-C-5. Light intensity for TDPC lighting segments Elevation Intensity Min Max 0°to 10° As a function of segment length as defined inFigure-l-5-C-2 60 cd >10°to 20° 25% of min intensity ${ > } 0 ^ { \circ }$ to $1 0 ^ { \circ }$ 45 cd >20°to 90° 5% of min intensity ${ > } 0 ^ { \circ }$ to $1 0 ^ { \circ }$ 15 cd Figure II-5-C-1. TDPC segment measurement axis system Figure II-5-C-2. TDPC segment intensity versus segment length Note.— Given the minimum gap size of 0.5 m and the minimum coverage of 50 per cent, the minimum segment length is 0.5 m. The maximum segment length is given by selecting the minimum number of segments (16), the minimum access gap size (1.5 m) and the maximum coverage (75 per cent), resulting in a maximum segment length of 1.5 m for the 11.5 m standard TDPC diameter. 4.3.3 If a segment is made up of a number of individual lighting elements (e.g. LED’s), they should be of the same nominal performance (i.e. within manufacturing tolerances) and be equidistantly spaced throughout the segment to aid textural cueing. Minimum spacing between the illuminated areas of the lighting elements should be 3 cm and maximum spacing 10 cm. 4.3.4 On the assumption that the intensities of the lighting elements will add linearly at longer viewing ranges where intensity is important the minimum intensity of each lighting element (i) should be given by the formula: $$ \mathsf { i } = \mathsf { I } / \mathsf { n } $$ where I = required minimum intensity of segment at the ‘look down’ (elevation) angle (see Table II-5-C-6). n = the number of lighting elements within the segment. Note.— The maximum intensity of a lighting element at each angle of elevation should also be divided by the number of lighting elements within the segment. 4.3.5 If the segment comprises a continuous lighting element (e.g. fibre optic cable, electro luminescent panel), the element should be masked at 3.0 cm intervals on a 1:1 mark-space ratio to achieve textural cueing at short range, 4.4 Colour 4.4.1 The colour of the light emitted by the TDPC should be yellow and should conform to the chromaticity specifications defined in Annex 14, Volume I, Appendix 1, 2.3.1 (b). Note.— The above assumes that solid state light sources are used. Annex 14, Volume I, Appendix 1, 2.1.1 (b), should be applied if filament light sources are used. 4.5 Serviceability At least 90 per cent of the lighting elements should be operating for the TDPC to be considered serviceable. 5. THE CROSS MARKING REQUIREMENT 5.1 Configuration 5.1.1 The white cross marking should be lit using green right-angled lit chevron markings located adjacent to each of the four internal corners of the 9 m x 9 m white cross. Each chevron should be 1.5 m to 1.6 m x 1.5 m to 1.6 m in size and be spaced by 4.0 m to 4.5 m as shown in Figure II-5-C-3. Figure II-5-C-3. Configuration and dimensions of heliport cross marking 5.1.2 The cross (chevron) markings should comprise sub-sections of between 80 mm and 100 mm wide. There are no restrictions on the length of the sub-sections, up to a maximum of 1.6 m but, where applicable, the gaps between them should not be greater than 10 cm. The mechanical housing should be coloured white and should be mounted onto white paint markings between 15 cm and 45 cm wide. To ensure the white chevron markings are conspicuous to a pilot operating by day, they should be outlined with a thin black line (typically 5 to 10 cm wide). 5.2 Mechanical constraints 5.2.1 The height of the cross fixtures (e.g. sub-sections) and any associated cabling should be as low as possible and should not exceed 25 mm above the surface of the heliport when fitted. To avoid a trip hazard, the lighting strips should not present any vertical outside edge greater than 6 mm without chamfering at an angle not exceeding 30° from the horizontal. 5.2.2 The overall effect of the lighting sub-sections and cabling on deck friction should be minimized. Wherever practical, the surfaces of the lighting sub-sections should meet the minimum deck friction limit coefficient (µ) of 0.6, e.g. on non-illuminated surfaces. 5.2.3 The cross-lighting components, fitments and cabling should be able to withstand a pressure of 2 280 kPa (331 lb/in2), without damage. 5.3 Light intensity 5.3.1 The intensity of the lighting for each 1.5 m limb of each chevron over all angles of azimuth is given in Table II- 5-C-6 below. Note.— For the purposes of demonstrating compliance with this specification, a sub-section of the lighting forming the cross chevrons may be used. The minimum length of the sub-section should be 0.5 m. Table II-5-C-6. Light Intensity of the 1.5 m limb of each cross chevron Elevation Intensity Min Max 2°to 12° 2cd 30 cd >12° to 20° 0.25 cd 15cd >20°to 90° 0.1 cd 5cd 5.3.2 The cross chevrons should consist of the same sub-sections throughout. 5.3.3 If a sub-section of the cross chevrons is made up of individual lighting elements (e.g. LED’s), they should be of nominally identical performance (i.e. within manufacturing tolerances) and be equidistantly spaced within the subsection to aid textural cueing. Minimum spacing between the illuminated areas of the lighting elements should be 3 cm and maximum spacing 10 cm. 5.3.4 Due to the shorter viewing ranges for the cross and the lower intensities involved the minimum intensity of each lighting element (i) for all angles of elevation (0° to 90°) should be given by the formula: i = I / n where I = required minimum intensity of the sub-section at the ‘look down’ (elevation) angle between 2° and 12° (see Table II-5-C-6). n = the number of lighting elements within the sub-section. Note.— The maximum intensity of each lighting element at any angle of elevation should be the maximum between 2° and 12° (see Table II-5-C-6) divided by the number of lighting elements within the sub-section. 5.3.5 If the cross chevrons are constructed from a continuous light element (e.g. ELP panels or fibre optic cables or panels), the luminance (B) of the 1.5 m arms of the chevrons should be given by the formula: B = I / A where I = intensity of the limb (see Table II-5-C-6). A = the projected lit area at the ‘look down’ (elevation) angle. 5.3.6 If the sub-section comprises a continuous lighting element (e.g. ELP, fibre-optic cable), the element should be masked at 3.0 cm intervals on a 1:1 mark-space ratio to achieve textual cueing at short range, 5.4 Colour The colour of the cross chevrons should be green and should conform to the chromaticity specifications defined in Annex 14, Volume I, Appendix 1, 2.3.1 (c). Note.— The above assumes that solid state light sources are used. Annex 14, Volume I, Appendix 1, 2.1.1 (c), should be applied if filament light sources are used. 5.5 Serviceability At least 90 per cent of the lighting elements in each of the four chevron markings should be operating for the cross marking to be considered serviceable. 6. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS 6.1 Requirements 6.1.1 All lighting components should be tested by an independent test house. The photometrical and colour measurements performed in the optical department of this test house should be accredited according to the version of EN ISO/IEC 17025 current at the time of testing. The angular sampling intervals should be: every 10° in azimuth; every 1° from $0 ^ { \circ }$ to 10°, every 2° from 10° to 20° and every 5° from 20° to 90° in elevation. 6.1.2 With regard to the attachment of the TDPC and cross chevrons to the heliport, the critical failure mode requiring consideration, as a result of the shear loads that are generated during helicopter landings, is the detachment of elements of the TDPC and cross lighting. The maximum horizontal load may be assumed to be that defined in Chapter 3, Case A, paragraph d) i.e. the maximum take-off mass (MTOM) of the largest helicopter for which the heliport is designed multiplied by 0.5, distributed equally between the main undercarriage legs. The requirement applies to components of the circle and cross lighting having an installed height greater than 6 mm and a plan view area greater than, or equal to, 200 cm2. Recessed fittings should be used wherever possible. Use of raised fittings (e.g. domed nuts) should be minimized and, in any event, should not protrude by more than 6 mm above the surrounding surface without chamfering at an angle not exceeding 30° from the horizontal. Note 1.— For example, a horizontal load of 35.8 kN should be assumed for a helicopter MTOM of 14 600 kg. Note 2.— For components having plan areas up to and including 1 000 cm2, the horizontal load may be assumed to be shared equally by all fasteners provided that they are approximately equally spaced. For larger components, the distribution of the horizontal loads should be considered. 6.1.3 Provision should be included in the design and installation of the system to allow for the effective drainage of the heliport areas inside the TDPC and the cross lighting (see Chapter 3). The design of the lighting and its installation should be such that the residual fluid retained by the circle and cross lighting when mounted on a smooth flat plate with a slope of 1:100, a fluid spill of 200 litres at the centre of the helipad will drain from the circle within 2 minutes. The maximum drainage time applies primarily to aviation fuel, but water may be used for test purposes. The maximum drainage time does not apply to fire-fighting agents. Note.— Drainage may be demonstrated using a mock-up of a one quarter segment of a helipad of D-value of at least 20 m, configured as shown in Figure II-5-C-4, and a fluid quantity of 100 litres. The surface of the test helipad should have a white or light-coloured finish and the water (or other fluid used for the test) should be of a contrasting colour (e.g. by use of a suitable dye) to assist the detection of fluid remaining after 2 minutes. Figure II-5-C-4. Configuration of quarter segment drainage test mock-up 6.2 Other considerations 6.2.1 All lighting components and fitments should meet safety regulations relevant to a heliport environment such as flammability and be tested by a notified body in accordance with applicable directives. 6.2.2 All lighting components and fitments installed on the surface of the heliport should be resistant to attack by fluids such as fuel, hydraulic fluid, helicopter engine and gearbox oils. The components used for de-icing, cleaning and fire-fighting should also be resistant to any fluids used in the assembly or installation of the lighting, e.g. thread locking fluid, UV light, rain, snow and ice. Components should be immersed in each of the fluids individually for a period representative of the likely exposure in-service and then checked to ensure no degradation of mechanical properties (i.e. surface friction and resistance to contact pressure), any discolouration or any clouding of lenses/diffusers. Any other substances that may come into contact with the system that may cause damage should be identified in installation and maintenance documentation. 6.2.3 All lighting components and fitments that are mounted on the surface of the heliport should be able to operate within a temperature range appropriate for the local ambient conditions. 6.2.4 All cabling should utilize low smoke/toxicity, flame retardant cable. Any through-the-deck cable routing and connections should use sealed glands, type approved for heliport use. 6.2.5 All lighting components and fitments should meet IEC International Protection (IP) standards according to IEC 60529 appropriate to their location, use and recommended cleaning procedures. The intent is that the equipment should be compatible with deck cleaning activities using pressure washers and local flooding (i.e. puddling) on the surface of the heliport. It is expected that this will entail meeting at least IP66 (dust tight and resistant to powerful water jetting). IP67 (dust tight and temporary submersion in water) and/or IP69 (dust tight and resistant to close -range high pressure, high temperature jetting) should also be considered and applied where appropriate. Note.— Except where flush mounted (e.g. where used to delineate the landing area from an adjacent parking area), perimeter lights need only meet IP66. Lighting equipment mounted on the surface of the heliport (e.g. circle and cross lighting) should also meet IP67. Any lighting equipment that is to be subject to high pressure cleaning (i.e. lighting mounted on the surface of the helideck such as the circle and cross lighting) should also meet IP69. 6.2.6 Control panels that may be required for heliport lighting systems are not covered in this document. It is the responsibility of the engineering contractor to select and integrate control panels into the installation safety and control systems and to ensure that all such equipment complies with the relevant engineering standards for design and operation. HELIPORT EMERGENCY RESPONSE 6.1 HELIPORT EMERGENCY PLANNING 6.1.1 General 6.1.1 Heliport emergency planning is the process of preparing a heliport to cope with an emergency that takes place at the heliport or in its vicinity. This process minimizes the impact of an emergency by saving lives and restoring the heliport to normal operations as soon as practical. 6.1.2 Every heliport should establish an emergency plan commensurate with the complexity of helicopter operations and of other activities conducted at, or in the vicinity of, the heliport to deal with helicopter emergency situations. 6.1.3 The plan should include a set of instructions dealing with the arrangements designed to meet emergency conditions and steps that should be taken to see that the provisions of the instructions are periodically tested. 6.1.2 Plan contents 6.1.2.1 Type of emergencies 6.1.2.1.1 The heliport emergency plan should include possible emergencies to plan for and how to initiate the plan for each emergency. 6.1.2.1.2 Possible emergencies: a) may involve aircraft: accidents; i) helicopter on-heliport; and ii) helicopter off-heliport (in the vicinity): – land; and water; incidents; i) helicopter on ground; ii) sabotage including bomb threat; and iii) unlawful seizure; b) not involving helicopter: fire on the building and/or nearby buildings; sabotage including bomb threat; natural disaster; dangerous goods occurrences; and medical emergencies; c) compound emergencies: helicopter/structures; helicopter/fuelling facilities; helicopter/helicopter; and helicopter/aeroplane. 6.1.2.1.3 The aircraft emergencies for which services may be required are generally classified as: a) local standby: when a helicopter approaching the heliport is known, or is suspected, to have developed some defect, but the problem is not such as would normally involve any serious difficulty in effecting a safe landing; b) full emergency: when it is known that a helicopter approaching the heliport is, or is suspected to be, in such trouble that there is danger of an accident; and c) helicopter accident: a helicopter accident which has occurred on or in the vicinity of the heliport. 6.1.2.2 Cooperating agencies 6.1.2.2.1 The heliport emergency plan should identify agencies that could assist or respond to an emergency at the heliport or in its vicinity. Names of agencies on and off the heliport, for each type of emergency, with telephone numbers or other contact information, should be included. The plan should also identify the role of each agency for each type of emergency, and a list of pertinent on-heliport services available with telephone numbers or other contact information. 6.1.2.2.2 The heliport emergency plan should set out the procedures for coordinating the response of heliport agencies or services (air traffic services unit, firefighting services, heliport administration, medical and ambulance services, aircraft operators, security services and police) and the response of agencies in the surrounding community (fire departments, police, medical and ambulance services, hospitals, military and harbour patrol and/or coastguard agencies). Copies of any written agreements with other agencies for mutual aid and the provision of emergency services should be contained within the emergency plan. 6.1.2.3 Specified locations 6.1.2.3.1 The emergency organization should specify rendezvous point(s) and staging area(s) for the assisting services involved. A rendezvous point is a prearranged reference point, i.e. road junction, crossroads or other specified place, to which personnel or vehicles responding to an emergency situation initially proceed to receive directions to staging areas and/or the accident or incident site. 6.1.2.3.2 It is recommended that two grid maps (or equivalent) be provided: one map depicting the confines of heliport access roads, location of water supplies, rendezvous points, staging areas, railways, highways, difficult terrain, places with dangerous goods or harmful fluids, etc., and the other map of surrounding communities depicting appropriate medical facilities, access roads, rendezvous points, etc., within a distance of approximately 4 km from the heliport reference point. Where more than one grid map (or equivalent) is used, the scaling lines should not conflict and should be immediately identifiable to all participating agencies. 6.1.2.3.3 Copies of the map(s) should be kept at the emergency operations centre, the heliport operations office, heliport and local fire stations in the vicinity, all local hospitals, police stations, local telephone exchanges, and other similar emergency and information centres in the area. 6.1.2.4 Emergencies in difficult environments 6.1.2.4.1 The heliport emergency plan should include the availability of, and coordination with, appropriate specialist rescue services to respond to emergencies where a heliport is located close to water or swampy areas and/or where a significant portion of approach or departure operations takes place over these areas. 6.1.2.4.2 At those heliports located close to water, swampy areas or difficult terrain, the heliport emergency plan should include the establishment, testing and assessment at regular intervals of a predetermined response for the specialist rescue services. 6.1.2.5 Review and testing of the heliport emergency plan 6.1.2.5.1 The heliport emergency plan should be reviewed and its information updated at least yearly. After an actual emergency, a review of the heliport emergency plan should be conducted to identify any deficiencies arising as a result of the actual emergency. 6.1.2.5.2 The emergency plan should be regularly tested and should include the agencies identified in 6.1.2.2. 6.2 RESCUE AND FIREFIGHTING SERVICE (RFFS) Note 1.— The specifications addressed in this section need not be applied to new builds, or replacement of existing systems, or part thereof, until 1 January 2023. Note 2.— In the following text, the term ‘limited-sized heliport’ is used to describe a heliport where the firefighting capacity is concentrated at the FATO/TLOF and there is no requirement to move foam and/or water dispensing equipment. 6.2.1 Introduction 6.2.1.1 The principal objective of a rescue and firefighting response is to save lives. For this reason, the provision of a means of dealing with a helicopter accident or incident, occurring within the immediate vicinity (i.e. within the designated response area) of a heliport, assumes primary importance because it is within the response area that there are the greatest opportunities for saving lives by a dedicated heliport rescue and firefighting response. This will have to assume, at all times the possibility of, and need for, extinguishing a fire which may occur either immediately following a helicopter accident or incident, or at any time during a subsequent rescue phase. 6.2.1.2 The most important factors bearing on effective escape in a survivable helicopter accident are the speed of initiating a response and the effectiveness of that response. Where a heliport is located on top of a building that is occupied, it is also paramount, for the protection of inhabitants in the building beneath that any fire situation occurring at the heliport be rapidly brought under control. On a purpose-built heliport constructed of aluminium or steel, any effect the fire may have on the structural integrity of the helideck and/or its supporting structure has to be considered. In the event of a fire at a purpose-built heliport, a full structural analysis should be undertaken post-accident, and before helicopter operations are permitted to resume. 6.2.1.3 For a surface-level heliport, especially where it contains a remote FATO, a suitable vehicle may need to be provided to meet the response time objective stated in Annex 14, Volume II, Chapter 6. Where a heliport is located close to water, swampy areas or in difficult terrain and where a significant portion of the approach and departure operation takes place over these areas, an assessment will need to be carried out to determine if specialist RFFS equipment appropriate to specific hazards and risks should be made available. This may include, for example, a rescue boat. 6.2.1.4 Prior to selection of a dedicated heliport rescue and firefighting response (RFFR), the following should be considered: concept and definitions for the characteristics of helicopters; types of heliport facility they may be expected to operate to; and effective distribution of primary extinguishing agent to address a worst case crash and burn. 6.2.1.5 A heliport operator should also have a good understanding of emerging technologies that demonstrate effective methods for delivering primary extinguishing agents. To provide a speedy and effective response, a heliport operator should be able to determine the practical critical area, the response area and response time objectives for their facility. 6.2.2 Determining the required level of RFFS at a heliport 6.2.2.1 A risk assessment should be performed to first determine whether there is a need for rescue and firefighting equipment and services at surface level heliports and at elevated heliports located above unoccupied structures. This assessment should include staffing models for heliports without a dedicated RFFS and with only occasional movements, and for initiating the heliport emergency response. 6.2.2.2 The following photographs illustrate elevated heliports above what are regarded as unoccupied areas. These are for illustrative purposes only and are by no means exhaustive. It is the responsibility of the State of Operation to determine what is classed as an unoccupied area beneath a heliport and therefore is subject to the risk assessment process described at 6.2.2.4. Figure II-6-1. Heliport above unoccupied building Figure II-6-2. Heliport above car park 6.2.2.3 In each illustration, the area underneath the heliport is intended for vehicle parking only. The important distinction to make is that no one is permanently residing beneath the heliport, and it is possible to restrict the movement of persons to and from vehicles during helicopter operations, to ensure that as far as reasonably practicable no one is left in their vehicle during helicopter landing and take-off. 6.2.2.4 The following factors need to be considered in any risk assessment, but it is the responsibility of the State of Operation to determine appropriate threshold limits, including: a) number of movements planned/ unplanned; b) frequency of movements; c) total number of helicopters in use at the site during peak periods; d) type of movements, i.e. whether conducting commercial air transport (CAT) and/or general aviation (GA); e) number of passengers; f) types of helicopters in use, their certification status with respect to crashworthiness (see Appendix B to Chapter 6) and their performance characteristics; g) size and complexity of the response area, e.g. other helicopters are present in apron area; h) nature of the terrain, e.g. located near water or swampy areas; i) whether the heliport is elevated or at surface level; j) whether the heliport is in a congested or non-congested environment; k) availability of the local fire and rescue services, i.e. how rapidly can services respond to an incident on the heliport; l) types of helicopters and specific hazards, e.g. construction materials are used in airframes such as composites, i.e. man-made mineral fibres (MMMF); and m) whether or not an emergency response plan has been established. 6.2.3 Heliport staffing levels 6.2.3.1 The degree of complexity of the heliport and the emergency planning arrangements in place will help to inform heliport staff to execute the heliport emergency plan effectively. The number of personnel used and their given training, are decisions for heliport management and should be fully documented. In order to establish staffing levels, a task/resource analysis should be carried out. An example is provided in Appendix A to Chapter 6. 6.2.3.2 The heliport emergency plan exists to identify agencies that could be of assistance in responding to an emergency at the heliport, or in its vicinity. This could include, but may not be limited to, a helicopter crash, whether or not resulting in a post-crash fire, or a medical emergency or a dangerous goods occurrence. If, due in particular to a low number of movements, a dedicated RFFS is not provided, whether at a surface level heliport or elevated heliport located above an unoccupied structure, there should be a specified method for invoking the heliport emergency plan. 6.2.3.3 Where present, designated personnel should invoke the heliport emergency plan. If the heliport is unattended, the heliport emergency plan should be activated remotely. 6.2.4 Level and method of protection 6.2.4.1 Helicopter characteristics and parameters to be considered 6.2.4.1.1 For the defined areas of a heliport, overall length and maximum take-off mass of the design helicopter are the critical parameters for a designer. For a dedicated firefighting service (FFS) at a heliport, the critical parameters are fuselage length and fuselage width. These dimensions are usually available in the helicopter’s Type Certificate and in the helicopter flight manual but are presented for common types in Table II-6-1 (Table II-6-1 is configured on an ascending scale of overall length (D-value)). 6.2.4.1.2 The fuselage consists of the central portion of the helicopter designed to accommodate the aircrew and the passengers and/or cargo. Fuselage length is often presented (conservatively) in flight manuals as the distance between the nose of the helicopter and the end of the tail boom, and fuselage width as the overall width of the occupied portion of the helicopter excluding the undercarriage. 6.2.4.1.3 To assist designers, Table II-6-1 presents the fuselage dimensions of common helicopter types. The table is not intended to be exhaustive and for types not listed in the table, a designer will have to source the information from official documentation (i.e. the helicopter’s Type Certificate or flight manual). Notwithstanding this, the right-hand column specifies a broad firefighting category from H0 to H3, which is based on Table 6-1 of Annex 14 Volume II, Chapter 6 but includes a discretionary 10 per cent tolerance applied to the upper limits quoted for fuselage length and fuselage width in Table II-61. 6.2.4.1.4 Therefore, for a given operation, there is the option either to apply a type-specific critical area calculation using the formula: L x (W + W1) where: L = fuselage length W = fuselage width W1 = additional width factor of 4 m or, alternatively, to adopt the broader ‘default’ figures in Table II-6-1, which reconcile with H0, H1, H2 or H3 as appropriate (with the 10 per cent tolerance factored in). Note.— A given helicopter is required to be within the limits, including tolerances, for both parameters, fuselage length and fuselage width, to take advantage of a given FFS category. If either dimension, when factoring-in tolerances, is exceeded, that type should be recorded against the higher FFS category. 6.2.4.1.5 For the critical area calculation where primary extinguishing agent is applied in a dispersed (spray) pattern (see 6.2.4.2.5), the formula described in the paragraph above is not applicable. In this case the practical critical area is required to assume protection, i.e. application of primary extinguishing agent, to all parts of the TLOF, and to the extent that it is load bearing, to the FATO also. Table II-6-1. Overall length and fuselage characteristics for common helicopter types Type D-value(metres) Fuselage length Fuselage width* FFS categoryHO to H3 Robinson R22 8.76 6.30 1.12 HO Robinson R44 11.70 9.10 1.30 H1 Robinson R66 11.66 9.00 1.47 H1 H120 11.52 9.60 1.50 H1 H125 (AS350 B3) 12.94 10.93 1.87 H1 H130 12.60 10.68 2.03 H1 MD902 12.37 10.39 1.32 H1 Bell 206BII 11.95 9.51 1.40 H1 Bölkow Bo 105 12.00 8.81 1.58 H1 EC 135 T2+ 12.20 10.20 1.56 H1 H135 12.26 10.20 1.56 H1 Bel1 407 12.70 10.57 1.47 H1 Bell 429 13.00 11.73 1.63 H1 Bell 206L IV 12.96 10.56 1.40 H1 Eurocopter AS355 12.94 10.93 1.87 H1 BK117 13.00 9.98 1.60 H1 Bell 427 13.00 11.13 1.60 H1 Kamov Ka226 13.00 8.61 3.22 H3 Leonardo A109 13.05 11.45 1.62 H1 Leonardo A119 13.02 11.14 1.67 H1 Eurocopter EC145C-2e 13.03 10.20 1.73 H1 H145 13.64 11.69 1.73 H1 Dauphin AS365 N2 13.68 11.63 2.03 H1 Leonardo 169 14.65 12.19 2.15 H1 Leonardo 189 17.60 14.60 2.55 H2$ H175 18.06 15.68 2.25 $H2$ Dauphin AS365 N3 13.73 11.63 2.03 H1 H155 (EC 155B1) 14.30 12.71 2.05 H1 Part II. Onshore heliports Chapter 6. Heliport emergency response Type D-value(metres) Fuselage length Fuselage width* FFS categoryHO to H3 Bell 222 15.33 12.50 1.62 H1 Bell 230 15.38 12.97 1.65 H1 Bell 430 15.29 13.44 1.70 $H2$ Kamov Ka32** 15.90 11.21 3.80 H3 Kamov Ka62 15.60 13.46 2.50 H2 Sikorsky S76C 16.00 13.20 2.13 H1 Leonardo 139 16.63 13.77 2.26 $H2$ Bell 412 17.13 12.91 2.44 H2 Bell 205 17.46 12.92 2.44 $H2$ Bell 212 17.46 14.00 2.64 $H2$ Bell 214B 18.52 13.77 2.44 H2 H215 (AS332 C1e) 18.70 14.82 2.00 $H2$ H215 (AS332L1-e) 18.70 15.58 2.00 $H2$ PZL-SWIDNIK W-3A Sokol 18.79 13.78 1.75 $H2$ Bell 214ST 18.95 14.97 3.11 H3 Super Puma AS332L2 19.50 16.79 2.00 $H2$ H225 (EC 225 LP) 19.50 16.79 2.00 $H2 Sikorsky S92A 20.88 17.10 2.50 H3 Sikorsky S61N 22.20 18.72 2.16 H3 AW101 22.80 19.51 2.80 H3 Mil Mi38 25.22 19.95 2.36 H3 Mil Mi8 25.35 18.17 2.50 H3 *An additional width factor of 4m (W1) is to be applied as part of the practical critical area calculation.* Data from EASA type certificate data sheet - the with could include the empennage; i that is so it might be prudentto refer to the RFM and adjust the FFS category if necessary. The category has been assigned with the assumptionthat the empennage will be excluded from the width.Note: The dimensions above have been taken from "The Official Helicopter Blue Book@". Actual dimensions should beverified against the RFM for the type(s) being used. 6.2.4.2 Practical critical area 6.2.4.2.1 To determine the amount of water required for foam production it is first necessary to calculate a practical critical area (in m2) which is multiplied by the application rate (in L/min/m2) of the respective foam performance level to determine the discharge rate for foam solution (in L/min). By multiplying the discharge rate by the discharge duration, this determines the amount of water needed for foam production. 6.2.4.2.2 The assumptions used to determine practical critical area (helicopters) depend on whether primary extinguishing agent (usually foam) is initially applied in a solid stream (jet) application or in a dispersed (spray) pattern. 6.2.4.2.3 A solid stream is used for firefighting when range of application is essential. In this case the practical critical area is limited to the fuselage dimensions of the helicopter plus an additional width factor (as specified in the note to Table I-6-1 above). Delivering foam solution for initial attack from a fixed monitor system (FMS) located on the periphery of the heliport (see Figure II-6-3), or from a hose-line, in a jet configuration, are examples of typical solid stream applications. In each case, once the fire has been brought under control during the initial attack, there is usually a facility to adjust the nozzle, changing the throughput of equipment from a solid stream application to a dispersed pattern, i.e. the nozzle is adjusted from a jet to a spray (fog) pattern. Where applicable, this provides a safer environment for rescue crews to approach the accident/ incident location. Figure II-6-3. Solid stream application utilising a fixed monitor system (FMS) 6.2.4.2.4 The practical critical area (helicopters), where primary extinguishing agent is applied as a solid stream-jet, is determined by multiplying the maximum fuselage length for a given firefighting category (H0 to H3) by the maximum fuselage width of the same category, then applying an additional width factor (W1) of 4 m. This has been presented in detail in Table II-6-1 (where discretionary 10 per cent upper limit tolerances are also applied). Alternatively, by knowing the fuselage length and width dimensions, a practical critical area calculation can be applied to any specific type of helicopter; this has an application, in practice, when only one type of helicopter is being operated at a heliport. 6.2.4.2.5 A dispersed pattern is used at heliports when it is necessary to deliver foam and/or water at shorter ranges, combining greater coverage with a more effective surface application of the primary extinguishing agent. Here, due to the greater coverage of primary extinguishing agent applied in a dispersed spray pattern, the assumed practical critical area has to be much larger than in a case where primary extinguishing agent is applied in a solid stream (jet). A particularly effective way of delivering primary extinguishing agent in a dispersed pattern is through a Deck Integrated Fire Fighting System (DIFFS) (see Figure II-6-4) typically consisting of a series of flush-mounted nozzles positioned over the surface of the practical critical area which, upon activation, are capable of delivering primary extinguishing agent to the entire loadbearing area of the heliport. Figure II-6-4. Example of a dispersed pattern application utilising DIFFS Note.— In some cases, fixed nozzles may sit very slightly proud of the surrounding deck surface prior to activation, and so it becomes unnecessary for them to physically ‘pop-up’ on activation of the system for this type of nozzle to be effective. 6.2.4.2.6 The practical critical area (helicopters) where primary extinguishing agent is applied in a dispersed (spray) pattern, is predicated on the dimensions of the operating area that needs to be protected. For an onshore purpose built, or limited-sized heliport (e.g. an elevated heliport at rooftop level), the practical critical area is assumed to accommodate the whole load-bearing area which always includes the TLOF, and to the extent that it is a load-bearing surface, the FATO also. In this case, the area to be considered is based on the specific shape of the TLOF, and where applicable, the shape of the FATO. 6.2.4.2.7 Another form of foam dispensing equipment, capable of delivering primary extinguishing agent in a dispersed pattern, is a ring-main system (RMS). In this case, equally spaced nozzles are located around the perimeter of the practical critical area, just above the surface, capable of directing extinguishing agent from the perimeter towards the centre of the landing area. Given the relative ranges at which nozzles are expected to perform, especially in windy conditions, it has been established through practical testing that sole use of an RMS has proven ineffective for TLOFs which are greater than 20 m diameter. In this case, an RMS could only be utilised effectively if supplemented by DIFF nozzles in the centre of the TLOF (a combination solution of RMS plus DIFFS). However, in the case of a large new-build heliport, it is probably more cost-effective and efficient, to provide a full DIFFS. 6.2.4.3 Fixed foam application systems (FFAS) 6.2.4.3.1 When installed at a heliport, a fixed foam application system (FFAS) should deliver a primary foam extinguishing agent at the required application rate and over the assumed practical critical area. An FFAS may include, but not necessarily be limited to, an FMS), a DIFFS or a RMS. A variation on an FFAS is a fixed application system (FAS) capable of applying water-only in a dispersed pattern. An FAS is only permitted when it is used in tandem with a passive fire-retarding surface (see 6.2.4.6.2). Note 1.— Where an FMS is installed, trained monitor operators, where provided, should be positioned on at-least the upwind location to ensure the primary extinguishing agent is directed efficiently to the seat of the fire. Note 2.— Compressed air foam systems (CAFS) may be considered, with foam distributed through a DIFFS using Performance Level B foam (BCAFS). Fire suppression capabilities are enhanced by injecting compressed air into the foam to generate an effective solution to control a fire on the heliport. This type of foam has a tighter, denser bubble structure than standard foams, which allows it to penetrate deeper into the fire before the bubbles are broken down. BCAFS rapidly controls a fire by smothering it (starving it of oxygen), by diminishing heat, using trapped air within the bubble structure, and by disrupting the chemical reaction needed for a fire to continue. Consequently, the opportunity presents to deliver BCAFS at a lower application rate than would otherwise be required for a Standard Level B foam. 6.2.4.3.2 An FFAS may be used at a limited-sized heliport where there is no requirement to physically move foam dispensing equipment towards the fire (hence the equipment is fixed in location). Where foam dispensing equipment is required to be moved towards the accident/ incident location, this is classed as a portable foam application system (PFAS) — see 6.2.4.5. 6.2.4.4 Additional hand-controlled foam branches for the application of aspirated foam 6.2.4.4.1 Not all fires are capable of being accessed by fixed foam application systems (FFAS) delivering foam as a solid stream. Further, in certain scenarios, their use may endanger helicopter occupants who are seeking to escape from the fire. Therefore, in addition to solid stream FFAS, there should be the ability to deploy at least two deliveries with handcontrolled foam branch pipes for the application of aspirated foam at a minimum rate of 225-250 litres/minute through each hose line. 6.2.4.4.2 A single hose line, capable of delivering aspirated foam at a minimum application rate of 225-250 litres/minute, may be acceptable where the hose line is a sufficient length, and the hydrant system of sufficient operating pressure for the effective distribution of foam to any part of the practical critical area, regardless of wind strength or direction. 6.2.4.4.3 Taking account of the open-air environment in which equipment is expected to perform, a low expansion foam should be used. An inline foam inductor is provided to induct the foam concentrate into the water stream to supply a proportioned solution of concentrate and water to foam producing equipment. The inline inductor should be set to the appropriate rate corresponding to the strength of the foam concentrate used e.g. 3 per cent or 6 per cent. 6.2.4.4.4 The hose line(s) provided should be capable of being fitted with a branch pipe able to apply water in the form of a jet or spray pattern for cooling, or for specific firefighting tactics. 6.2.4.5 Portable foam application systems (PFAS) 6.2.4.5.1 For some heliports, it becomes necessary to move primary extinguishing agent-dispensing equipment towards the accident or incident location, for example at a surface level heliport operating a remote FATO (analogous to a fixed wing runway operation at an airport, where the fire vehicle has to be positioned from a location remote to the runway). 6.2.4.5.2 The ability to transport the equipment to the accident location means it is classed as a PFAS which, having been moved to the fire location is then capable of distributing primary extinguishing agent at the required application rate over the assumed practical critical area. A PFAS may include, but not necessarily be limited to, hand-controlled portable foam branch pipes capable of being pulled across the heliport surface by trained personnel (see 6.2.4.4), and monitors or foam cannons that are mounted on an appropriate rescue and firefighting vehicle and then transported to the scene of an accident as part of the rescue and firefighting response for the heliport. 6.2.4.6 Solid plate heliports and passive fire-retarding surfaces 6.2.4.6.1 Most new-build purpose-built heliports are either constructed of aluminium or steel with aluminium or steel support structures. A solid plate surface is set to an appropriate fall or camber (typically 1:100) which allows burning fuel to drain across the solid surface of the heliport into a suitable drainage collection system, whether the fall or camber emanates from the centre of the TLOF or at the perimeter edge. An example of a DIFFS installed on a solid plate surface at an elevated heliport is shown in Figure II-6-5. Figure II-6-5. A foam DIFFS on a solid plate surface at an elevated heliport Note.— While this description is most commonly met by a purpose-built arrangement, it could also be a nonpurpose-built structure, such as the roof of a building, typically made of concrete. The important distinction, from a firefighting perspective, is that in all cases, whether purpose built or non-purpose built, a solid plate surface is by definition non-porous, i.e. impervious to liquids – therefore there is no reasonable expectation that fluids, i.e. aviation fuel discharging from ruptured tanks in a crash and burn, will rapidly drain away, other than through dissipation due to a mild slope on the solid plate surface. 6.2.4.6.2 As an alternative to the solid-plate surface, many manufacturers now give an option to install a passive fireretarding surface which, at a purpose-built heliport is constructed in the form of a perforated surface or grating, containing numerous holes that allow burning fuel to rapidly drain through the surface of the heliport, in some cases to an intermediate safety screen and that functions to extinguish the fire (by starving it of oxygen) permitting, now un-ignited, fuel to drain away to a safe collection area. Other systems (like the design pictured in Figure II-6-6) have no safety screen inside the deck chambers but function by removing the heat from a fire via novel hole sizes and patterns. Figure II-6-6. A fire test on a passive fire-retarding surface (200 L of burning fuel) 6.2.4.6.3 The good thermal conductivity of aluminium, coupled with the fuel flow profile, facilitates a rapid cooling effect on the burning fuel, extinguishing any fire that flows into the decking. These systems, when used in combination with a water-only DIFFS, have been demonstrated to show that any residual fire burning over the surface of the heliport remains insignificant given that the fuel source is constantly draining away to a safe area. Figure II-6-7 illustrates on a passive fire-retarding surface how burning fuel rapidly drains away to collection troughs (approximately 22 seconds after the start of the fire). Note.— Practical testing (see Figures II-6-6 and II-6-7) has consistently demonstrated that even without the addition of water for cooling, a passive fire-retarding surface is proven to be effective in suppressing running fuel fires by channelling liquids away via the holes on the surface, through the decking sub surface into the perimeter gutters and onwards into the drainage system. Figure II-6-7. A fire test on a passive fire-retarding surface (180 L of fuel is collected) 6.2.4.6.4 Where a passive fire-retarding surface is selected in lieu of a solid plate surface, the requirement to provide foam for primary extinguishing agent is removed since most of the fuel is directed immediately away from the surface restricting the intensity of the subsequent fire and what residual fire does remain above the surface is insignificant and can be extinguished with the use of water (see Figure II-6-8 which shows an elevated heliport with a water-only DIFFS coupled with a passive fire-retarding surface). Note.— Apart from the potential for a reduction in helpful ground effect, there is also a practical consideration for this type of porous design in-so-far-as fuel is removed from the surface by numerous holes, so too is the primary extinguishing agent. Consequently, as it is not possible to form an effective foam blanket on a perforated surface, a significant benefit of using foam is nullified. A passive fire-retarding surface is best used with a system capable of providing primary extinguishing agent (water) in a dispersed pattern that can envelop a burning helicopter. The recommendation is for a combination solution: a passive fire-retarding surface incorporating a water-only DIFFS, delivering water at an application rate that is consistent with a Performance Level C foam. 6.2.4.6.5 One of the issues with most passive systems is the year-round tendency to collect debris or contaminants which could result in a reduction of efficacy. The heliport maintenance program should include the regular inspection and clearing of such debris and contaminants. Figure II-6-8. A water-only DIFFS on a heliport with a passive fire-retarding surface 6.2.4.7 Complementary agents 6.2.4.7.1 Complementary agents should ideally be dispensed from one or two extinguishers, although more containers may be permitted when high volumes of the agent are specified, e.g. for H3 operations. 6.2.4.7.2 The discharge rate of complementary agents should be selected for the optimum effectiveness of the agent used. When selecting dry chemical powder for use with foam, compatibility should be ensured. Complimentary agents should comply with the appropriate specifications of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 6.2.4.8 Fire control time 6.2.4.8.1 A fire is deemed to be under control at the point when the initial intensity of the fire is reduced by 90 per cent. The helicopter operation, consistent also with a fixed wing operation, should achieve a 1-minute control time in the practical critical area using a quantity of primary extinguishing agent for initial attack, over an appropriate discharge duration, which is required for the continued control of the fire thereafter, and/or for possible complete extinguishment of the fire and which may have spread across the heliport operating area. 6.2.4.8.2 Speed of response has an important bearing on the effectiveness of escape in a survivable helicopter accident. Intuitively, a prompt intervention will likely bring the fire under control more quickly if firefighting primary extinguishing agent can be applied, at the full application rate, during the earliest stages of a fire’s development. 6.2.4.9 Summary of potential solutions Table II-6-2 contains a summary of the firefighting solutions presented in Annex 14, Volume II, Chapter 6; a quick guide/key summary is provided in Table II-6-3. Table II-6-2. Summary of firefighting options presented in Annex 14, Volume II Heliport type Application method Criticalarea assumptions Dischargeduration Primaryextinguishingagent Responsetime objective Surface level Solid streamPFAS FuselagedimensionsHO-H3 2 minutes Level B/C foam 2 minutes Elevated Solid streamFFAS/solid plate FuselagedimensionsHO-H3 5 minutes Level B/C foam 15 seconds Elevated/surface level Dispersed patternsolid plate TLOF +load-bearingFATO 3 minutes Level B/C foam 15 seconds Elevated/surface level Dispersed patternpassive surface TLOF +load-bearingFATO 2 minutes Water-only 15 seconds Table II-6-3. Quick guide/key PFAS Portable foam application system, e.g. hose-line, foam cannon on a rescue vehicle. FFAS Fixed foam application system, e.g. FMS, DIFFS, RMS. Solid stream application Foam delivered to a concentrated area in the form of a jet, e.g. foam monitors. Dispersed pattern application Foam delivered over a wider area from nozzles mounted in the deck surface, e.g. DIFFS. Solid plate surface Impervious to liquids. Passive fire-retarding surface Incorporates numerous drain holes to allow fuel (and other liquids) to drain through the surface. Fire control time The assumed fire control time in all cases is 1 minute from discharge of primary media at full application rate. The application rate for a Performance Level B foam is 5.5 L/min/m². The application rate for a Performance Level C foam and for water, is 3.75 L/min/m2. 6.2.5 Meeting the response time objective 6.2.5.1 The most important factors bearing on effective escape in a survivable helicopter accident at a heliport are the speed of initiating a response and the effectiveness of that response. The response time for heliports can be defined as the period that lapses between the occurrence of the incident or accident and the first application of primary extinguishing agent to the fire, except for a surface-level heliport where primary extinguishing agent is applied as a solid stream from an appropriately equipped rescue and firefighting vehicle. In this case, response time is measured from the initial call to the RFFS to the time when the first responding vehicles are in place to apply foam at a rate of at least 50 per cent of the required discharge rate. 6.2.5.2 For an FFAS located at an elevated heliport, the initial response should be comparatively quick because primary extinguishing agent-dispensing equipment will already be located adjacent to the scene of the incident (or accident) and 100 per cent discharge capability can be achieved in a relatively short space of time (up to 15 seconds after activation of the system). However, where it is necessary to move primary extinguishing agent-dispensing equipment to the scene of the incident or accident (i.e. a PFAS located on a vehicle), the response time is likely to be more protracted (up to 2 minutes in optimum conditions of visibility and surface conditions). 6.2.5.3 Applying a common timeline to a similar scale incident or accident, which occurs either on a confined-area heliport, using a FFAS, or at a remote surface level FATO, where intervention is via an appropriately equipped rescue vehicle (PFAS), it is reasonable to assume that the fire situation occurring in the first case will be brought under control, or even extinguished, before a PFAS is even on-scene at a remote FATO on a surface-level heliport (where a 2 minute response time objective in optimum conditions is permitted). This means that the confined-area heliport is very favourably positioned when considering the most important factors bearing on effective escape in a survivable helicopter accident: the speed of initiating the response and the effectiveness of that response. 6.2.5.4 In considering the response area at a heliport, all areas used for the manoeuvring, landing, take-off, rejected take-off, ground taxiing, air-taxiing and parking of helicopters that are in the direct control of the heliport operator should be considered. At a limited-sized heliport, including surface level, the response area will usually be the TLOF, and when load bearing, the FATO. However, if a heliport is served by one or more taxiways linking to stands, the heliport operator will have to consider rescue and firefighting arrangements for each additional element of the response area that is under their control. 6.2.5.5 At a surface-level heliport laid out in a similar way to a fixed wing airport, with a remote FATO serviced by a taxiway system linking to an apron with one or more stands, the rescue and firefighting response will normally be provided by a PFAS, i.e. a specialist vehicle, and in this case, following an alarm, firefighting and rescue equipment will be moved directly to the scene of the incident or accident. 6.2.6 Rescue arrangements Rescue arrangements may include, but are not limited to, an assisted-rescue or self-rescue model predicated on the results of a risk assessment. Where a self-rescue model is promoted, it is especially important to establish the respective roles and interfaces between agencies on and off the heliport. This should form part of the heliport emergency plan and be periodically tested. 6.2.7 Communication and alerting system 6.2.7.1 A discrete communication system should be provided linking the rescue and firefighting service with central control and RFF vehicles (when provided). The mobilization of all parties and agencies required to respond to an aircraft emergency on a large heliport will require the provision and management of a complex communications system. The requirement is examined in the Airport Services Manual, Part 7 – Airport Emergency Planning, Chapter 12 (Doc 9137). 6.2.7.2 An alerting system for RFF personnel should be provided at their base facility and be capable of being operated from that location, at any other areas where RFF personnel congregate, and in the control tower (when provided). Examples include: a) direct telephone line to the rescue control center or service room of the rescue personnel; b) alarm button for direct alarm of the fire brigade; c) heat sensor for alarm and/or automatic switching of the extinguishing system; or d) monitored video surveillance. 6.2.7.3 Further detailed guidance on communication and alarm requirements is detailed in the Airport Services Manual, Part 1 – Rescue and Fire Fighting, Chapter 4 (Doc 9137). 6.2.8 RFFS personnel The provision of rescue and firefighting personnel should be determined using a task and resource analysis (see example TRA, Appendix A to Chapter 6). Depending on the rescue model employed (whether an assisted or self-rescue model), sufficient dedicated heliport rescue and firefighting personnel should be provided with appropriate training and with personal protective equipment (PPE) to enable them to perform their duties effectively. 6.2.8.2 Rescue equipment 6.2.8.2.1 Guidance on minimum equipment inventory required to ensure effective rescue arrangements are in place at the heliport are listed in Table II-6-4. 6.2.8.2.2 Equipment should only be used by personnel who have received adequate information, instruction and training. Table II-6-4. Rescue equipment Adjustable wrench 1 Rescue axe, large (non-wedge or aircraft type) 1 Cutters, bolt 1 Crowbar, large 1 Hook, grab or salving 1 Hacksaw (heavy duty) and six spare blades 1 Blanket, fire resistant 1 Ladder (two-piece) * 1 Lifeline (5 mm circumference × 15 m in length) plus rescue harness 1 Pliers, side cutting (tin snips) 1 Set of assorted screwdrivers 1 Harness knife and sheath or harness cutters ** Man-Made Mineral Fibre (MMMF) Filter masks ** Gloves, fire resistant ** Power cutting tol** 1 * For access to casualties in an aircraft that may be on its side, the ladder should be of anappropriate length.** This equipment is required for each heliport crew member.*** Requires additional approved training by competent personnel. Equipment only specified forhelicopters with a D-value above 24m. 6.2.8.3 Personal protective equipment (PPE) 6.2.8.3.1 Depending on the rescue model employed (whether an assisted or self-rescue model), sufficient dedicated heliport rescue and firefighting personnel should be provided with appropriate training and with PPE to enable them to perform their duties effectively. 6.2.8.3.2 Specific outcomes from a task-resource analysis would determine whether there is a requirement for RFF personnel to be provided with PPE, or whether given the specific rescue model in use (e.g. self-rescue, fixed automatic system), PPE is not required. 6.2.8.3.3 All responding RFF personnel should be provided with appropriate PPE and respiratory protective equipment (RPE) to allow them to carry out their duties in an effective manner. 6.2.8.3.4 Personnel qualified to operate the RFF equipment effectively should be dressed in protective clothing prior to helicopter movements taking place. In addition, equipment should only be used by personnel who have received adequate information, instruction and training. PPE should be accompanied by suitable safety measures, e.g. protective devices, markings and warnings. The specifications for PPE should meet one of the international standards shown in Table II-6-5. Table II-6-5. Standards for PPE Item NFPA EN BS Helmet with visor NFPA 1971 EN443 BS EN 443 Gloves NFPA 1971 EN659 BS EN 659 Boots (footwear) NFPA 1971 EN ISO 20345 EN ISO 20345 Tunic and trousers NFPA 1971 EN469 BS EN ISO 14116 Flash-hood NFPA 1971 EN13911 BS EN 13911 6.2.8.3.5 Appropriate personnel should be appointed to ensure that all PPE is installed, stored, used, checked and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Facilities should be provided for the cleaning, drying and storage of PPE when crews are off duty. Facilities should be well-ventilated and secure. 6.2.9 Means of escape A minimum of two access/egress points should be provided to give occupants of a helicopter the option to escape upwind of a helicopter fire. The provision of an alternative means of escape is necessary for evacuation and for access by rescue and firefighting personnel. The size of an emergency access/egress route may require consideration of the number of passengers and of special operations like helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) that require passengers to be carried on stretchers or trolleys. Appendix A to Chapter 6 EXAMPLE OF A TASK/RESOURCE ANALYSIS (TRA) Note.— For additional guidance on task/resource analysis, see Doc 9137 — Part 1, Chapter 10.5. 1. SCOPE A task/resource analysis (TRA) describes the stages to be considered by a heliport operator and justifies the minimum number of qualified personnel needed to deliver an effective RFFS and deal with a helicopter incident/accident at the heliport. 2. PURPOSE A risk-based approach that focuses on probable worst-case scenarios should be used where the purpose of the analysis is to identify the minimum number of personnel required to undertake identified tasks in real time, before supporting external services are on location able to assist the RFFS 3. CONSIDERATIONS When conducting the analysis, consideration should be given to the types of aircraft using the heliport and the need for personnel to use PPE, RPE, hand lines, ladders and other rescue and firefighting equipment provided. 4. TASK ANALYSIS/RISK ASSESSMENT A TRA should primarily consist of a qualitative analysis of the RFFS response to a realistic, worst-case aircraft incident scenario. The purpose should be to review the current and future staffing levels of the RFFS deployed at the heliport. The qualitative analysis may be supported by a quantitative risk assessment to estimate the reduction in risk. This risk assessment could be related to the reduction in risk to passengers and aircrew from deploying additional personnel. The impact of any pinch-points1 identified by the qualitative analysis must be assessed. The quantitative assessment should not be utilized to reduce the minimum number of RFFS personnel defined by the qualitative analysis. 5. PROCEDURE FOR WORKLOAD ASSESSMENT — PINCH-POINTS 5.1 If a pinch-point occurs when a task is critical to the success of the overall activity, the risk may be significantly increased. Workload assessment indicators are: a) task criticality, i.e. the importance of the task to the success of the overall activity; and b) task difficulty, defined in terms of: (C) cues necessary to initiate or complete the task; (T) time limitations imposed upon the staff to complete the task within a given window of time; (P1) precision or skill required to undertake the task which, if excessive, could influence performance; (M) mental demands, i.e the necessary skill and knowledge required from staff for a successful performance; and (P) physical: demands upon staff due to heavy or sustained physical effort for successful task performance. 5.2 To evaluate the demands on each team member, the workload assessment indicators are rated for criticality or difficulty on a scale of one to three. An overall rating of three identifies pinch-points. The ratings are allocated as follows: Table II-6-A-1. Workload assessment indicators Rating Task criticality Task difficulty 1 Not critical to overallsuccess of response. Not difficult or not relevant to task. 2 Critical to success of sub-task. Difficult but within capability of firefighter. 3 Essential for success of activity. Very difficult causing loss of performance. 6. WORKLOAD ASSESSMENT INDICATORS 6.1 The overall rating of a task is determined by the following rule: if a rating of 3 occurs in one or more of the ‘task difficulty indicators, the overall rating is assigned as 3, but only if the task criticality is also equal to 3. Otherwise, the overall rating takes the next highest value of the assessments for task difficulty (1 or 2) regardless of task criticality. This ensures that only tasks that are critical to the overall success are considered as potential pinch-points. Note.— Although the result is numerical, it is indicative only of the relative effect of the task on overall performance. It enables comparisons to be made between different modes of personnel deployment or the use of different types of equipment or technique. A qualitative assessment is required. 6.2 A TRA and workload assessment should be used to identify the effectiveness of the current staffing level and to identify the level of improvement resulting from additional staffing. A worst-case scenario should be analysed to assess the relative effectiveness of at least two levels of RFFS staffing. The following items will assist in determining the basic contents of the analysis: Note.— The list is not exhaustive and should only act as a guide. a) description of heliport; b) RFFS category; c) response criteria; d) current rate of movements; e) operational hours; f) current structure and establishment; g) level of personnel; h) level of supervision; i) extraneous duties; j) alerting system; k) appliances and media availability; l) specialist equipment; m) medical facilities (role responsibility); n) pre-determined attendance: local authority (police, fire and ambulance); o) incident task analysis (worst case scenario, workload assessment, human performance); p) appraisal of existing RFFS provision; q) future requirements (heliport development and expansion); and r) enclosures (maps, event trees etc.). 7. CONDUCT OF ASSESSMENT 7.1 The objective of RFFS is to save lives. The aim is to establish and maintain a team of competent personnel equipped with the required specialized equipment to provide an immediate response to an aircraft incident/accident to achieve that objective. 7.2 An assessment to establish the likely achievement of this aim should be conducted in a number of stages, each answering a specific question Stage 1: Have the required tasks been identified that personnel should carry out? The following tasks should be evaluated: a) meet the required response time; b) extinguish an external fire; c) protect exit routes; d) assist in self-evacuation; e) extinguish an internal fire; and f) rescue trapped personnel Note.— The list is not exhaustive and should only act as a guide. Stage 2: Has the team identified a selection of realistic accidents that could occur at the heliport? This could be achieved by a statistical analysis of previous accidents at airports and heliports and by analysing data from both international and national sources. For example: a) internal aircraft fire; b) helicopter engine failure with a fire; c) helicopter into helicopter with a fire; and d) helicopter into terminal buildings with a fire. Note.— All accidents/incidents should involve fire to represent worst-case scenarios. Stage 3: Have the types of aircraft commonly in use at the heliport been identified? This is important as the type of helicopters and their configuration have a direct bearing on the resources required in meeting Stage 1. Stage 4: Has a worst-case location (in respect of the 4 km radius around the heliport reference point (HRP)) in which an aircraft incident could occur been identified? To confirm the location of the worst-case scenario, a facilitator carries out this assessment using a team of experienced fire service personnel knowledgeable of the heliport and the locations in which an accident is likely to occur. The team may have identified that the following factors contributed to a worst-case location: travel time; route to the accident site (hard or soft ground); terrain, including surface conditions; crossing active runways or FATOs; aircraft congestion; communications; supplementary water supplies; adverse weather conditions; and additional lighting. Stage 5: Has the complete incident (worst-case scenario) been developed by combining the incident types described in Stage 2, with the aircraft types identified in Stage 3 and the worst-case locations described in Stage 4? Stage 6: Has the worst-case scenario been subject to a TRA in a series of table-top exercises? Has the TRA and workload assessment been combined in a spreadsheet or matrix? – Does the spreadsheet/matrix identify activities and sub-tasks in a logical sequence in real time? Does the spreadsheet/matrix identify staff utilization and vehicle deployment (as required)? Does the workload assessment identify task criticality, cues, time, precision, mental, physical and overall rating? Are they scored appropriately? – Have any pinch-points been identified? – Is there appropriate mitigation of the identified pinch-points? 8. ASSESSMENT CONCLUSION Following this assessment, the applicant’s TRA is either acceptable or is required to address the issues raised in this assessment. Appendix B to Chapter 6 CERTIFICATION STATUS (CRASHWORTHINESS) 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 The crashworthiness of a helicopter depends on: a) revision status of the certification code at the time when the type certificate was issued; b) modification status due to an operational requirement to apply certain standards; or c) safety policy of the State or operator. 1.2 Features which could potentially limit the likelihood or extent of a post-crash fire or positively influence the outcome of a hard or emergency landing by improving occupant safety include: a) seat design to ensure slower deceleration loads on occupants, i.e. energy attenuation seats; b) occupant restraints; c) crash resistant fuel systems (CRFS); d) methods to minimize fuel egress through fuel tank vent, e.g. seal-sealing fuel lines; and e) fuel lines that are designed, installed and constructed to be crash resistant. Note.—The examples are from the FAA/EASA certification codes. 2. APPLICABILITY TO RISK ASSESSMENT Where the population of helicopters is limited to those which have crashworthy features, this may be used by the State in the assessment for the required level of the services and personnel in the establishment of the RFFS policy. EASA CASA Draft AC139-10 Vertical Flight Facilities (2025) Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes File ref: D24/289111 June 2025 Acknowledgement of Country The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the lands on which our offices are located and their continuing connection to land, water and community, and pays respect to Elders past, present and emerging. Artwork: James Baban. Advisory circulars are intended to provide advice and guidance to illustrate a means, but not necessarily the only means, of complying with the Regulations, or to explain certain regulatory requirements by providing informative, interpretative and explanatory material. Advisory circulars should always be read in conjunction with the relevant regulations. Audience This advisory circular (AC) applies to: • aerodrome operators • persons involved in the design, construction, and operation of airports, heliports, and vertiports. • proponents of airports, heliports, and vertiports • helicopter and VTOL capable aircraft (VCA) owners/operators • planning authorities • the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). Purpose The purpose of this AC is to provide guidance to aerodrome and aircraft operators in the planning, design, and operation of both helicopter and vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) capable aircraft (VCA) facilities on an aerodrome that may have only been designed for fixed wing aeroplanes. The information in this AC is intended to focus on aviation safety matters; however, other forms of safety may be mitigated. It is not intended to limit aircraft operations. Note: This AC should be read in conjunction with the Part 139 Manual of Standards (MOS) and AC's 139.R-01 Guidelines for heliports - design and operation and 139.V -01 - Guidance for vertiport design. These documents provide supporting and/or detailed information for various sections throughout the AC. For further information For further information or to provide feedback on this AC, visit CASA's contact us page. Unless specified otherwise, all subregulations, regulations, Divisions, Subparts and Parts referenced in this AC are references to the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR). Status This version of the AC is approved by the National Manager, Flight Standards Branch. Table 1: Status Version Date Details v1.0 June 2025 Draft issue for regulatory consultation. Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes Contents 1 Reference material 6 1.1 Acronyms 6 1.2 Definitions 7 1.3 References 11 2 Introduction 13 2.1 Background 13 2.2 Defining the operations 14 2.3 Arrival and departure procedures 20 3 Physical characteristics of aerodrome vertical flight facilities 23 3.1 General 23 3.2 Physical facilities 24 3.3 Final approach and take-off area 24 3.4 Nominating a runway or taxiway as a FATO 25 3.5 Aiming point or TLOF 28 3.6 Nominating taxi-routes and transit routes 29 3.7 Aprons for vertical flight aircraft 35 4 Obstacle limitation surfaces 43 4.1 Aeronautical assessments 43 4.2 OLS general specifications 43 5 Visual aids 46 5.1 General 46 5.2 Options for marking the FATO 46 5.3 Touch down positioning marking and circle 50 5.4 Marking the taxiways and taxi-routes 51 5.5 Marking stands and aprons 52 5.6 Vertical flight visual aids - Lighting 54 6 Published information 58 6.1 Vertical flight aircraft facility data 58 1 Reference material .1 Acronyms The acronyms and abbreviations used in this AC are listed in the table below. Table 2: Acronyms Acronym Description AAM advance air mobility AC advisory circular AIP aeronautical information publication ATC air traffic control ATSB Australian Transport Safety Bureau CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority CASR Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 DPZ downwash and outwash protection zone DW/oW downwash and outwash ERSA en-route supplement (Australia) FATO final approach and take-off area FATO/SA final approach and take-of area/safety area ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization LDAH/LDAV landing distance available (helicopter/VCA) MOS Manual of Standards MTOW maximum take-off weight NAA national aviation authorities (FAA, EASA, UK CAA etc) OEM original equipment manufacturer OLS obstacle limitation surface PinS point-in-space (instrument flight procedure) RTODAH/RTODAV rejected take-off distance available (helicopter/VCA) SA safety area SARPS standards and recommended practices TDPC touchdown/positioning circle TDPM touchdown/positioning marking TLOF touchdown and lift-off area Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes Acronym Description TODAH/TODAV take-off distance available (helicopter/VCA) VCA VTOL capable aircraft VTOL vertical take-off and landing VTOSS take-off safety speed 1.2 Definitions Terms that have specific meaning within this AC are defined in the table below. Where definitions from the civil aviation legislation have been reproduced for ease of reference, these are identified by 'grey shading'. Should there be a discrepancy between a definition given in this AC and the civil aviation legislation, the definition in the legislation prevails. Table 3: Definitions Term Definition aerodrome From the Civil Aviation Act 1988: An area on land or water (including any buildings, installations, and equipment), the use of which as an aerodrome is authorised under the regulations, being such an area intended to be used either wholly or in part for the arrival, departure, and movement of aircraft. D For rotorcraft, the maximum dimension of the rotorcraft. Typically, it is the largest overall dimension of the helicopter when rotor(s) are turning measured from the most forward position of the main rotor tip path plane to the most rearward position of the tail rotor tip path plane or helicopter structure. For VTOL-capable aircraft, means the diameter of the smallest circle enclosing the aircraft projected on a horizontal plane, while the aircraft is in the take-off or landing configuration, with lift/thrust units turning, if applicable. Note: If the aircraft changes dimensions during taxing or parking (e.g. folding wings), a corresponding Dtaxing or Dparking should also be provided. design D The D of the design vertical fight aircraft. D-value A limiting dimension, in terms of "D", for a vertical flight facility, or for a defined area within. declared distances - For example: The D-value for a size of FATO is 1.5 × Design D of the largest aircraft. Take-off distance available (helicopter or VCA): heliports • Take-off distance available (TODAH or TODAV) means the length of the FATO plus the length of helicopter clearway (if provided) declared available and suitable for helicopters to complete the take-off. Where a clearway is provided then the TODAH/TODAV will be the FATO length, plus the length of the clearway, plus the safety/protection area that is located between the two. Rejected take-off distance available: DRAFT Term Definition Rejected take-off distance available (RTODAH or RTODAV) will be length of the FATO declared available and suitable for helicopters operated in performance class 1 to complete a rejected take-off. Landing distance available: Landing distance available (LDAH): length of the FATO plus any additional area declared available and suitable for helicopters to complete the landing manoeuvre from a defined height. downwash protection zone The downwash protection zone is designed to protect the general public, other aircraft and those working in the immediate vicinity of an operating helicopter or VCA from the hazards of downwash and outwash. dynamic load-bearing surface A surface capable of supporting al types of loads generated by a vertical fight aircraft in motion. elongated When used with TLOF or FATO, elongated means an area which has a length more than twice its width. final approach and take- off area (FATO) For the operation of a rotorcraft at an aerodrome, means the area of the aerodrome: a. from which a take-off is commenced; or b. over which the final phase of approach to hover is completed. For the operation of a VTOL-capable aircraft, is defined as a solid area: a. from which a take-off is commenced; or b. over which the final phase of approach to hover is completed. flight manual clearway for an aircraft: see clause 37 of Part 2 of the CASR Dictionary. A defined area on the ground or water, selected and/or prepared as a suitable area over which a vertical flight aircraft operating in performance class 1, or a vertical flight aircraft, capable of continued safe flight after a critical failure, may accelerate and climb to a specific height. An aerodrome, including a heliport, intended for use wholly or partly for the arrival, departure, or movement of helicopters and, when designed to and capable of accommodating, other rotorcraft or VTOL capable aircraft. A defined area intended to accommodate vertical flight aircraft for purposes of stand loading or unloading passengers, mail or cargo; fuelling, parking or maintenance; and, where air taxing operations are contemplated, the TLOF. A defined path on a heliport intended for the ground movement of vertical flight taxiway aircraft and that may be co-located with an air taxi-route to permit both ground and air taxing. A defined path established for the movement of vertical fight aircraft from one taxi-route part of a heliport to another. a. Air taxi-route. A marked taxi-route intended for air taxing. b. Ground taxi-route. A taxi-route centred on a taxiway. lighting segment Lighting segments are low profil lighting fixtures that consists of a line of lighting elements within unit or frame. obstacle A fixed (whether temporarily or permanently) or mobile object, structure, or part of such objects and structures, that: DRAFT Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes Term Definition a. b. is located on an area provided for the surface movement of aircraft; or extends above a defined surface designated to protect aircraft in flight; C. or stands outside the defined surfaces mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) obstacle limitation a. and that have been assessed as being a hazard to air navigation. of an aerodrome, means a surface associated with the aerodrome that surfaces b. is ascertained in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Part 139 Manual of Standards for the purposes of this definition, or for a vertical flight facility, means surfaces extending outwards and upwards from the FATO safety area (protection area) at angles compatible with the flight characteristics of the intended vertical flight aircraft, used to evaluate approach and take-off climb surfaces for clearance of obstacles. performance class Manual of Standards. For a stage of flight of a rotorcraft, has the meaning given by the Part 133 rejected take-off area class 1 to complete a rejected take-off. A defined area on a heliport suitable for helicopters operating in performance runway-type FATO A FATO having characteristics similar in shape to a runway A runway type FATO wil most likely be associated with helicopter operating Note: PC1 where the AFM (or the AOCs procedures) requires a rolling take-off with/or an aircrafts published rejected take-off distance that cannot be accommodated by a traditional FATO. FATO protection area (or safety area) A defined area surrounding the FATO which is free of obstacles, other than those required for air navigation purposes, and intended to reduce the risk of damage to helicopters accidentally diverging from the FATO. static load bearing surface A surface capable of supporting the mass of an aircraft situated on it. strategically important Means an HLS declared by a state or territory to be of critical need to the helicopter landing site a. provision of identified services, including: an HLS associated with a hospital; or b. an HLS provided with point-in-space (PinS) approach instrument flight procedures; or C. any other facility identified as strategic by State/Territory or Commonwealth government/authorities. touchdown and lift-off The surface over which the touchdown and liftoff is conducted. area (TLOF) Note: A TLOF may be collocated with a FATO, or a stand. touchdown positioning circle (TDPC) positioning in a TLOF. A touchdown positioning marking in the form of a circle use for omnidirectional touchdown/positioning A marking or set of markings providing visual cues for the positioning of vertical marking (TDPM) touchdown/positioning (marking) shoulder line flight aircraft. A marking or set of markings providing visual cues for the positioning of vertical DRAFT Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes Term Definition vertical flight aircraft collectively used to describe helicopters, VTOL capable aircraft and other aircraft capable of performing vertical procedures vertical procedures take-of and landing procedures that include an initial and/or final vertical profile. The profile may or may not include a horizontal component. VCA (VTOL capable aircraft) a heavier-than-air aircraft, other than aeroplane or helicopter, capable of performing vertical procedures by means of more than two lift/thrust units. Table 4: Manoeuvring of helicopters and VTOL capable aircraft in relation to a vertical flight facility Note: For this AC , the following terms have specific meaning for describing the manoeuvring of helicopters and VTOL capable aircraft in relation to a vertical flight facility. Term Definition touchdown A manoeuvre whereby the aircraft's vertical momentum is arrested to a point where safe contact with the ground is made. In a purely vertical procedure, horizontal momentum willalso be or has already been'decreased to zero. lift-offf A manoeuvre whereby the aircraft's vertical velocity becomes positive, and the aircraft safely leaves the ground. In a purely vertical procedure, horizontal momentum will remain at zero. landing A manoeuvre or manoeuvres that safely bring the aircraft from the landing decision point either to touchdown, where a TLOF is collocated with a FATO, or to a low hover, less than 10 feet, where a TLOF is not collocated with a FATO. The landing decision point is the last position from which a balked landing may be executed and beyond which the aircraft is committed to landing. take-off A manoeuvre or manoeuvres that safely bring the aircraft from either lift-off, where a TLOF is collocated with a FATO, or from a low hover, less than 10 feet, where a TLOF is not collocated with a FATO, to a height of 35 feet above the FATO, VPS and/or clearway and with a sufficient speed (VTOSS) to continue safe flight with a 35-foot clearance above any objects in the OLS ' area. 1.3 References Legislation Legislation is available on the Federal Register of Legislation website https://www.legislation.gov.au/ Table 5: Legislation references Document Title CASR Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Part 91, 133, 139, 175) Regulations 1998 Part 139 MOS Part 139 (Aerodromes) Manual of Standards 2019 Part 133 MOS Part 133 (Australian Air Transport Operations—Rotorcraft) Manual of Standards 2020 Part 91 MOS Part 91 (General Operating and Flight Rules) Manual of Standards 2020 International Civil Aviation Organization documents International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) documents are available for purchase from http://store1.icao.int/ Many ICAO documents are also available for reading, but not purchase or downloading, from the ICAO eLibrary (https://elibrary.icao.int/home). Table 6: ICAO references Document Title ICAO SARPs Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation - Aerodromes - Volume Il Heliports ICAO Doc 9157 Aerodrome Design Manual ICAO Doc 9261 Heliport Manual ICAO Doc 10066 Aeronautical Information Management Advisory material CASA's advisory materials are available at https://www.casa.gov.au/publications-and-resources/guidance-materials Table 7: Advisory material references Document Title AC 1-01 Understanding the legislative framework AC 19-16 Wake turbulence AC 91-29 Guidelines for helicopters - suitable places to take-of and land AC 133-01 Performance class operations AC 139.R-01 Guidelines for heliports - Design and operation AC 139.V-01 Guidelines for vertiport design Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes Table 8: International advisory material Document Title Helicopter Rotor Downwash Safety Preventing the Adverse Effects of Rotor Downwash. Guidebook Director Générale de I'Aviation Civil (DGAC) France and French Aviation Safety Network. Hyperlink: https://www.ecoloqie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/quidance material helicopter dow NFPA 418 nwash.pdf National Fire Protection Association - Standards for Heliports and Vertiports UK CAP 437 Standards for offshore helicopter landing areas. United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority. UK CAP 1246 Hyperlink: www.caa.co.uk/CAP437 Standards for helicopter landing areas at hospitals. United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority. UK CAP 2576 Hyperlink: www.caa.co.uk/CAP1246 Understanding the downwash/outwash characteristics of eVTOL aircraft. United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority. Hyperlink: www.caa.co.uk/CAP2576 UK CAP 3075 Protecting the Future: Trials and Simulation of Downwash and Outwash for Helicopters and Powered Lift Aircraft Hyperlink: www.caa.co.uk/CAP3075 FAA AC 150/5390-2D Heliport Design Hyperlink: https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory circulars/index.cfm/go/document .current/documentnumber/150 5390-2 National Airports Safeguarding Framework principles and guidelines National Airports Safeguarding Framework principles and guidelines are available at https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructuretransport-vehicles/aviation/aviation-safety/aviation-environmental-issues/national-airports-safeguarding-framework/national-airportssafeguarding-framework-principles-and-guidelines Table 9: National Airports Safeguarding Framework principles and guidelines Form number Title Guideline B Managing the risk of building generated windshear and turbulence at airports Guideline H Protecting Strategically Important Helicopter Landing Sites 2 Introduction 2.1 Background 2.1.1 With the emergence of advance air mobility (AAM) the aerodrome industry may soon start to see new vertical flight capable aircraft operating at their facilities. When considering the introduction of new AAM aircraft at aerodromes designed to be used by aeroplanes, it became apparent to the future aerodromes team that hazards and risks involving AAM aircraft are similarly applicable to helicopter operations. 2.1.2 This AC provides guidance on the specifications that aerodrome operators may need to consider regarding the addition of vertical flight aircraft facilities at an existing aerodrome that had previously only been designed for fixed wing aeroplanes. 2.1.3 It provides operators of aerodromes designed for aeroplanes, guidance for designing facilities for these emerging aircraft types while also providing an explanation of the helicopter markings guidance in the Part 139 MOS. Refer to AC 139.R-01 and AC 139.V-01 for additional information on helicopter markings. 2.1.4 The use of aerodromes designed for aeroplanes by vertical flight aircraft may include: a. common use of aerodrome facilities designed specifically using aerodrome reference code criteria b. stand-alone vertical flight aircraft facilities on an aerodrome specifically designed by using vertical flight aircraft design criteria c. shared use of runway to shared facilities or purpose-built facilities d. dependent or independent use of runway and vertical flight aircraft only final approach and take-off facilities (FATO) e. any combination of the above. Note: It is not intended that aerodrome operators amend or upgrade aerodrome facilities to facilitate vertical flight aircraft, unless otherwise determined necessary through a hazard analysis or a risk assessment of existing or proposed vertical flight aircraft operations. 2.1.5 Vertical flight aircraft terminology 2.1.5.1 Due to the emerging nature of the AAM industry, internationally recognised terminology for AAM aircraft with VTOL capabilities has not been agreed upon. In AC 139.V-01, VTOL capable AAM aircraft are referred to as VTOL Capable Aircraft (VCA). Accordingly, the acronym VCA has also been used in this AC when referencing these aircraft types. 2.1.5.2 However, this AC is intended to provide guidance on aerodrome facilities that can accommodate both helicopters and VCA. Given this the term vertical flight aircraft will be used to mean both helicopters and VCA. Figure 1: AW 139 helicopter at Karratha Airport (Image: CASA Media Library) and the Wisk Generation 6 (Image: Wisk) 2.2 Defining the operations 2.2.1 Intended vertical flight aircraft operations 2.2.1.1 Aerodrome operators should understand what the intended aircraft operations are for their aerodrome, including vertical flight capabilities. Intended aircraft operations refers to specific planned activities that aircraft will undertake while operating at a particular aerodrome. This includes details such as the: a. Type of operating aircraft. The size and type of aircraft the facility will be used by (current or future use by fixed wing, helicopters or other rotary aircraft, other forms of aircraft, turbine, piston, electric or other forms) b. Types of aircraft operations. The nature of flights (For example, take-off, landing, ground taxi, air-taxi, ground handling etc.). c. Classification of operations. Air transport (including passenger, cargo and medical transport operations), aerial work general and emergency service operations, private, training or itinerant. d. Flight schedules. Timetables for arrivals and departures, scheduled and unscheduled, of airlines and other aerodrome users. e. Manoeuvring area use. Designated runways, FATO’s and associated landing sites and taxi paths for specific departure and arrival operations f. Weight and performance limitations. Adhering to the limitations advised by the aerodrome operator based on aircraft weight and performance characteristics to ensure safety. g. Regulatory compliance. Part 91 of CASR general operating and flight rules including compliance with air traffic control (ATC) instructions and airport operating instructions. h. Safety protocols. Implementing safety measures for all operations involving aircraft and the aerodrome. Note: Intended aircraft operations refers to the operational planning and logistics for aircraft activities at a specific location to ensure safety, efficiency, and adherence to aviation regulations. 2.2.2 Design vertical flight aircraft 2.2.2.1 The design vertical flight aircraft1 influences the physical characteristics and obstacle limitation surfaces for the vertical flight facilities. 2.2.2.2 The design vertical flight aircraft is a virtual aircraft composed of the most demanding physical and operational characteristics of all the intended vertical flight aircraft expected to operate at the aerodrome including, but not limited to, the: • largest set of dimensions, for example, D, rotor diameter (for helicopter)/maximum width (for VCA) • greatest maximum take-off weight/mass (MTOW/MTOM) most critical flight path requirements, that is, approach/climb-out gradient and/or horizontal flight requirements following a critical failure. Note: For detailed explanation of the methodology behind the determination of the critical characteristics of the design aircraft concept refer to Appendix A to Chapter 3 of Doc 9261 - Heliport Manual from ICAO. Figure 2: Compiling the design vertical flight aircraft data (source: CASA) Determining design vertical flight aircraft (Figure 2) The aerodrome operator determines the vertical flight aircraft with the largest D dimension, they intend to accommodate is a Bell 212 helicopter. A Bell 212 helicopter has a D of 17.43 m, therefore the design vertical flight aircraft has a (design) D of 17.43 m. The heaviest vertical flight aircraft is determined to be a Leonardo AW139 at 7,000 kg (but which only has a D of 16.6 m) then the design vertical flight aircraft retains the D from the Bell 212 but has the maximum take of weight of the AW139. The AS 365, having a D, a width and a take-off weight less than the other 3 vertical flight aircraft does not influence these any of these 3 aspects of the design vertical flight aircraft specifications. The aerodrome operator should consider all vertical flight aircraft to determine which may have the most critical flight path requirement. The addition of the CityAirbus NextGen (as an example VCA) which reportedly has a max width and D of approximately 16 m, would provide the design vertical flight aircraft with a max width of 16 m, while the design D would still be 17.43 m. Note: Additional considerations for design vertical flight aircraft may include undercarriage width, landing distance requirements, rejected take-off distance requirements and the impact of DW/OW when vertical flight aircraft are landing, manoeuvring on the aerodrome or at takeoff. Contingency planning for future larger aircraft should also be considered. 2.2.3 Downwash and outwash 2.2.3.1 As the size of helicopters increases downwash and outwash (DW/OW) hazards have become a concern across the industry. The potential for DW/OW from AAM aircraft is becoming understood as testing of these aircraft continues as part of their certification program. The hazards and risks vertical flight aircraft introduce during certain operations at facilities designed for aeroplanes may not have been sufficiently considered in an aerodrome context. Accordingly, the airborne movement of vertical flight aircraft over facilities designed for aircraft to ground manoeuvre may introduce unassessed risk. Early indications are that certain VCA may introduce more significant DW/OW hazards than the DW/OW hazards of helicopters. 2.2.3.2 In recent years, the Air Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), and other foreign aviation investigation agencies, have recorded a number of incidents associated with DW/OW, many being associated with the increased operating weight of helicopters being used now in medical retrieval services.2 2.2.3.3 The hazards of DW/OW may vary significantly depending on: • the operating weight of the helicopter or VCA • rotor or propellor blade sizes, designs and rotational speeds • the disk loading of the vertical flight aircraft • the ambient temperature at the aerodrome • the velocity and direction of ambient wind • disruption to airflow caused by terrain, structures and buildings • gradient of approach and departure paths flown by vertical flight aircraft. Helicopter Downdraft Danger. (BP Video produced by BP) 'The video explains the dangers of helicopter downdraft when a helicopter is near an offshore installation. It shows the areas most affected by downdraft and provides steps that installations can 2 ATSB Transport Safety Report AD-2022-001 - Safety risks from rotor wash at hospital helicopter landing sites – 27 September 2023 (see https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-09/AD-2022-001-Final.pdf) take to reduce the risks during helicopter arrivals and departures. Following these steps helps make helicopter operations safer and minimizes potential dangers.' Transcript available in the video. 2.2.3.4 When siting any vertical flight facilities on an aerodrome, the aerodrome operator and/or aerodrome designer should consider the effect of DW/OW and where required include a protection zone that is appropriate to the design vertical flight aircraft. 2.2.3.5 Section 2.2.3 of both AC 139.R-01 and AC 139.V-01 have specifications on DW/OW and considerations as they relate to heliports and vertiports respectively. The specifications in both ACs are equally applicable to vertical flight facilities on an aerodrome. 2.2.3.6 Section 2.2.3 of both AC 139.R-01 and AC 139.V-01 have specifications on DW/OW and considerations as they relate to heliports and vertiports respectively. The specifications in AC 139.R-01 are equally applicable to vertical flight facilities on an aerodrome. 2.2.3.7 AC 139.R-01 introduced the concept of the DPZ. Areas that have been risk assessed as requiring a DPZ (such as the area around FATOs and under flight paths) should have controls put in place to ensure that risk to persons and property is reduced to an acceptable level. 2.2.3.8 The downwash and outwash protection zone (DPZ) should recognize that, in addition to the hover over the FATO, DW/OW will be prevalent during the final approach to the hover as well as, the initial lift-off, and whenever the vertical flight aircraft is positioning to, or away from, the FATO. 2.2.3.9 The area(s) that should be assessed for requiring a DPZ being at least: a. the area 3 x the max width (of the design vertical flight aircraft with the most critical DWOW risk3) around the FATO (measured from the edge of the FATO) see Figure 3. b. the area within 3 x the max width laterally of the vertical flight aircraft approach and departure tracks c. any other areas that may be affected, such as taxi routes and vertical flight aircraft training areas. Figure 3: DPZ verses the peak wind velocity data for a AW139 (source: CASA) 3 Determined by the data in Table 1 in Appendix A of AC 139.R-01. This table is exhaustive so similar data provided by the aircraft manufacturer, ICAO or other State civil aviation authorities should also be considered. Note: ICAOs Doc 9261 (from sixth edition on) provides guidance information on the maximum DW/OW velocities as concluded by Ferguson, ‘Rotorwash Operations Footprint Modelling’. This data is included in AC 139.R-01. All diagrams illustrating peak wind velocities in this AC are based on this data. The UK CAA CAP 30754 (April 2025) builds on industry's understanding of downwash and outwash highlighting that the effects of DW/OW should not be thought of as a constant air flow at any single point. But is instead a turbulent, buffeting and unpredictable movement of air with the potential for sudden changes in speed and direction of air flow. Aerodrome specific downwash and outwash considerations 2.2.3.10 Aerodrome operators should consider the DW/OW hazards of vertical flight aircraft operations during all phases of flight operations within and around the aerodrome including: • approach and climb-out manoeuvres • liftoff and touch down within a FATO/TLOF, a stand or on an apron • ground taxiing • air-taxiing, air transit Approach and climb-out manoeuvres 2.2.3.11 Approach and climb-out paths should be considered as they relate to the layout of facilities within the aerodrome. Approach and climb-out paths that pass over taxiways, taxi lanes or aprons could pose a DW/OW hazard to aircraft or vehicles on the ground or personnel on the aprons. 2.2.3.12 Aerodrome operators should also consider the impact of approach and climb-out paths that cross the aerodrome boundary and their impact on non-aeronautical facilities, people and publicly accessible areas. Liftoff and touch down within a FATO/TLOF, a stand or on an apron 2.2.3.13 When vertical flight aircraft lift-off and touchdown, they require a large amount of power to decelerate to the hover and hover, or to become airborne, establish a hover and manoeuvre for taxi or departure. Ground taxiing 2.2.3.14 Helicopters, with wheeled undercarriages, capable of ground taxiing, create significantly less DW/OW when ground taxiing compared to when they are air-taxiing and they should be capable of ground taxiing on a taxiway with a taxiway strip code consistent with the helicopter's rotor width. Air taxiing 2.2.3.15 Skid-equipped helicopters, being unable to ground taxi, will have no option but to either air-taxi or air transit between a FATO and parking position. Aerodrome operators should consult with helicopter operators (and air service providers where applicable) to determine air taxi and air 4 CAP 3075 - Protecting the Future: Trials and Simulation of Downwash and Outwash for Helicopters and Powered Lift Aircraft. www.caa.co.uk/CAP3075 Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes transit routes around the aerodrome that pose the least DW/OW risk to facilities, aircraft, vehicles and persons. Refer to 6.1.6 of this AC for publishing air taxi routes. 2.2.3.16 Air-taxi routes above apron taxilanes, directly over light aircraft parking or areas where people may congregate should be avoided. 2.2.3.17 Air taxi routes, where a helicopter remains in ground effect, can present a DW/OW hazard to adjacent facilities including, but not limited to, runways or aprons. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate helicopters air-taxiing over a taxiway with the potential peak air velocities overlaid. Figure 4: H145 peak wind velocities vs code A separations (source: CASA) 2.2.3.18 Figure 4 shows an at scale overlay of potential peak wind velocities of a H145 helicopter airtaxiing along a code A taxiway with aprons and a code A runway at minimum separation distances as per the Part 139 MOS. Figure 5: Bell 429 peak wind velocities vs code B separations (source: CASA) 2.2.3.19 Figure 5 shows an overlay of potential peak wind velocities of a Bell 429 helicopter air-taxiing along a code B taxilane with aprons minimum separation distances as per the Part 139 MOS. Note: Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the potential peak wind velocities while in ground effect based on the data as published in AC 139.R-01. This suggests that, in both scenarios, aircraft parked on the aprons may be subject to peak wind velocities of 80 km/h, and in Figure 4. that an aircraft on a parallel code A runway could be subject to wind velocities of 40 km/h or more. 2.3 Arrival and departure procedures 2.3.1 The pilot in command of an aircraft is required to join the circuit pattern of an aerodrome for a landing or after take-off. However, AIP ENR 1.1 permits the pilot of a helicopter at a noncontrolled aerodrome, as an alternative to joining standard circuit procedures, to join the circuit area from any direction, at 500 ft above the surface, and descend to land or take-off from any location the pilot assesses as suitable. 2.3.2 The operator of an aerodrome has a responsibility for safety considerations on their aerodrome, and as such may not allow helicopter pilots to approach, taxi and land or take-off at their own discretion. 2.3.3 Part 139 MOS Chapter 5 requires an aerodrome operator to publish aerodrome operational procedures including standard taxi routes, special procedures and notices determined by the aerodrome operator that relate to the safe use of the aerodrome. 2.3.4 An aerodrome operator (in consultation with ATC at a controlled aerodrome) may choose to specify special procedures to be used by vertical flight aircraft operators when conducting arrivals, departures, final approaches, take-offs and ground manoeuvring. 2.3.5 Such special procedures may require vertical flight aircraft to join the runway in use following the standard traffic pattern or alternative arrangements, such as to a taxiway or taxiway intersection parallel the traffic pattern, or to a standalone FATO. 2.3.6 Aerodrome operators, in consultation with aircraft operators and air traffic services, should conduct an airspace hazard safety assessment5 before considering the option of vertical flight aircraft operations that would have a different or modified traffic pattern compared to the established generic procedures for vertical flight aircraft operations. Caution: Helicopter wake turbulence DW/OW hazards are generally related to helicopters hovering or moving at relatively slow speeds, nominally less than 15 kts. However, at ground speeds greater than effective transitional lift, usually 16-20 kts, DW/OW effects trail the helicopter and presents as wake turbulence vortices with potentially significant effects on aircraft adjacent to the helicopter flightpath track and following the helicopter. The VAI (formally the HAI) and the FAA recommend that fixed wing aircraft pilots and operators recognise this risk and adopt the 3-3-2 separation rule when interacting with helicopter operations, regardless of helicopter mass: • 3 rotor diameters lateral separation at hover • 3 nautical miles trailing separation • 2 minutes wait time separation. Caution! Helicopter Wake Turbulence (The Rotorcraft Collective) Video by the FAA 'Helicopters can generate wake turbulence that is equally as hazardous as fixed-wing aircraft. You should avoid operating aircraft within three rotor diameters of any helicopter in a slow hover taxi or stationary hover and use caution when operating behind or crossing the path of a landing and departing helicopter. Watch this video for more tips on avoiding helicopter wake turbulence.' Transcript available in the video. 2.3.7 Simultaneous landing and/or take-off operations - helicopters 2.3.7.1 Where there are simultaneous operations, a helicopter will generate significantly more wake turbulence than a fixed wing aircraft of the same weight. 2.3.7.2 For simultaneous use, a non-instrument runway and non-instrument FATO, the minimum separation distance between the runway centreline and FATO centre (or extended centreline) should be as described in Table 10 below. Table 10: Recommended separation distances between non-instrument FATO and runway centrelines for simultaneous operations Aeroplane size Small Helicopter≤3175 kg | Medium Helicopter3176 kg - 5670 kg Large Helicopter> 5670kg Small aeroplane≤5670 kg 90m 150m 210m Large aeroplane5670kg-100000 kg 150m 150m 210m Heavy aeroplane>100000 kg 210m 210m 210m 2.3.8 Non-simultaneous landing and/or take-off operations - helicopters 2.3.8.1 Where existing FATOs and runways are located less than the above recommended separation distance, simultaneous operations between the FATO and runway should not be permitted. 2.3.8.2 At an uncontrolled aerodrome where medium and large helicopters and LIGHT6 wake turbulence category aircraft (7,000 kg or less) are arriving to FATOs and runways located less than the above recommended distance, aerodrome operators should consider providing published information advising LIGHT category aircraft of the helicopter wake turbulence hazard. 2.3.8.3 Aerodrome operators should consider that pilots of LIGHT wake turbulence category aircraft may not be aware that a preceding helicopter may pose a wake turbulence hazard. 6 A LIGHT turbulence category refers to aircraft types with and MTOW of 7 000 or less. Further details on wake turbulence and wake turbulence categories can be found in AC 91-16 on the CASA website. Example: For the fictional aerodrome depicted, where approaches to RWY 22 and the northern FATO are separated by less than 21 m, the ERSA entries might read: Aircraft 7,000 kg and below arriving RWY 22 behind a helicopter arriving to northern FATO, caution helicopter wake turbulence. Note: ATC services are not required to provide a wake turbulence separation standard between LIGHT category aircraft and helicopters less than 7,000 kg MTOW. If an aerodrome, with ATC tower services, wishes to have helicopter wake turbulence separation standards provided between helicopters 7,000 kg and below and LIGHT category aircraft, then this would have to be by local arrangement with Air Services Australia. 2.3.9 Simultaneous landing and/or take-off operations - VCA Reserved. 2.3.10 Non-simultaneous landing and/or take-off operations - VCA Reserved. 3 Physical characteristics of aerodrome vertical flight facilities 3.1 General 3.1.1 The physical facilities that vertical flight aircraft use may be runways, taxiways, and aprons that have been designed and provided for aeroplanes. However, an aerodrome operator may choose to design and build facilities on their aerodrome specifically for vertical flight aircraft. 3.1.2 Vertical flight aircraft may be integrated with aeroplanes on some facilities and segregated from aeroplanes on other facilities. 3.1.3 These specific facilities may include (illustrated by figure 6): a. one or more final approach and touchdown areas (FATO) b. one or more touch down and lift-off areas (TLOF) c. FATO protection areas d. taxiways and/or taxi-routes e. stands (and associated protection areas). Figure 6: Example of facilities that may be required for vertical flight operations at an aerodrome (Source: CASA.) Note: Refer to AC 139.R-01 for the detailed specifications for facilities covered in this chapter. 3.1.4 Design consultation 3.1.4.1 Aerodrome operators and aerodrome designers should design vertical flight facilities in consultation with relevant stakeholders. The design development should include a consultation with relevant stakeholders throughout the life of the project, such as but not limited to: • CASA • Air Services Australia • aircraft operators (both fixed wing and vertical flight operators) • vertical flight aircraft original equipment manufacturers (OEM) • local governments • State, territory and federal government agencies 3.2 Physical facilities 3.2.1 The FATO, the TLOF, the safety/protection areas and the touchdown positioning marking (within the TLOF) each have a defined purpose and as such interact with each other in a particular way. FATO 3.2.2 The purpose of the FATO is to provide an area that will safely contain the whole vertical flight aircraft during the final moments of the approach to hover and the initial take-off manoeuvres from hover. Where the FATO is to provide for rejected take-off then the FATO should provide a surface capable of supporting and containing an aircraft, performing a rejected take-off, until it comes to a stop. TLOF 3.2.3 The TLOFs purpose is to provide a dynamic load bearing area that will safely contain the undercarriage (wheeled or skid-equipped) of a vertical flight aircraft during touch down and liftoff manoeuvres. FATO protection area (safety area) 3.2.4 The FATO protection area (FPA) provides an area clear of obstacles (other than essential navigation aids). The FPA provides an area to protect against the risk of obstacle intrusion that may affect the safe operation of aircraft where the vertical flight aircraft deviates from the bounds of the FATO during approach, take-off or hover. 3.2.5 The purpose of the safety/protection area is to protect the aircraft and its operation. The safety/protection area is not intended to protect people and equipment from the effect of the aircraft or its operation. The touchdown positioning marking 3.2.6 The facility that ties the others together is the touchdown positioning marking (TDPM). The TDPM is provided to give the pilot of vertical flight aircraft guidance to accurately and safely touch down. Touching down with the pilot’s seat over the TDPM ensures the aircraft undercarriage is located safely within the TLOF and the whole aircraft is positioned within the FATO or aircraft stand and clear of adjacent obstacles. 3.3 Final approach and take-off area 3.3.1 An aerodrome that has vertical flight operations should have at least one location nominated to serve as the FATO area. 3.3.2 A FATO at an aerodrome may be a runway, a nominated taxiway or taxiway intersection or a purpose-built facility. 3.4 Nominating a runway or taxiway as a FATO 3.4.1 A runway or taxiway nominated as a FATO should consider the additional specifications for a FATO outlined in section 3.1 of AC 139.R-01, such as but not limited to: • being free of obstacles • resistant to the effects of DW/OW generation by the aircraft • have the pavement strength capable of withstanding the intended (if provided with a TLOF) and unintended (to contain a rejected take of or forced landing) landing forces • be of a length and width appropriate to the performance class of the intended aircraft operation • have an associated protection area. Figure 7: Robinson helicopter approaching Runway 29C at Bankstown Airport (Source: CASA) 3.4.2 Where a taxiway intersection is nominated as a FATO the approach and departure paths available to that FATO should, where practicable, be considered so that an approaching or departing vertical flight aircraft does not need to over fly aircraft that may be on nearby taxiways. Refer Figure 8. Figure 8: Alignment of approach and departure paths for a taxiway FATO to deconflict with other traffic on the taxiway (Source: CASA) 3.4.3 Standalone FATOs 3.4.3.1 If an aerodrome wishes to have a FATO (or multiple FATOs) that are separate facility(s) that are for the exclusive use of vertical flight aircraft, then there are 2 types of FATOs that may be considered. A runway type or a conventional (non-runway) type. 3.4.3.2 The size of the FATO is usually determined by the length of the rejected take-off distance required by the aircraft operator, where provided for and the design vertical flight aircraft which is the most demanding helicopter or VCA intended to operate at the aerodrome. Runway type FATO 3.4.3.3 Where the runway cannot be used as a FATO, and a vertical flight aircraft operator requires their aircraft to perform a rolling take-off manoeuvre, or where the aircraft has a requirement for a longer RTODR than can be accommodated by an elongated FATO, the aerodrome operator may choose to provide a runway type FATO. Note: From a design and marking perspective once the length of a FATO is greater than 5 times its width then a runway type FATO should be considered. The broken perimeter markings and the 'H' designation for a runway type FATO is intended to be a visual indication for a fixed wing pilot not to mistake it for a fixed-wing runway. 3.4.3.4 A runway type FATO should be designed to meet the specifications as outlined in section 3.1 of AC 139.R-01. Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes Figure 9: Runway type FATO examples (Source: CASA) 3.4.3.5 Figure 9 shows an example of 2 runway type FATOs. One co-located with an existing taxiway centreline, the other being a standalone facility with a grass FATO and paved TLOF. Conventional FATO 3.4.3.6 The minimum dimensions of the FATO should be at least 1.5 x Design D or the length and width specified by the AFM for the design vertical flight aircraft. Refer to section 3.1 AC 139.R-01 for specifications on FATO design, and Doc 9261 for detailed explanation of the derivation of the figures used for facility design. Table 11: Size requirements of conventional (non-runway type) FATO? Diameter FATObeing provided Largest vertical flight aircraft that canbe accommodated Maximum Dvalue Associated TLOF.0.83 × Design D (1 × D)7 20m H125/AS350, Bell 206, BK-117 13m 10.8 m (13 m) 25.5m AW139, S-76D, H160. Most currentVCAS^ 17m 14.2 m (17 m) 30m Bell 412 and 212, H215, H225, Bell 525 20m 16.6m (20m) 35m S-92, AW101 23m 19.1m (23m) 7 Rounding up to 1 x D can make calculations easier. 1 x D TLOF is also used in guidance for elevated and offshore helidecks and in the FAA Vertiport Engineering Brief 105A. 8 Data on 11 leading VCA aircraft provided to ICAOs Vertical Flight Infrastructure Working Group by OEMs shows that a Design vertical flight aircraft derived from these aircraft would have a D of 16.9 m. Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes 3.4.3.7 Table 11 is a general guide to FATO sizes and the helicopters and VCAs able to be accommodated on it, using the 1.5 x design D calculation. Vertical flight aircraft smaller than the design aircraft can use larger sized FATOs 3.4.3.8 Also included in the table are the associated TLOF dimensions (both as min 0.83 x D and a simplified 1 x D) where a TLOF is included. Note: The certification requirements of individual aircraft and the way the aircraft are operated may vary the size of the FATO and associated TLOF. Certification requirements of individual helicopters and VCA intended to use the FATO that require a different size facilities greater than 1.5 x D should be considered. 3.5 Aiming point or TLOF 3.5.1 The aerodrome operator should determine the intended operation to and from the FATO(s). The aerodrome operator should determine if the intended operation for the vertical flight aircraft is to touch down within the FATO, or alternatively, to approach to hover over the FATO then transition to an air-taxi or air transit to a TLOF, stand or apron elsewhere on the aerodrome. 3.5.2 Where an aerodrome operator permits vertical flight aircraft to touch down within the FATO, the FATO should contain a touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) with relevant visual aids for a TLOF, including a TDPM. 3.5.3 Where a touch down within the FATO is not permitted, the FATO should contain an aiming point indicated by the relevant visual aids. Note: Section 5 of this AC will cover the correct markings to be used for FATOs, TLOFs and aiming points. 3.5.4 Touch down and lift-off area 3.5.4.1 A touch down and lift-off area (TLOF) should meet the specifications for a TLOF outlined in section 3.1 of AC 139.R-01, such as but not limited to: • being free of obstacles • have the bearing strength capable of withstanding the intended (and unintended) landing forces • resistant to effects of DW/OW generated by the aircraft • have sufficient friction to avoid skidding. 3.5.4.2 The minimum size for a TLOF should be at least 0.83 x design D, or sized to sufficiently contain the undercarriage of the design vertical flight aircraft. Note: Emerging research indicates a minimum of 1 x design D (or more) may be recommended for VCA operations. Aerodrome operators should consider a larger TLOF if intending to cater for VCA operations. 3.5.4.3 Aerodromes with natural surface TLOFs (or stands) may consider the use of ground surface reinforcement such as, grid type products to improve the bearing strength, surface friction characteristics and drainage of natural surface TLOFs where a paved surface is not viable or desired. 3.5.4.4 Figure 10 shows an example of a grass TLOF that has had grass reinforcing grid product installed to help improve the bearing strength of the natural surface. 3.5.4.5 Ground surface reinforcement products should be installed and maintained so they will not lift or move under the maximum downwash or dynamic loading of the design vertical flight aircraft. 3.6 Nominating taxi-routes and transit routes 3.6.1 Aerodrome operators that accommodate vertical flight aircraft, have 3 options for defining the paths along which vertical flight aircraft will manoeuvre. These are: ground taxi-routes air taxi-routes or air transit routes. 3.6.2 Aerodrome operators may nominate taxiways on the aerodrome that are or are not available for vertical flight aircraft to taxi on. 3.6.3 These nominated taxi routes should be part of an aerodromes published information and should be included in the aerodrome manual. 3.6.4 The aerodrome operator may choose to nominate aerodrome facilities for vertical flight aircraft due to the mitigation or elimination of potential hazards and risks specific to the intended operation of the aircraft. 3.6.2 Ground taxi-routes 3.6.2.1 Vertical flight aircraft with wheeled undercarriage may ground taxi. Similar to a propellor driven aircraft, once the aircraft is moving it requires little energy to maintain a ground taxi, as such the DW/OW effects are lessened. 3.6.2.2 Centred on a taxiway, a ground taxi-routes for vertical flight aircraft should be no less than of 1.5 times the overall width of the design vertical flight aircraft. 3.6.2.3 Despite paragraph 3.6.2.2, for a VCA that has a different configuration for taxiing, such as having their outboard lift/thrust units unpowered or folded/stowed and publish a separate dimension for taxiing (Dtaxiing), then that dimension may be used instead of maximum width or they may be permitted to operate as a fixed-wing aircraft using the taxiway code system from the Part 139 MOS. 3.6.2.4 The maximum width of the helicopter or VCA as mentioned in 3.6.2.2 should not exceed the permitted (fixed) wingspan for the taxiway or taxilane code. Figure 11: Illustration of a code A taxiway and taxiway strip vs the ground taxi route width for a helicopter of <15 m Table 12 shows the relationship between taxiway and taxilane strip widths and the corresponding rotor widths that would contain the ground taxi-route requirements for vertical flight aircraft. Table 12: Taxiway code strips vs ground-taxi route limitations Taxiway/taxilane Code CodeAtaxiway Code Btaxiway Code Ataxilane Code Btaxilane Strip width (m) 31 40 24 33 Max. permitted wingspan (m) <15 <24 <15 <24 Maximum overall width9 for a groundtaxing helicopter or VCA (m) <15 <24 <15 <24 3.6.2.5 While outwash is considerably less for a ground taxiing helicopter than for an air-taxiing one, the effects of outwash hazards on, people, equipment and structures should be still be considered. This is especially important where the outwash effects may extend beyond the boundary of the aerodrome, where non-aerodrome activities may be impacted by the hazard. 3.6.2.6 VCA operators may be required to tow their aircraft in lieu of taxi due to energy conservation needs. This might be from or to the FATO or TLOF or perhaps a taxiway close to a hanger or apron. Aircraft under tow and under the charge of a responsible person are not required to observe the clearances mentioned above. 3.6.2.7 Aerodrome operator should be prepared to liaise with VCA, and helicopter operators should they need to tow their aircraft. 3.6.2.8 Aerodrome operators should risk assess the towing routes for helicopters and VCA to ensure appropriate pavement widths and obstacle clearance for the towing equipment and other aircraft. Figure 12: AW 139 helicopter ground taxiing, Karratha Airport (Source: CASA) 3.6.2.9 Where aircraft operators intend to land, take-off or move their aircraft on mobile platforms, the aerodrome operator should obtain a copy of the safety assessment from the aircraft operators use of the mobile platforms and ensure that the hazards and risks to other aerodrome users is appropriately considered. 3.6.3 Air taxi routes 3.6.3.1 Air taxi routes allow for helicopter movements at a height not more than 2 rotor diameters above the ground and at a speed less than 20 kts. Air taxiing at this height represents the upper level of the Hover In Ground Effect (HIGE) phenomenon where the maximum velocity of DW/OW winds may occur. 3.6.3.2 Air taxiing vertical flight aircraft may introduce hazardous effects in terms of DW/OW, which may vary significantly. The DW/OW hazards may be a risk to infrastructure, other aircraft, aerodrome personnel and the public 3.6.3.3 Helicopters air taxiing (in ground effect) and air taxi routes should not be located where the taxiroute would pass over, or adjacent to, facilities that could be adversely affected by the DW/OW. Areas that may be affected by DW/OW include but are not limited to: • aircraft parking positions • apron operations • passenger or public areas • the movement area. 3.6.3.4 When designing or nominating an air-taxi route it should have a minimum width of twice the overall width of the design vertical flight aircraft. Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes 3.6.3.5 The aerodrome operator should consider any change to intended, or actual operation or helicopters or VCA on the manoeuvring area, with particular attention given to common use facilities such as fuel facilities and parking areas. The potential for aircraft to be moved or disturbed by helicopters or VCA air taxying in the vicinity of aircraft being refuelled or waiting to be refuelled increases the risk of injury or harm to those affected by the hazardous effects of DW/OW. 3.6.3.6 Table 12 shows the relationship between taxiway code strips and air-taxi route limitations. It also shows the maximum rotor widths for helicopter over Code B Taxiways, and both taxilanes will be less than the permitted wingspan. Table 13: Taxiway code strips vs air-taxi route limitations Taxiway Code Ataxiway Code Btaxiway Code Ataxilane Code Btaxilane Strip Width (m) 31 40 24 33 Max. permitted wingspan (m) <15 <24 <15 <24 Maximum overallwidth for an air-taxinghelicopter or VCA (m) <15 20 12 16.5 Note: Table 12 only shows the minimum facility dimensions as per Part 139 MOS vs the guidance for taxi route clearance in AC 139.R-01. These figures only provide protection for the helicopter and do NOT consider the hazardous effects of DW/OW or helicopter wake turbulence to people, facilities, other aircraft or aerodrome operations. Figure 13: Code A taxiway dimensions vs air-taxi routes (Source: CASA) 3.6.3.7 Figure 13 shows an illustration of a code A taxiway and taxiway strip vs the air taxi route width for a helicopter with a max width of <15 m. 3.6.3.8 Table 14 shows the relationship between taxiway code strips and air-taxi route limitations where there are parallel taxiways and taxilanes. The table shows that the maximum overall widths for vertical flight aircraft over all parallel taxiway and taxilanes will be less than the permitted wingspan. Table 14: Parallel taxiway separation vs air-taxi route limitations Parallel Taxiways Code Ataxiways Code Btaxiways CodeAtaxilanes Code Btaxilanes Centre line separation 23 32 19.5 28.5 Max. permitted wingspan (m) 15 24 15 24 Maximum overall width for an air-taxinghelicopter or VCA (m) 11.5 16 9.75 14.25 Note: Although the above information demonstrates helicopters and VCA may air taxi on taxiways designed for aeroplanes, albeit with reduced maximum rotor spans, when operating independently and when an aeroplane is operating on parallel taxiways or taxilanes, the gear deviation and increment required in the taxiway separation is halved. To minimise the risk, rotor span, aeroplane wingspan limitations or dependent aircraft operations may need to be considered in the context of operational requirements. Figure 14 and Figure 15 illustrate the current disparity between the design specifications for parallel taxiway and taxilane design and air-taxi route design. Figure 14: Parallel code A taxilanes and the air-taxi routes for 3 helicopters with a width of less than 15 m (Source: CASA) Figure 15: Parallel code A taxiways vs the potential peak wind velocities of a Bell 412 (Source: CASA) Example: The Bell 412, a popular aeromedical helicopter, has a rotor diameter under 15 m, making it technically suitable for air taxiing on a Code A taxiway. However, at distances beyond the edge of a Code A taxiway strip (15.5 m from the centreline), the helicopter can generate peak wind velocities exceeding 80 km/h. This could affect aircraft holding at an intersecting taxiway or operating on a parallel taxiway. Illustrated in Figure 15. 3.6.4 Air transit routes 3.6.4.1 Air transit routes are a nominated path that a vertical flight aircraft follows that allows for an aircraft to fly at a height not above 100 ft and at a speed greater than 20k kts. Due to the higher speeds and altitude the DW/OW are more dissipated than they would be for the same aircraft air-taxiing but do create the potential for helicopter wake turbulence effects. 3.6.4.2 Where an aerodrome is limited to having vertical flight aircraft parking positions located away from FATO (or FATOs), and where an air-taxi route would introduce an unacceptable DW/OW hazards and risks, then air transit routes may be considered. 3.6.4.3 Downwash may extend to up to 10 rotor diameters below a helicopter when air transiting at speed less than 20 kts, and an equivalent distance for VCA aircraft. Downwash may be vertical below the helicopter or moved by wind. DW/OW should be considered by the aerodrome operator when determining preferred air transit routes above the aerodrome. The potential for helicopter wake turbulence exists when a helicopter air transits at speeds greater than 15-20 kts. See chapter 2.3 of this AC for the note on Caution: Wake turbulence. Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes 3.6.4.4 Air transit route should have the following attributes: • airspace free of obstacles • not be above aircraft parking areas or where aircraft may be manoeuvring • not be above areas where people may be impacted by DW/OW • a corresponding area of ground below for suitable emergency (autorotative or one engine inoperative) landings • a width that would permit unhindered transit whilst allowing suitable space for errors in manoeuvring. • minimal variation in direction • air transit route/s should be described in aerodrome published information. Figure 16: Bell Jet Ranger airborne over aerodrome taxiway markings (CASA) 3.7 Aprons for vertical flight aircraft 3.7.1 Apron design 3.7.1.1 The hazardous effects of DW/OW from a vertical flight aircraft, and integrated operations between vertical flight aircraft and aeroplanes on the same apron should be carefully assessed. 3.7.1.2 Aprons to be used exclusively by helicopters are divided into 2 design types based on their intended operations: Those designed for accommodating air-taxi (or powered turn-out) parking, and those designed for ground taxi parking. These 2 stand types are D-value-based stands. 3.7.1.3 As well as the D-value-based stands, VCA aprons may also include geometry-based stands designed for (ground) taxi or tow-in and push back of VCA aircraft. 3.7.1.4 All D-value-based stands should have the following features: • touch down positioning marking (as parking position marking) • a stand perimeter • a protection area. 3.7.1.5 Geometry-based stands should have the following features: • touch down parking position marking (as parking position marking) • a protection area. Figure 17: The basic stand geometry for the 3 types of stands (left to right) air-taxi or turning stand, a ground taxi (non-turning) stand and a VCA geometry-based stand (Source: CASA) 3.7.2 D-Value-based aprons General 3.7.2.1 D-value based stands use the design D for the aircraft(s) intended for that apron or stand (this may be a smaller design vertical flight aircraft then the design vertical flight aircraft for the overall aerodrome). 3.7.2.2 D-value stands should have a stand diameter of 1.2 x design D, surrounded by a stand protection area defined by the operational use of the stand. 3.7.2.3 The stand should have a touchdown positioning marking (TDPM) to correctly align for touchdown or parking. Protection areas 3.7.2.4 A D-value based stand should be surrounded by a stand protection area which provides obstacle clearance protection for aircraft arriving and departing the stand. 3.7.2.5 For helicopters conducting air transport operations the recommended overall dimension of the stand protection area is 2 x design D whether the vertical flight aircraft is air or ground taxiing.10 3.7.2.6 Stand protection areas may be overlapped where arrival and departures to stands are not simultaneous. The stand protection area should not overlap the actual stand perimeter of the adjacent stand. 3.7.2.7 For simultaneous arrival and departure operations, the protection areas should not overlap. 10 This recommendation aligns with guidance from other NAAs for transport category heliports. Refer FAA AC 150/5390 as published from time to time. Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes Touch down positioning markings (TDPM) Touch down positioning marking - circle (TDPC) 3.7.2.8 A TDPC should be used wherever a helicopter or VCA is permitted to align their heading as required before touching down and may be used within: a. a FATO with a TLOF b. a TLOF located at the end of an air-taxi or air-transit route or c. a vertical flight aircraft stand. 3.7.2.9 A TDPC should be used any time a powered turn, either on the ground or after a lift-off, is needed to exit the stand. Touch down positioning marking - shoulder line (TDPS) 3.7.2.10 The TDPS is similar in use to a pilot stop line marking used on a fixed wing parking position. 3.7.2.11 A single direction TDPS should be used whenever a vertical flight aircraft needs to be aligned in one direction only. 3.7.2.12 When a single direction TDPS is used on a stand the aircraft can be pushed back from the stand or can taxi through following a continued alignment line. 3.7.2.13 For stands accommodating arrivals and departures from opposite directions 2 TDPS should be used. 3.7.3 Apron design types Mixed use aprons and parking stands 3.7.3.1 Although apron markings are not required for aircraft 5,700 kg or less, where mixed use aprons and parking stands are intended unique attributes of vertical flight aircraft should be considered and markings provided where deemed appropriate. 3.7.3.2 Where an apron is intended for simultaneous mixed operations, and where the same parking position can be used by all form of aircraft the aerodrome operator should determine the most demanding design feature of each aircraft. 3.7.3.3 The most demanding feature may not always be the physical characteristics of the aircraft but may include hazards produced by the aircraft such as jet blast, prop wash or DW/OW. Turning radius, lead in lead out hazards from or to adjacent parking positions and aircraft servicing requirements may also be influencing factors. Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes Figure 18: Mixed use apron design (source: CASA) 3.7.3.4 Figure 18 show a fictional mixed-use apron. Contributing stand spacing factors include the turn radius for the fixed-wing aeroplane and ensuring the adjacent stand is affected by potential peak winds less than 60 km/h. The primary parking position markings (for the fixed-wing aircraft in this case) take precedent over the vertical flight aircraft markings. 2 x design D protection area shown for illustration purposes. Ground taxi aprons 3.7.3.5 Notwithstanding paragraph 3.7.2.5 of this AC, where an apron caters for ground taxiing operations that do not require a vertical flight aircraft to turn for alignment or to depart, then the protection area surrounding the stand may be 1.5 x design D in diameter. This is likely to be associated with a TDPS. 3.7.3.6 Where the vertical flight aircraft needs to turn to taxi out of the stand or to align with the wind while taxiing into the stand, then a larger protection area is required. A ground taxi stand, accommodating a turn should have a protection area of 2 x design D. This is likely to be associated with a TDPC. Code B apron taxilane Ground-taxi apron Code B apron taxilane Figure 19: Simultaneous ground taxi apron (source: CASA) 3.7.3.7 Figure 19 shows an example of a helicopter apron that only permits ground taxiing to the stands. These 2 stands are spaced for simultaneous operations with the stand protection areas not overlapping. The stands are marked with dual direction TDPS. The stand protection areas are shown for illustration purposes. Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes Air taxi aprons 3.7.3.8 Where an apron caters specifically for air taxiing operations then the required protection area surrounding the stand should be 2 x design D in diameter. 3.7.3.9 As with ground taxiing stands, the protection areas may only overlay if operations are nonsimultaneous to adjacent stands. Figure 20: Non-simultaneous air-taxi apron (source: CASA) 3.7.3.10 Figure 20 shows an example of air-taxi stand spacing where the protection areas are overlapped for non-simultaneous operations. Figure 21: Non-simultaneous air-taxi (natural surface) apron (source: CASA) 3.7.3.11 Figure 21 shows an example of an air taxi apron with a natural surface with dual direction TDPS and stand numbering and intended for non-simultaneous arrival and departures. The illustration suggests grass stands with a ground reinforcing product. TLOF on apron 3.7.3.12 Where a vertical flight aircraft is intended to touch down or lift off on an apron the TLOF should be surrounded by a stand protection area with a diameter of 2 x Design D. 3.7.3.13 The TLOF should be distinguishable from the parking areas of the apron using a parking clearance line. Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes Figure 22: TLOF on an apron (source: CASA) 3.7.3.14 Figure 22 shows an example of how a TLOF might be designed. With TLOF and TDPC markings and the stand protection area surrounded by parking clearance lines (the stand protection area need not be square. Narrow apron options 3.7.3.15 In circumstances where a stand or TLOF and its associated protection area cannot be accommodated within the boundary of the parking area, the following provides alternatives to facilitate air taxiing vertical flight aircraft. 3.7.3.16 Despite the recommendations in this section, an aerodrome operator should conduct a safety assessment as part of the design process for any vertical flight facility (in this case aprons and apron taxilanes being used by vertical flight aircraft operators). The recommendations are based on taxi-route guidance and vertical flight aircraft stand dimensions and do not fully consider the hazard and associated risks of DW/OW in a confined apron scenario, and these hazards will change depending on the aircraft types in use and their operation, and the risk to other aircraft operations, people and equipment. 3.7.3.17 Where possible vertical flight aprons should be associated with an adjacent taxilane of not less than code B width. A Code B taxilane will provide an air-taxi route for vertical flight aircraft with a maximum overall width of up to 16.5 m11. Note: Vertical flight aircraft with a maximum width of greater than 16.5 m will require more demanding taxilanes. Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes Figure 23: TLOF on a Code B taxilane (source: CASA) 3.7.3.18 Figure 23 shows an example of a TLOF and TDPC located on a Code B taxilane, where the destination parking area is too narrow to allow for an aircraft to safely touch down. 3.7.3.19 Where vertical flight aircraft are air-taxiing or air-transiting to a narrow parking position and a Code B taxilane or larger is adjacent, the TLOF with a TDPM should be provided centred on the taxilane. 3.7.3.20 Where a Code A taxilane is provided, then air transit or air-taxi operations should be restricted to vertical flight aircraft with a maximum overall width less than 12 m.12 3.7.3.21 Where vertical flight aircraft are air-taxiing or air-transiting to the vicinity of a narrow parking position and a Code A taxilane is adjacent, a TLOF with a TDPM should be provided: a. Centred such that the stand protection area is clear of any apron not associated with the vertical flight aircraft operation. b. Where the stand protection area extends beyond the edge of the taxilane, an equipment clearance line should be marked to ensure the TLOF is free of obstacles during lift-off and touch down operations. Refer to chapter 8 of the Part 139 MOS for equipment clearance line specifications. Note: Other aerodrome users should be considered by the aerodrome operator when intending to locate a TLOF on a taxiway or taxilane. Vertical flight aircraft operators will need to consider delays to other aerodrome users when their aircraft is using the TLOF. Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes Figure 24: TLOF for a narrow parking area (source: CASA) 3.7.3.22 Figure 24 shows a narrow parking area example on a code A apron taxilane. The protection area outlined with the use of an equipment clearance line. 3.7.4 Geometry-based aprons 3.7.4.1 Geometry based stands were introduced in AC 139-V.01 to accommodate VCA operations where the aircraft will ground taxi or be towed to a stand. Figure 25 shows an example of a geometry based apron. 3.7.4.2 Geometry based stands may be used for aprons designed for VCAs that will be ground taxied into the parking position, then pushed back for departure. Further details of the geometry-based stands are included in AC 139.V-01. Figure 25: Geometry-based apron (Source: CASA) 4 Obstacle limitation surfaces Existing aerodromes will already have obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS) established. However, protection surfaces for on aerodrome helicopter facilities have been very rarely included as part of an aerodromes OLS. 4.1 Aeronautical assessments 4.1.1 An assessment of intended activities at an airport, the introduction of new aviation infrastructure in the vicinity of an aerodrome, or the introduction of more demanding aircraft may trigger the need for an aeronautical study to determine whether hazards and risks to the aerodrome, or those aircraft intending to use the aerodrome, remain acceptable to the aerodrome operator and those using the facility. Chapter 4 of AC 139.R-01 provides details on the process of an aeronautical assessment for heliports. This process can be equally applied to vertical flight aircraft facilities at an aerodrome. 4.2 OLS general specifications 4.2.1 Where the aerodrome has nominated the runway as the FATO for vertical flight aircraft operations then no additional OLS is required for vertical flight aircraft operations. 4.2.2 All other FATOs should have at least the following protection surfaces prepared: a. the FATO protection area b. take-off climb and approach surface/s. 4.2.3 Transitional surfaces or side slopes are included (when required). 4.2.4 Aerodrome operator should ensure that no permanent or transient objects penetrate the surfaces during flight operations to and from the FATO. 4.2.5 FATO protection area 4.2.5.1 A FATO should be surrounded by an area that is free from obstacles. The FATO protection area (or safety area) is intended to reduce the risk to an aircraft should it diverge from the centre of the FATO. For a FATO planned for helicopter operations, the safety area should be designed as per the specifications outlined in section 3.1 of AC 139.R-01. Where no helicopter operations are planned, the protection area should be designed as per the specifications in section 4.2 of AC 139.V-01. 4.2.6 Take-off climb and approach surface 4.2.6.1 Aerodrome operators may design their take-off climb and approach surface as per the guidance in chapter 4 of AC 139.R-01, or they may use the take-off/approach slope design guidance in chapter 4 of AC 139.V-01. 4.2.6.2 A slope of 8% is recommended for the take-off climb and approach surfaces for a FATO at an aerodrome. This slope will allow for helicopters operating performance classes (PC) 2 and 3. 4.2.6.3 Where an aerodrome intends to accommodate helicopters operating performance class 1 (PC 1): a. The aerodrome operator may publish information that PC1 operations be restricted to arriving and departing from a runway. b. Where (a) is not preferred and the aircraft operator needs to perform PC1 operations, the take-off climb and approach surfaces should be designed with a 4.5% slope. 4.2.6.4 Where an aerodrome plans to accommodate VCA but not helicopters then the slope for the take-off climb surface slope or combination of slopes and section lengths should be determined with reference to the obstacle environment and intended aircraft performance capabilities. Refer to chapter 4 of AC 139.R-01 or AC 139.V-01 for specifications on take-off climb and approach surfaces. Performance Class 1 (PC1) operations For many existing aerodromes, a take-off climb and approach surface with slope of 4.5% for a standalone FATO, may impose unintended operational restrictions on the airfield (such as needing to hold aircraft some distance from the FATO to ensure the FATO OLS is not infringed). Aerodrome operators have the option that where the approach or take-off climb surfaces, to a standalone FATO, cannot be provided for PC1 operations, then approach and take-off climb, for PC1 operations, should be limited to a runway. Figure 26: FATO approach and departure slope options (Source: CASA) 4.2.6.5 Figure 26 shows a visualisation of the 4.5% vs the 8% approach/departure slopes and possible infringements of the slope with taxiways located at particular distances from the FATO. 4.2.7 Transitional surface 4.2.7.1 In AC 139.R the transitional surface is only specified for heliports that support a point-in-space (PinS) approach procedure utilizing a visual segment surface. However, an aerodrome operator DRAFT Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes may choose to include the transitional surfaces where a safety assessment determines that additional lateral protection may be required. Aerodrome operators may design their FATO transitional surfaces as per the guidance in Chapter 4 of AC 139.R-01 chapter 4, or they may use the simplified transitional surface design guidance in Chapter 4 of AC 139.V-01. 4.2.8 Stand protection area 4.2.8.1 The stand protection area should also be thought of as part of the obstacle protection surfaces. Details of the stand protection area specifications are covered in chapter 3.7 of this AC. Visual aids 5.1 General 5.1.1 All specifications for the markings described in this chapter can be found in: Chapter 5 Visual Aids of either AC 139.R-01 or AC 139.V-01. 5.1.2 Markers and markings should be clearly visible to the facility user by way of: a. provision of a contrasting background marking (a box or border) b. where allowed for in the specifications below, the selection of an appropriate contrasting colour c. any other method that would increase the conspicuity of the marking or marker in operational conditions. 5.1.3 The night-time visibility of markers and markings may be supplemented by reflective/refractive material providing that such material does not pose a hazard if dislodged. 5.2 Options for marking the FATO 5.2.1 Where an aerodrome has a FATO or FATOs for their vertical flight aircraft operations then the FATO/s should be marked. 5.2.2 However, where a FATO is clearly self-evident against its respective background, such as a paved FATO on a grassed area, then the FATO perimeter marking is not required. In all other cases a perimeter marking should be provided. 5.2.3 Markings that may be used within a FATO, depending on its intended operations, include: • FATO perimeter marking • TLOF perimeter marking • touchdown positioning markings (shoulder line or circle) • aiming point marking • heliport identification marking • flight path alignment guidance line. 5.2.4 The marked shape of the FATO is optional, so, long as it meets the required size specifications. Note: Based on research13 conducted by the FAA, a square FATO is the preferred visual cue for judging the rate of closure, altitude, attitude and angle of approach. 13 See the National EMS Pilots Association (NEMSPA) survey, 2011. 5.2.5 Standalone FATO with an aiming point Figure 27: Aiming point FATOs 5.2.5.1 Figure 27 provides 2 examples of FATOs marked with FATO perimeter and aiming point markings. Optional heliport identification marking (left) and a flight path alignment guidance marking (right) are shown. 5.2.5.2 Where a FATO is provided for a vertical flight aircraft to arrive and depart but NOT touch down then the FATO should be marked with: • a dashed white FATO perimeter marking (or markers) • a white aiming point marking (triangle) optionally: • a heliport identification marking • flight path alignment guidance markings • D-value markings. 5.2.6 Standalone FATO with a TLOF Figure 28: FATOs with a TLOF 5.2.6.1 Figure 28 provides 2 examples of FATOs marked with FATO perimeter, TLOF perimeter and TDPC markings. Optional markings shown are a heliport identification marking (left) and a flight path alignment guidance marking, plus a maximum mass and a D-value marking (right). 5.2.6.2 Where a FATO is provided for a helicopter/VCA to arrive and to touchdown then alignment guidance should be provided. This FATO should be marked with: • a dashed white FATO perimeter marking • a solid white TLOF perimeter marking • a yellow touch down positioning marking; shoulder-line or circle (TDPS or TDPC). optionally: • a heliport identification marking • maximum allowable mass and/or D-value markings • flight path alignment guidance markings. 5.2.7 Runway type FATO 5.2.7.1 An aerodrome operator may choose to provide a runway type FATO for helicopter/VCA operations. A runway type FATO should be marked by: • 1 m x 9 m white FATO edge markings on pavement • 1 m x 3 m gables on a natural surface (preferably banded in white and red or white and orange) • 9 m runway designation markings that include the letter H above the two-digit runway heading numbers optionally: • a yellow touchdown positioning alignment marking14. 5.2.8 Taxiway or taxiway intersection nominated as a FATO Figure 29: Taxiways with a FATO (source: CASA) DRAFT Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes 5.2.8.1 Figure 29 provides 2 examples of taxiway areas nominated as FATOs marked with FATO perimeter markings and an aiming point (left) and a TDPC and flight path alignment guidance marking (right). 5.2.8.2 An aerodrome operator may nominate a section of taxiway or a taxiway intersection as a FATO for vertical flight operations. The area designated as a FATO should be marked by: • a dashed white FATO perimeter marking (or markers) optionally: • a white aiming point marking or yellow touch down positioning marking • flight path alignment guidance markings • maximum allowable mass and/or D-value markings • heliport identification marking. 5.2.8.3 If a taxiway is nominated for vertical flight aircraft to touchdown and the taxiway surface is selfevident or already marked with taxiway edge markings, a white TLOF perimeter marking is not required. However, a yellow TDPM should be marked anytime touchdown is intended. 5.2.9 Additional marking considerations for aerodrome FATOs Taxiway intersection FATO to holding point Figure 30: FATO on a taxiway clearance to holding position (source: CASA) 5.2.9.1 Figure 30 shows an example showing an aircraft stopped at a holding position and information marking while a helicopter completes an approach to an aerodromes FATO. 5.2.9.2 A FATO should be protected from incursions during their use in a similar manner to runways when that runway is in use. 5.2.9.3 Where an approach or take-off climb surface, for a vertical flight aircraft crosses over a taxiway: Intermediate holding position markings and information markings or movement area guidance signs (MAGS) should be considered to warn aerodrome users of the FATO area and ensure other aircraft can be held short from an operational FATO. • Intermediate holding positions should be marked not less than 40 m away from the extended approach and departure path to the FATO. 5.2.9.4 Specifications for holding point marking and information markings can be found in Chapter 8 of the Part 139 MOS. Note: Suggested text for information marking or MAGS should be HELI. Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes Figure 31: Standalone FATO and separation distances (source: CASA) 5.2.9.5 Figure 31 shows an example of a FATO, with an aiming point, adjacent to a runway, with both being used for parallel simultaneous operations. Holding points are located where the approach crosses the taxiway. 5.3 Touch down positioning marking and circle 5.3.1 A touch down positioning marking shoulder-line (TDPS) and the touch down positioning circle (TDPC) are the markings that a pilot uses to align their vertical flight aircraft within the TLOF or a stand before touching down, or when parking. Specifications for TDPC and TDPS markings can be found in Chapters 5 of AC 139.R-01 and AC 139.V-01. Pilot awareness of the purpose of visual aids is increasing. However, not all pilots may be aware of the operational intention denoted by the marking. Visual aids are provided to give pilots guidance, situational awareness and to mitigate hazards. Controls intended by the markings may not be universally understood. Hence, published information should reflect the intent of the marking. For instance, as shown in Figure 29: The correct alignment on a TDPC should have the pilots' seat over the yellow TDPC. (Left hand image below) If a pilot approaches to align their seating position with the correct alignment within the TDPC it reduces the potential risk of a tail rotor strike during the final approach to the TLOF. Figure 32: Correct touch down alignment over the TDPC vs incorrect alignment touch down on the "H" marking (source: CASA) 5.4 Marking the taxiways and taxi-routes 5.4.1 Ground taxi routes 5.4.1.1 A paved taxiway for ground taxiing should be marked in the same manner as described in Part 139 MOS Chapter 8. 5.4.1.2 A ground taxi taxiway restricted to the use of vertical flight aircraft only should be marked with a letter H. 5.4.2 Air taxi route 5.4.2.1 An air-taxi route, where there is no paved surface, should be marked with a yellow markers showing the centre of the air-taxi route. Where there is a paved surface below the air-taxi route the marking should be a continuous line. 5.4.2.2 Where a centreline marking is not provided, the edge of the air taxi route may be marked with blue cones. They should be located at the edge of the air taxi route, being 2 times the maximum width of the largest vertical flight aircraft intended to use the air taxi route. The markers should be spaced at intervals of not more than 30 m on straight sections and 15 m on curves. 5.4.2.3 Where an unpaved air taxi route originates on a paved surface the route may be marked with the letter 'H' and the text 'AIR TAXI'. 5.4.2.4 Information only movement area guidance signs (MAGS) with the text 'AIR TAXI' may also be provided. Figure 33: Air-taxi route markings. (Source: CASA) 5.4.2.5 Figure 33 shows an example of a fictitious aerodrome's movement area showing a FATO, vertical flight aircraft ground taxiway with centrelines prefixed with an H, and an unpaved air-taxi route marked by in ground markers, blue cones, MAGS and 'AIR TAXI" and 'H' ground markings. Further information on the markings for an air-taxi route can be found in Chapter 5 of AC 139.R-01. 5.5 Marking stands and aprons 5.5.1 General 5.5.1.1 Aprons design to accommodate vertical flight aircraft should be marked. Note: Part 139 MOS requires that on a sealed, asphalt or concrete apron taxi guideline and parking positions must be marked for aircraft greater than 5,700 kg. Due to the nature of hazards like DW/OW and tail rotors, aerodrome operators should assess if vertical flight aircraft aprons for aircraft 5,700 kg or less should be marked. 5.5.1.2 Vertical flight aircraft apron markings should consist of: • apron and/or stand perimeter marking • a touch down position marking (either a TDPC or TDPS) • lead in/lead-out markings. optionally: • an alignment line • a stand designation marking • stand limitation markings • apron safety lines. The specifications for stand markings listed above can be found in AC 139.R-01 and AC 139.V-01 Chapter 5, unless otherwise specified herein. 5.5.1.3 Generally, stand and apron guidance markings should be yellow in colour. 5.5.1.4 Contradictory or confusing overlapping markings should be avoided. Figure 34: Stand layouts. (Source: CASA) 5.5.1.5 Figure 34 shows the general layout for D-value stand markings showing TDPC, TDPSs, stand perimeter, alignment lines and stand restriction markings. Image is for illustration purposes only; stands are not correctly spaced from each other. 5.5.2 Apron and stand perimeters 5.5.2.1 An aerodrome apron exclusively for vertical flight operations should be clearly distinguishable from a fixed-wing apron. 5.5.2.2 On a paved apron the parking clearance line (usually marked by yellow-red-yellow continuous line) should instead be marked by: a. double blue lines 0.15 m wide and 0.15 m apart b. the text "HELCOPTER ONLY": i. marked in yellow letters 0.5 m high along the edge of the marking, and 0.15 m outside the vertical flight aircraft apron ii. legible to pilots of approaching aircraft iii. repeated at intervals not exceeding 50 m along the vertical flight aircraft apron edge marking. 5.5.2.3 On an unpaved surface, a vertical flight aircraft exclusive apron should have its edges marked by blue cones evenly spaced 30-60 m apart. Corners of the apron may be highlighted by using 3 cones set in a 90-degree pattern to each other. 5.5.2.4 A stand perimeter marking may be included (see Figure 34), this will provide pilots and ground crew with an indication of the stand containment area. 5.5.3 Touchdown positioning markings 5.5.3.1 A touch down positioning marking (TDPM) should be provided to each vertical flight aircraft stand, whether a stand is used for ground taxi or air-taxi to and from the stand. 5.5.3.2 For ground taxiing aprons where the stand is designed for either a through taxi or a taxi-on and push off, then the recommended TDPM is a TDPS. 5.5.3.3 For stands that accommodate air-taxiing aircraft or that require an aircraft to turn on the stand (either on the ground or in the air) then the stand should be marked with a TDPC. 5.5.3.4 For geometry based VCA stands a TDPS should be used in the same manner that a stop line is used for a fixed wing aircraft. 5.5.3.5 On a geometry based stand the TDPS should be positioned based on the shoulder position of the pilot of the design vertical flight aircraft (in this case being the aircraft with the greatest distance from the pilots' shoulder position to the nose of the aircraft). 5.5.3.6 When marked in the correct location, all aircraft types for that stand should fit within the footprint of the design vertical flight aircraft (for this, the design vertical flight aircraft will be the amalgamation of the geometrical shapes of all the aircraft types for that stand.) 5.5.4 Stand designation numbers 5.5.4.1 Where multiple stands need to be identifiable, stand designation markings (as seen in Figure 34) should be used. For vertical flight aircraft exclusive stands these should be ordinal numbers preceded by the letter H or other suitable identifier. 5.5.4.2 For stands with a TDPC the designation should be centrally positioned within the TDPC, or if there is a preferred alignment then located on the outside of the TDPC along with an alignment line. 5.5.4.3 For stands with a TDPS the stand designation should be positioned on top of the shoulder line centred with the alignment line, so the pilot can read the marking as they enter the stand. 5.5.4.4 The marking should be marking in a font and size that is large enough to be read by the pilot when approaching the stand but not less than 0.5 m in its longest dimension. 5.5.4.5 The alignment line should be broken either side of the designation marking. 5.6 Vertical flight visual aids - Lighting 5.6.1 General Where the Part 139 MOS does not provide for the necessary visual aid for the intended operations of vertical flight aircraft, specifications for the lighting described in this chapter can be found in Chapter 5 Visual Aids of either AC 139.R-01 or AC 139.V-01. 5.6.1.1 Where vertical flight aircraft operations are conducted at night to facilities at an aerodrome then those facilities should be lit. Note: This may include both vertical flight specific facilities and fixed wing aerodrome facilities being used at night for vertical flight aircraft operations. 5.6.1.2 The photometrics for vertical flight facility lights and lighting elements (including light output, vertical and horizontal distribution, and chromaticity), at an aerodrome, should be appropriate to DRAFT Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes the aerodrome environment and intended operations without being visually distracting or confusing to pilots. 5.6.1.3 If the operating environment varies and if needed, lighting systems should be adjustable to achieve the appropriate intensity. 5.6.1.4 In cases where operations into a vertical flight facility at an aerodrome are to be conducted at night with night vision imaging systems (NVIS), it is important to ensure lighted facilities are compatible with the NVIS through the addition of technologies capable of emitting an IR signature. Where the addition of infrared emitters is not practicable, helicopter operators using NVIS should be warned to use extra caution. 5.6.1.5 Aerodrome operators that have vertical flight facilities with pilot activated lights (PAL) may choose to: a. include that facility lighting on the same PAL frequency or b. provide that specific facility lighting on a separate PAL frequency. Notes: Having a separate PAL frequency may be useful where vertical flight aircraft operators are using NVIS but the aerodromes legacy (fixed-wing) facilities are not NVIS compatible but where the vertical flight specific facility lighting is. Vertical flight aircraft operators would then have the option of only selecting the NVIS compatible vertical flight aircraft facilities while leaving the rest of the aerodrome lighting off thus reducing glare and distraction for the pilot. 5.6.1.6 Vertical flight facilities at an aerodrome may have a combination of the following lighting systems: • approach lighting system • flight path alignment guidance lights • FATO perimeter • aiming point lights • TLOF perimeter lights • TDPC lighting. 5.6.2 FATO lighting 5.6.2.1 A FATO (including when a runway is nominated as a FATO) at an aerodrome intended for night operations by vertical flight aircraft should: a. where a runway is nominated at the FATO, be lit by runway edge lighting as described in Chapter 9 of the Part 139 MOS b. in all other cases be lit by combinations of: i. FATO perimeter lights ii. TLOF perimeter lights iii. aiming point lights iv. TDPC lighting segments. Where it is desirable and practicable to indicate a preferred approach direction to FATO then the FATO lighting above may be supplemented by: a. an approach lighting system or b. flight path alignment guidance lights. Figure 35: Lighting for FATOs with a TLOF (Source: CASA) 5.6.2.3 Figure 35 shows examples of lighting for FATOs with a TLOF. Showing FATO perimeter lights (left) and flight path alignment lights (right) in white, and both with the TLOF lit in green. Figure 36: Lighting for FATOs on taxiways (source: CASA) 5.6.2.4 Figure 36 shows examples of lighting for FATOs on taxiways, one with FATO lights and an aiming point in white, and one with flight path alignment lights and a TDPC with yellow lighting segments. 5.6.3 Taxiway and taxi route lighting 5.6.3.1 Taxiways used at night for vertical flight operations, for ground taxi or an aligned air-taxi route, should be lit by either taxiway edge or centreline lighting. Refer to Chapter 9 or the Part 139 MOS for taxiway lighting specifications. 5.6.3.2 Where there is an air taxi-route, not aligned with a taxiway then, due to the risk of a fixed-wing aircraft inadvertently turning off the paved surface: DRAFT Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes a. when other vertical flight taxi-routes (aligned with lit taxiways) are available, the non-aligned taxi-route should be published as not available for night ops or b. some form of guidance should be provided to indicate the end of pavement to aircraft taxiing on the ground, such as: i. Information only movement area guidance signs stating text such as "AIR TAXI" ii. use of pavement edge markings. 6 Published information 6.1 Vertical flight aircraft facility data 6.1.1 Data specifications 6.1.1.1 Aerodrome operators should publish data as required under Part 175 of CASR. 6.1.1.2 If data product specifications are not available from the AIS provider, then data and information for vertical flight facilities on an aerodrome should be published in accordance with the data product specifications available in ICAO Doc 10066. 6.1.1.3 ICAO Doc 10066 contains the required data specifications for: • FATO • TLOF • safety(protection) areas • helicopter clearways • helicopter ground taxiway • helicopter air taxiway • helicopter air transit routes • helicopter stands. 6.1.2 Data requirements in Part 139 MOS 6.1.2.1 Aerodrome operators should publish the following vertical flight facility data for the AIP and their aerodrome manual. • On the aerodrome diagram, the location of FATO/s: – runway type – FATO containing a TLOF – FATO containing an aiming point. Refer to Division 1 of Chapter 5 of the Part 139 MOS for standards for published information Suggested vertical flight facility symbology 6.1.2.2 The range of options below will provide pilots with information on the specific vertical flight facilities available at an aerodrome. 6.1.2.3 Runway type FATO symbols should be shown: a. with their designation and "H" at each end b. with the FATO length, in meters, written below the symbol c. if sealed, as a solid black rectangle d. if unsealed a white rectangle with black outline. 6.1.2.4 Conventional (Non-runway) FATO symbols should be shown: a. notated with any designation (e.g. Southern FATO) b. orientated with the approach direction, where applicable c. when associated with a TLOF, as an H in a circle d. when the FATO only has an aiming point only and no TLOF, shown as an H in a triangle e. if sealed, as a solid black icon with white text f. if unsealed, as a white icon with black text. Figure 37: Fictional aerodrome diagram (Source: CASA) 6.1.2.5 Figure 37 shows a fictional example of an aerodrome diagram showing a runway type FATO, a paved FATO (with TLOF) and an unpaved FATO with no TLOF (aiming point only). Figure 38: A key showing the different iconography for depicting FATOs on an aerodrome diagram. (Source: CASA) 6.1.3 Aerodrome manual data 6.1.3.1 The operator of a certified aerodrome with vertical flight facilities should record all published data in their aerodrome manual. 6.1.4 Declared distances for vertical flight facilities 6.1.4.1 The declared distances specified below are normally associated with a runway type FATO and are generally going to be associated with helicopters that are operating to a performance category. They may be applicable to future VCA operations. 6.1.4.2 Declared distances for non-runway type FATOs may be published in a slightly modified form15. Take-off distance available (helicopter or VCA) 6.1.4.3 Take-off distance available (TODAH or TODAV) means the length of the FATO plus the length of helicopter clearway (if provided) declared available and suitable for helicopters to complete the take-off. 6.1.4.4 Where a clearway is provided then the TODAH/TODAV will be the FATO length, the length of the clearway, plus the safety/protection area that is located between the two. Refer to AC 139.R-01 section 4.1 for details on helicopter clearways. Rejected take-off distance available 6.1.4.5 Rejected take-off distance available (RTODAH or RTODAV) will be length of the FATO declared available and suitable for helicopters operated in certain performance classes. Landing distance available 6.1.4.6 Landing distance available (LDAH or LDAV) is the length of the FATO plus any additional area declared available and suitable for helicopters to complete the landing manoeuvre from a defined height. Note: Where a FATO is provided that is not suitable for supporting the dynamic weight of an aircraft, such as non-weight bearing grass, or a FATO over water, then all declared distances will be determined by the dimensions of the TLOF. 15 Refer to Figure 39: Visual explanation of declared distances for different FATO types. (Source: CASA) DRAFT Figure 39: Visual explanation of declared distances for different FATO types. (Source: CASA) 6.1.5 Suggested ERSA data 6.1.5.1 Where an aerodrome has specific vertical flight facilities then publishing the following data into ERSA should be considered by the aerodrome operator. 6.1.5.2 The data provided should be consistent with the DPS requirements 6.1.5.3 For each FATO, the following information is suggested (refer to the blue annotations on Figure 40): a. Designation: i. Runway FATO designation or FATO identifier. b. FATO bearing in degrees magnetic for preferred approach c. TLOF length: i. For a runway FATO - the TLOF length in meters ii. for a FATO with TLOF - the TLOF dimensions in meters iii. for a FATO with an aiming point- Note stating "Aiming point only" d. TLOF surface: i. asphalt ii. concrete iii. other surface (always to be qualified by a note) e. TLOF pavement strength rating: i. Report pavement strength using the ACR/PCR rating system ii. or the maximum weight and tyre pressure Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes iii. For a FATO with an aiming point then this line should state 'touch down not permitted' f. FATO width and surface: i. runway FATO - both the width of the TLOF and the width of the FATO in meters ii. the FATO length and width in meters iii. the FATO surface description. 6.1.5.4 Lighting specifically associated with vertical flight aircraft FATOs and TLOFs should also be published in ERSA in the same format as aerodrome and approach lighting are described in the ERSA Introduction. Vertical flight lighting facilities may use the abbreviations in Table 15 below. Table 15: Vertical flight lighting facility abbreviations for ERSA APL Aiming point lights FALS FATO Approach Lighting System FPAGL Flight Path Alignment Guidance Lights FPLS FATO Perimeter Lights TPL TLOF Perimeter Lights TLS TLOF Lighting Segments TDPL Touch Down Position Lights VAGS Visual Alignment Guidance System HVASI Helicopter Visual Approach Slope Indicator 6.1.5.5 Aerodrome operator may choose to publish specific operations for vertical flight aircraft in their local traffic regulations section of the ERSA. 6.1.6 Suggested runway distance supplement (RDS) data 6.1.6.1 For each FATO, the following information is suggested (refer to the blue annotations on Figure 40): a. FATO Designation for each FATO b. Design D: i. The design D is provided for each FATO listed. c. The TORAH, RTODAH and LDAH for each FATO (refer to 6.1.4 and Figure 40): i. For a FATO with an aiming point only the RTODAH should be published ii. TLOF and FATO widths should be published for runway type FATOs. Guidelines for vertical flight aircraft facilities at aerodromes designed for aeroplanes Figure 40: Vertical flight data for ERSA and RDS. (Source: CASA) 6.1.6.2 Figure 40 shows a fictitious example of published ERSA facilities and RDS for vertical flight operations at a fictitious aerodrome. The ERSA entries describe the physical characteristics and lighting for 3 FATOs, as well as the permitted ground taxi and air-transit routes. Annotations in blue are explained in paragraph 6.1.5 and paragraph 6.1.6. 6.1.7 Vertical flight ground movement charts 6.1.7.1 Where an aerodrome wishes to specify ground taxi-routes, air-taxi routes, air transit route, or where they wish to allow or prohibit vertical flight aircraft operations from using a particular area(s), then an aerodrome operator may choose to publish a helicopter specific ground movement chart. Figure 41: Ground movement chart. (Source: CASA) 6.1.7.2 Figure 41 shows a fictitious example of published ground movement chart for available the air transit route and prohibited area for vertical flight aircraft movements at a fictitious aerodrome. CASA Vertiport Design Draft ADVISORY CIRCULAR AC 139.V-01v1.0 Guidelines for vertiport design Date File ref November 2022 D22/317489 Advisory circulars are intended to provide advice and guidance to illustrate a means, but not necessarily the only means, of complying with the Regulations, or to explain certain regulatory requirements by providing informative, interpretative and explanatory material. Advisory circulars should always be read in conjunction with the relevant regulations. Audience This advisory circular (AC) applies to: persons involved in the design, construction, and operation of vertiports proponents of vertiports advanced air mobility (AAM) aircraft owners/operators planning authorities aerodrome operators the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). Purpose This AC provides initial guidance in the planning and design for vertiports to support the safe and efficient operation of vertical take-off and landing capable aircraft VTOL-capable aircraft operating with a pilot on board in visual conditions only. This AC is not intended to restrict or limit a pilot or operator from determining the most suitable area for landing or take-off for the VTOL-capable aircraft operation. These specifications for vertiport planning and design have been prepared to support the progress of necessary aerodrome infrastructure. The guidance outlined in this AC is adaptable and structured to evolve with this emerging sector. This AC is the first in a collection of guidance material to be published. Additional ACs and supplementary material will provide further detail on design concepts as well as address operational considerations such as inspections, aeronautical data and obstacle control. For further information For further information, contact CASA’s Personnel Licensing, Aerodromes and Air Navigation Standards (PLAANS) (telephone 131 757). Unless specified otherwise, all subregulations, regulations, Divisions, Subparts and Parts referenced in this AC are references to the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR). Status This version of the AC is approved by the Branch Manager, Flight Standards. Version Date Details v1.0 November2022 Initial Draft AC. Contents 1 Reference material 4 1.1 Acronyms 4 1.2 Definitions 4 2 Introduction 8 2.1 Background 8 2.2 Site selection 8 3 Vertiport physical characteristics 11 3.1 General 11 3.2 Essential vertiport components 12 3.3 Optional vertiport components 14 4 Obstacle limitation surfaces 19 4.1 Obstacle limitation surfaces origins 19 4.2 Surfaces 21 5 Visual aids 25 5.2 Markers and markings - general 25 5.3 Markers and markings - final approach and take-off areas 25 5.4 Markers and markings - taxiways and stands 31 5.5 Visual Aids - Lighting 34 5.6 Machine-readable visual aids 39 1 Reference material 1.1 Acronyms The acronyms and abbreviations used in this AC are listed in the table below. Acronym Description AAM Advanced Air Mobility AC advisory circular AFM aircraft flight manual CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority CASR Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 FATO final approach and take-off area FPA FATO protection area FPAGLS flight path alignment guidance lighting system(s) ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization MTOW maximum take-off weight OFV obstacle free volume OLS obstacle limitation surface RTODRV rejected take-off distance required (for VTOL-capable aircraft) SARPS standards and recommended practices of ICAO STOL short take-off and landing TDPC touchdown/positioning circle TDPM touchdown/positioning marking TLOF touchdown and lift off area UCW undercarriage width VCA VTOL-capable aircraft VPS vertical procedure surface VTOL vertical take-off and landing 1.2 Definitions Terms that have specific meaning within this AC are defined in the table below. Where definitions from the civil aviation legislation have been reproduced for ease of reference, these are identified by 'grey shading'. Should there be a discrepancy between a definition given in this AC and the civil aviation legislation, the definition in the legislation prevails. Term Definition aerodrome An area on land or water (including any buildings, installations, and equipment), the use of which as an aerodrome is authorised under the regulations, being such an area intended to be used either wholly or in part for the arrival, departure, and movement of aircraft. barrette means 3 or more lights closely spaced in a transverse line so that from a distance they appear as a short bar of light. D for VCA, means the diameter of the smallest circle enclosing the aircraft projected on a horizontal plane, while the aircraft is in the take-of or landing configuration, with ift/thrust units turning, if applicable. Note: If the aircraft changes dimensions during taxing or parking (e.g., folding wings), a corresponding Dtaxing or Dparking should also be provided. Design D design aircraft The D of the design aircraft. means a virtual aircraft type that has the largest set of dimensions, the greatest maximum take-off weight (MTOW), and the most critical obstacle avoidance criteria of the aircraft that the vertiport, or for a defined area within the vertiport, is intended to serve. D-Value A limiting dimension, in terms of D, for a vertiport, or for a defined area within the vertiport. is a vertiport with a FATO location that would introduce a risk of fall from height or introduces a hazard to aircraft operations or to other people within the structure under the vertiport. elongated when used with TLOF or FATO, elongated means an area which has a length more than twice its width. final approach and take- For the operation of a VCA, is defined as a solid area: off area (FATO) a. from which a take-off is commenced; or b. over which the final phase of approach to hover is completed. lighting element A lighting element is a light source within a lighting segment that may be discrete (e.g., a Light Emitting Diode (LED)) or continuous (e.g., fibre optic cable, electro luminescent panel). An individual lighting element may consist of a single light source or multiple light sources arranged in a group or cluster and may include a lens/diffuser. lighting segments Lighting segments are low profile lighting fixtures that consists of a line of lighting elements within unit or frame. For the purposes of this circular, the dimensions of a lighting segment are the length and width of the smallest possible rectangular area that is defined obstacle Arrays of segmented point source lighting (ASPSL) or luminescent panels (LPs) are examples of lighting segments. An object (whether temporary or permanent) or part of such an object that: obstacle free volume a. is located on an area provided for the movement of aircraft; or b. extends above a defined surface designated to protect aircraft in flight is a defined volume of airspace between the FATO protection area and the protection area means a defined area on a vertiport, which surrounds either the FATO or a stand, intended to reduce the risk of damage to an aircraft diverging from the FATO or stand. reference circle is a horizontal circle, of the specified dimension, that is centred on any intended position/flight path at or above the applicable area/surface. rejected take-off distance required (RTODRV) means the horizontal distance that is required from the start of the take-off to the point where the aircraft comes to a full stop, following a critical failure that is recognised at the TDP. take-off decision point (TDP) means the first point that is defined by a combination of speed and height from which a safe take-off can be continued following a critical failure and is the last point in the take-of path from which a rejected take-off is ensured. touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) an area where a VTOL-capable aircraft may touch down or lift off. touchdown/positioning circle (TDPC) a TDPM in the form of a circle, which is used for omnidirectional positioning in a TLOF. touchdown/positioning marking (TDPM) a marking or set of markings that provide visual cues for the directional positioning of an aircraft. vertical procedures take-off and landing procedures that include an initial and/or final vertical profile. The profile may or may not include a horizontal component. vertical procedure a surface at which a VTOL-capable aircraft either: surface (VPS) a. begins its arriving vertical procedure, or b. ends its departing vertical procedure. vertiport elevation the highest point of the FATO, or where there are multiple FATOs, the highest point of the highest FATO. vertiport an area of land, water, or structure that is used or intended to be used for the landing, take-off, and movement of VTOL-capable aircraft, that meets or exceeds the specifications contained within this advisory circular. For the purposes of this AC the term vertiport also includes vertihubs and vertistops: • Vertihub: a vertiport with infrastructure for maintenance, repair, fuelling, and parking spaces for storage of VCA. • Vertistop: a vertiport intended for take-of and landing of VCA to drop off or pick up passengers or cargo, but where there are no facilities for fuelling, defueling, scheduled maintenance, scheduled repairs, or vertiport clearway storage of aircraft. means a defined horizontal surface selected and/or prepared as a suitable area over which an aircraft, capable of continued safe flight after a critical failure, may operate between the FATO/VPS and the approach/climb-out surface inner edge. VTOL-capable aircraft (VCA) a heavier-than-air aircraft, other than aeroplane or helicopter, capable of performing vertical procedures by means of more than two lift/thrust units. VCA stand a defined area that is intended to accommodate aircraft for loading or unloading passengers, mail, or cargo, fuelling/charging, parking, or VCA taxi-route a defined path that is established for the movement of VCA from one part of a vertiport to another: a. an air taxi-route: a marked taxi-route that is intended for air taxing; and b. a ground taxi-route: a marked taxi-route centred of a taxiway that is intended for ground movement. VCA taxiway a defined path on a vertiport that is intended for the ground movement of VCA from one part of a vertiport to another. 2 Introduction 2.1 Background 2.1.1 AAM is an evolving aviation ecosystem that involves a range of innovative aircraft types (both crewed and uncrewed) which will transport passengers and larger freight. Innovative aircraft types may span from multi-rotor, tilt wing, tilt-rotor, powered wing, offering short take-off and landing (STOL) through to vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) capabilities. 2.1.2 This AC provides guidance on the design elements and specifications of vertiports. This document assumes initial operations of vertical take-off and landing (VTOL)-capable aircraft (VCA) operated by pilot-on-board flying visual operations only. 2.1.3 With (AAM) evolving rapidly, these specifications for vertiport planning and design have been prepared to support the progress of necessary aerodrome infrastructure. The guidance outlined in this AC is adaptable and structured to evolve with this emerging sector. 2.1.4 However, it should be noted that these specifications are subject to change as aircraft performance and other data becomes available. Likewise, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS) and other international standards are also in development and subsequently may impact this guidance. Any significant revision of this guidance will be subject to industry consultation. 2.1.5 In addition to this, the introduction of AAM may impact and be impacted by considerations other than of aviation safety, such as security, noise and environment. Vertiport owners and operators should refer to local, state and other federal agencies to ensure appropriate adherence to all relevant requirements. 2.1.6 This AC provides specifications for vertiport facilities associated with the intended operation of VCA without mandating a standard vertiport layout 2.2 Site selection 2.2.1 Fundamental considerations 2.2.1.1 The selection of a vertiport site involves the consideration of a range of variables including intended aircraft types, area available, vertiport configuration and the current or future obstacle environment. 2.2.1.2 Full consideration of some of the variables relies on effective engagement with a range of stakeholders. Vertiport operators should establish open communication channels with aircraft operators, government stakeholders, nearby aerodrome operators (including certified aerodromes, non-certified aerodromes, helicopter landing sites and other vertiports) and, where appropriate, the local community. 2.2.1.3 The aircraft type or types that are expected to use the vertiport form the basis for most design considerations when developing a vertiport. Where the vertiport operator intends on supporting a single aircraft type, that aircraft type will be the design aircraft. For vertiports intended to service multiple aircraft, the design aircraft is a virtual aircraft composed of the most demanding characteristics of these aircraft including the largest set of dimensions, the greatest maximum take-off weight (MTOW), and the most critical flight path requirements (i.e., approach/climb-out gradient and/or horizontal flight requirements following a critical failure). 2.2.1.4 The vertiport area available and the intended scope of operations may impact on the vertiport configuration. The number of facilities, such as final approach and take-off areas (FATO), taxi routes, stands and associated buildings may be limited by the physical environment. 2.2.1.5 The potential for a vertiport to be constructed in a complex wind (turbulent) environment means that specific considerations should be made when a vertiport is to be established in the vicinity of buildings and significant terrain. 2.2.1.6 For vertiports within obstacle-rich environments or that may be impacted by future development, careful consideration of preferred and/or future flight paths should be made in consultation with appropriate stakeholders. 2.2.1.7 This AC does not cover all vertiport development considerations. Vertiport owners and operators may need to consult appropriate stakeholders on topics including but not limited to noise, security, environmental concerns and privacy. 2.2.2 Proximity to other vertiports or other aerodrome infrastructure 2.2.2.1 Where vertiports are located within the vicinity of other vertiports or aerodromes, the siting and design of FATOs and their associated flight paths should be carefully considered to minimize the interactions between vertiport traffic and other vertiport and aerodrome traffic. 2.2.3 Downwash protection 2.2.3.1 A vertiport should be located and designed in a way to protect the following from damage or injurious effects of downwash associated with VCA operating to/from the vertiport: people other aircraft buildings vehicles equipment. 2.2.3.2 An initial evaluation of downwash impacts may be carried out using the values of Table 1. However, the evaluation should be complemented by a study taking into account the specific local conditions and relevant wind comfort criteria of the affected persons and facilities. 2.2.3.3 A detailed safety assessment and an operational evaluation of individual aircraft types operating to/from a given vertiport may be undertaken. Table 1: Guidelines for maximum downwash velocity Type of area Maximumvelocity Areas of a vertiport traversed by flight crew, or passengers, boarding or leaving an aircraft|6o km/h Any personnel working near an aircraft 80km/h Equipment on an apron 80 km/h Public roads where the vehicle speed is likely to be 80 km/h or more 50 km/h Public roads where the vehicle speed is likely to be less than 80 km/h 60km/h Public areas, within or outside the vertiport boundary, where passengers or members ofthe public are likely to walk or congregate 60km/h Public areas where passengers or others are not likely to congregate 80 km/h Buildings and other structures 100 km/h 3 Vertiport physical characteristics 3.1 General 3.1.1.1 A vertiport consists of set of essential components, or defined areas, as well as some optional components. These are building blocks of a vertiport, as shown in Figure 1, and include: a. one or more FATO b. one or more touch down and lift-off areas (TLOF) c. protection areas d. taxiways and/or taxi-routes e. stands. 3.1.1.2 The following specifications are based on the design assumption that no more than one VCA will be in the FATO at the same time. 3.1.1.3 Further, it is also assumed that operations to/from a FATO in proximity to another FATO will not be simultaneous. If simultaneous operations are planned, appropriate separation distances between FATOs should be determined with due regard to issues such as downwash, flight paths and other airspace limitations. 3.1.1.4 Safety devices to mitigate the risk of fall from height at elevated vertiports should not penetrate the OLS or exceed the height of the protection area. Figure 1: Vertiport components 3.2 Essential vertiport components 3.2.1 Final approach and take-off area 3.2.1.1 A vertiport should be provided with at least one FATO. 3.2.1.2 A FATO should have the following features: a. A sufficient size and shape to ensure containment of every part of the design aircraft in the final phase of approach and commencement of take-off in accordance with the intended procedures. The shape of the FATO is optional as represented in Figures 1, 2 and 12. b. When collocated with a TLOF area, contiguous and flush with the TLOF, and meeting the requirements of 3.2.2.3 b. c. When non-collocated with a TLOF, free of obstacles, except for essential objects, free of hazards to a potential forced landing and resistant to the effects of downwash. 3.2.1.3 The dimensions of a FATO should be the: a. length of the rejected take-off distance required (RTODRV) prescribed in the design aircraft flight manual (AFM), or 1.5 Design D, whichever is greater b. width prescribed in the design aircraft AFM, or 1.5 Design D, whichever is greater. 3.2.1.4 Essential objects should not exceed 5 cm in height. 3.2.1.5 The slope of a FATO should not exceed 2 % in any direction. 3.2.1.6 A FATO should be located to minimize the influence of the surrounding environment, including turbulence, which could have an adverse impact on aircraft operations. 3.2.1.7 A FATO should be surrounded by a FATO Protection Area (FPA), refer to Section 4.1.1 of this AC. 3.2.1.8 The distance between any two proximate FATOs should be determined by a safety assessment. 3.2.2 Touchdown and lift-off area 3.2.2.1 A vertiport should be provided with at least one TLOF. 3.2.2.2 A TLOF should be provided within a FATO as shown in Figure 2, or stand as shown in Figure 12c, whenever it is intended that the undercarriage of the VCA will touch down or lift off. 3.2.2.3 A TLOF should have the following features: a. A sufficient size and shape to ensure containment of the undercarriage of the design aircraft aligned with the intended orientation. b. An area which: i. is free of obstacles ii. has sufficient bearing strength to accommodate the dynamic loads associated with the design aircraft. iii. is free of irregularities that would adversely affect the touchdown, lift-off or taxi of VCA iv. has sufficient friction to avoid skidding of VCA or slipping of persons v. is resistant to the effects of downwash vi. ensures effective drainage while having no adverse effect on the control or stability of a VCA during touchdown, lift-off, or when stationary. 3.2.2.4 The minimum dimensions of a TLOF should be the dimensions prescribed in the design aircraft AFM, or 0.83 Design D, whichever is greater. 3.2.2.5 The slope of a TLOF should not exceed 2 % in any direction. 3.2.2.6 When a TLOF is within a FATO, it should be: a. centred on the FATO or b. for an elongated FATO, centred on the longitudinal axis of the FATO. 3.2.2.7 When a TLOF is within a VCA stand, it should be centred on the stand. Figure 2: FATO, TLOF (with TDPC) 3.3 Optional vertiport components 3.3.1 VCA taxiways 3.3.1.1 A VCA taxiway should be provided for the intended ground movement of a VCA within the vertiport under its own power or by means of ground movement equipment. 3.3.1.2 A VCA taxiway should be located within a taxi-route and have the following features: a. sufficient width to ensure containment of the undercarriage of the design aircraft b. area which: i. is free of obstacles ii. has the bearing strength to accommodate the taxiing loads of the aircraft the taxiway is intended to serve iii. is free of irregularities that would adversely affect the ground taxiing of a VCA iv. is resistant to the effects of downwash v. ensures effective drainage while having no adverse effect on the control or stability of a VCA when being manoeuvred under its own power or by ground movement equipment, or when stationary. 3.3.1.3 The minimum width of a VCA taxiway should be two times the undercarriage width (UCW) of the design aircraft, as shown in Figure 3. 3.3.1.4 The transverse slope of a taxiway should not exceed 2 % and the longitudinal slope should not exceed 3 %. 3.3.1.5 When defining the distance between ground taxiways, the separation distance between an aircraft on a ground taxiway and an aircraft on a parallel ground taxiway or an object should take into consideration a minimum wingtip clearance of at least 0.25 maximum width of the design aircraft. Note: Where taxiways are intended to be used by vehicles and equipment considerations should be made to taxiway width and bearing strength. Figure 3: VCA taxiways and clearance distances 3.3.2 Taxi routes for VCA 3.3.2.1 A VCA taxi-route should be provided for the intended movement of a VCA within the vertiport under its own power or by means of ground movement equipment. 3.3.2.2 A VCA taxi-route should have the following features: a. sufficient width to ensure containment of the design aircraft b. free of obstacles, except for essential objects c. resistant to the effects of downwash d. when collocated with a taxiway: i. is contiguous and flush with the taxiway ii. does not present a hazard to operations iii. ensures effective drainage iv. not exceed an upward transverse slope of 4 % outwards from the edge of the taxiway. e. when not collocated with a taxiway, is free of hazards if a forced landing is required. 3.3.2.3 Where collocated with a taxiway, essential objects located in the VCA taxi-route should not: a. be located at a distance of less than 50 cm outwards from the edge of the taxiway b. penetrate a surface originating 50 cm outwards of the edge of the taxiway and a height of 25 cm above the taxiway and sloping upwards and outwards at a gradient of 5 % up to the outer edge of the ground taxi-route. Notes: Where the VCA operating width differs (e.g., folding wings) while taxiing, the reduced width may be considered for defining the taxi-route width. Consideration of low-mounted lift/thrust units may be required to ensure that appropriate clearances are maintained. Ground taxi-routes for VCA 3.3.2.4 A VCA ground taxi-route should have a minimum width of 1.5 times the overall width of the design aircraft it is intended to serve and be centred on a taxiway, as shown in Figure 4. Note: Where the VCA operating width differs (e.g., folding wings) while taxiing, the reduced width may be considered for defining the taxi-route width. Air taxi-route for VCA 3.3.2.5 A VCA air taxi-route should have a minimum width of twice the overall width of the design aircraft it is intended to serve, as shown in Figure 4. 3.3.2.6 When not collocated with a taxiway, the slopes of the ground below an air taxi-route should not exceed the slope landing limitations of the design aircraft the taxi-route is intended to serve. In any event, the transverse slope should not exceed 10 % and the longitudinal slope should not exceed 7 %. Ground taxi-route = 1.5 x overall width Taxiway (min 2x UCW) Air taxi-route = 2 x overall width Taxiway (min 2x UCW) Figure 4: VCA taxi-routes Air taxi-route = 2 x overall width 3.3.3 VCA stands 3.3.3.1 VCA stands may be provided to permit the safe loading and off-loading of passengers and/or cargo, as well as the servicing of the VCA without interfering with other traffic. 3.3.3.2 A VCA stand should be located within a protection area as shown in Figure 5, and have the following features: a. sufficient size and shape to ensure containment of every part of the design aircraft when it is being positioned within the stand b. An area which: i. is free of obstacles ii. has bearing strength capable of withstanding the intended loads iii. is free of irregularities that would adversely affect the manoeuvring of VCA iv. has sufficient friction to avoid skidding of VCA or slipping of persons i. is resistant to the effects of downwash ii. ensures effective drainage while having no adverse effect on the control or stability of a VCA when being manoeuvred under its own power, when being moved by means of ground movement equipment, or when stationary. 3.3.3.3 The slope of a VCA stand in any direction should not exceed 2 %. D-Value-based VCA stand 3.3.3.4 When the VCA stand design is based on D-value, the minimum dimensions should be: a. a circle of diameter of 1.2 Design D or b. when there is a limitation on manoeuvring and positioning, of sufficient width to meet the requirement of 3.3.3.2 (a) above, but not less than 1.2 times overall width of design aircraft. Geometry-based VCA stands Reserved 3.3.4 Protection areas for VCA stands 3.3.4.1 A stand protection area should be provided for VCA stands, as shown in Figure 5. 3.3.4.2 A protection area should have the following features: a. free of obstacles, except for essential objects b. resistant to the effects of downwash c. when solid, flush with the stand, not exceeding an upward slope of 4 % outwards from the edge of the stand and ensures effectively drained. 3.3.4.3 When associated with a stand designed for turning, the protection area should extend outwards from the periphery of the stand for a distance of 0.4 Design D. Otherwise, the minimum width of the stand and the protection area should not be less than the width of the associated taxi-route. 3.3.4.4 When associated with a stand designed for non-simultaneous aircraft operations the: a. protection area of adjacent stands may overlap but should not be less than the required protection area for the larger of the adjacent standards b. adjacent stand may contain a static aircraft. 3.3.4.5 Essential objects located in the protection area should not: a. penetrate a surface at a height of 5 cm above the level of the stand, if located at a distance of less than 0.75 Design D from the centre of the VCA stand b. penetrate a surface at a height of 25 cm above the level of the stand and sloping upwards and outwards at a gradient of 5 %, if located at a distance of 0.75 Design D or more from the centre of the VCA stand. Example A: Ground taxi. Simultaneous taxi-on/push-back stands Example B: Ground taxi. Simultaneous turning stands Example C: Ground taxi. Non-simultaneous taxi-on/push-back stands dependent on other stand being clear or with static aircraft Example E: Air taxi. Simultaneous taxi-through stands Example D: Ground taxi. Non-simultaneous turning stands dependent on other stand being clear or with static aircraft only Example F: Air taxi. Simultaneous turning stands Example G: Air taxi. Non-simultaneous taxi-through stands dependent on other stand being clear or with static aircraft only Example H: Air taxi. Non-simultaneous turning stands dependent on other stand being clear or with static aircraft only Figure 5: Protection areas for VCA stands and the associated VCA taxi-routes for different operation scenarios 4 Obstacle limitation surfaces 4.1 Obstacle limitation surfaces origins The following section outlines the protected areas from which obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS) originate. The dimensions of the OLS rely on a general objective of protection of approach, goaround and balked landing manoeuvres in the visual phase of the approach-to-land below a height of 152 m above the elevation FATO. 4.1.1 Final approach and take-of area protection area 4.1.1.1 An FPA should be provided for each FATO, as shown in Figure 6. 4.1.1.2 An FPA should have the following features: a. free of obstacles, except for essential objects. b. where solid, flush with the FATO, resistant to the effects of downwash and ensures effective drainage. 4.1.1.3 Where a FATO supports landing/take-off without vertical procedures, the FPA is an area surrounding the FATO that encompasses: a. the area(s) bordered by a circumscribed square aligned with the landing/take-off flight path(s) centred on the FPA reference circle(s) b. any area contained within the direct common tangents of any multiple FPA reference circles. 4.1.1.4 Where a FATO supports landing/take-off with vertical procedures only, the FPA is an area surrounding the FATO that encompasses: a. the FPA reference circle(s) b. any area contained within the direct common tangents of any multiple FPA reference circles. 4.1.1.5 The diameter of an FPA reference circle should be the FATO width plus 3 m or 0.25 Design D, whichever is greater. 4.1.1.6 Essential objects located in the FPA should not exceed 25 cm in height and should be frangibly mounted. Figure 6 Protection surfaces for vertiports not including vertical procedures 4.1.2 Vertical procedure surface 4.1.2.1 A vertical procedure surface (VPS) should be established for each vertical procedure used for landing or take-off from the vertiport. 4.1.2.2 The VPS is a surface that encompasses the area bordered by a circumscribed square(s) aligned with the intended aircraft flight path(s) centred on the VPS reference circle, as shown in Figure 7. 4.1.2.3 A VPS should be free of obstacles. 4.1.2.4 A VPS reference circle should be established above and centred on the FATO. 4.1.2.5 The diameter of a VPS reference circle should be the diameter of the associated FPA reference circle, plus 1 Design D per 100 ft increase in height above the FATO. 4.1.3 Obstacle free volume 4.1.3.1 An obstacle free volume (OFV) should be established between a VPS and the associated FPA. 4.1.3.2 An OFV should be free of obstacles. 4.1.3.3 The OFV is a truncated cone extending between the edge of the FPA reference circle to the edge of the VPS reference circle, as shown in Figure 7. 4.1.4 Vertiport clearway 4.1.4.1 A vertiport clearway should be established when a VCA needs to manoeuvre, horizontally, between the FPA/VPS outer edge and the approach/climb-out surface inner edge. 4.1.4.2 A vertiport clearway should have the following features: a. sufficient size and shape to ensure containment of the design aircraft when it is operating between the FPA/VPS and the approach/climb-out surface b. free of obstacles, except for essential objects c. resistant to the effects of downwash d. when at ground level, contiguous surface flush with the FPA, and free of hazards should a forced landing be required. 4.1.4.3 The width of a vertiport clearway should not be less than that of the associated FPA/VPS and centred on the intended flight path, as shown in Figure 6. 4.2 Surfaces 4.2.1 Approach/climb-out surface 4.2.1.1 An approach/climb-out surface should be established for each approach and climb-out flight path to and from the vertiport, as shown in Figures 7, 8 and 9. 4.2.1.2 The approach/climb-out surface consists of an inclined plane or a combination of planes or, when turns are involved, a complex surface, sloping upwards from the inner edge and centred on the intended flight path that must be clear of obstacles. 4.2.1.3 The limits of an approach/climb-out surface should comprise: a. an inner edge coincident with and of equal length to the outer edge of the associated FPA/VPS/clearway b. two side edges originating at the ends of the inner edge and diverging uniformly at a specified rate from the vertical plane, aligned with the intended flight path to a specified width and continuing thereafter at that width for the remaining length of the approach/climb-out surface c. an outer edge horizontal and perpendicular to the centre line of the approach surface intended flight path at a specified height above the vertiport elevation. 4.2.1.4 The specified values of the above characteristics are outlined in Table 2. Table 2 - OLS surface values - Approach/climb-out surface characteristics Characteristic Value Inner edge width: Width of FPA/VPS/clearway Day use only final width: 7x Design D Day use only divergence: 10% Night use final width: 10x Design D Night use divergence: 15% Outer edge height above vertiport elevation 500(152m) 4.2.1.5 In the case of an approach/climb-out surface involving turns, the surface is a complex surface containing the horizontal normal to its centre line and the slope of the centre line should be the same as that for a straight approach surface. 4.2.1.6 The slope(s) of the approach/climb-out surface should be measured in the vertical plane containing the centre line of the surface. 4.2.1.7 The approach/climb-out surface slope or combination of slopes and section lengths should be determined with reference to the obstacle environment and intended aircraft performance capabilities. If multiple slope/sections are established, the divergent portion of the approach/climb-out surface should be a single consistent slope. 4.2.2 Transitional surface 4.2.2.1 A transitional surface should be established on each side of an approach/climb-out surface and its associated clearway/VPS/FPA, as shown in Figures 7, 8 and 9. 4.2.2.2 The transitional surfaces should be clear of obstacles. 4.2.2.3 The transitional surface should comprise: a. a lower edge beginning at the point on the outer edge of the approach/climb-out surface where it reaches its final width then extending downwards and along the side of the approach/climb-out surface to the inner edge and, from there, b. where a clearway is provided, along the side of the clearway parallel to intended flight path then c. along the length of the side of the VPS d. along the length of the side of the FPA parallel to the intended flight path e. an upper edge beginning at the point where the outer edge of the approach/climbout surface reaches its final width and then parallel to the intended flight path at a constant height. Note: As the transitional surface is dependent on the approach/climb-out angle and Design D, it may extend the full length of the approach/climb-out surface. It may also be impacted by the extent of any vertical procedure such that it is no longer present. Figure 7: An example OLS design for a vertiport accommodating vertical procedures Figure 8: Illustration of a simple vertiport OLS. Showing an OFV, VPS, VPS reference circle, a single approach/climb-out surface and transitional surfaces Figure 9: Illustration of a simple elevated vertiport OLS. Showing an FPA, dual approach/climb-out surfaces and transitional surfaces 5 Visual aids 5.1.1 Wind direction indicators 5.1.1.1 A wind direction indicator may be provided at a vertiport to provide a visual indication of the wind direction and speed. 5.1.1.2 A wind direction indicator should be located to indicate the wind conditions over the FATO in such a way as to be free from the effects of airflow disturbances caused by nearby objects or downwash from the lift/thrust units. It should be visible from a VCA in flight, in hover or on the movement area. 5.1.1.3 A wind direction indicator sleeve should be a truncated cone made of lightweight fabric and should have the dimensions of 1.2 m in length, with a diameter of 0.3 m (at the larger end) to 0.15 m (at the smaller end). 5.1.1.4 The colour(s) of the wind direction indicator sleeve should such that it is clearly visible against its visual background. 5.1.1.5 A wind direction indicator at a vertiport intended for use at night should be lit such that it is clearly visible against its visual background. 5.2 Markers and markings - general 5.2.1.1 Markers and markings should be installed, in accordance with the following specifications, at a vertiport available for operations in daylight or at night. 5.2.1.2 Markers and markings should be clearly visible to the VCA and other users by way of: a. provision of a contrasting background marking (a box or border), b. where allowed for in the specifications below, the selection of an appropriate contrasting colour c. any other method that would increase the conspicuity of the marking or marker in operational conditions. 5.2.1.3 The night-time visibility of markers and markings may be supplemented by reflective/refractive material and/or electroluminescent paint providing that such material does not pose a hazard if dislodged. 5.3 Markers and markings - final approach and take-off areas 5.3.1 Flight path alignment guidance marking 5.3.1.1 Flight path alignment guidance marking(s) should be provided at a vertiport where it is desirable and practicable to indicate available approach and/or departure path direction(s). 5.3.1.2 The flight path alignment guidance marking should be located in a straight line along the direction of landing and/or take-off path to the FATO. 5.3.1.3 A flight path alignment guidance marking should consist of each of the following characteristics: a. one or more arrows marked on the TLOF, FATO and/or FPA. b. the stroke of the arrow(s) should be 0.5 m in width and at least 3 m in length. a. take the form shown in Figure 10 which includes the scheme for marking ‘heads of the arrows’ which are constant regardless of stroke length. 5.3.1.4 In the case of a flight path limited to a single landing direction or single take-off direction, the arrow marking may be unidirectional. In the case of a vertiport with only a single landing/take-off path available, one bidirectional arrow is marked, as shown in Figure 15a. 5.3.1.5 The marking should be white. Figure 10: Flight path alignment guidance marking 5.3.2 FATO perimeter marking or markers 5.3.2.1 FATO perimeter markings or markers should be provided at a vertiport where the extent of a FATO is not self-evident, as shown in Figures 12a, 12b, 12c and 12d. 5.3.2.2 For an unpaved FATO, the perimeter should be defined by flush in-ground markers. 5.3.2.3 For a paved $\mathsf { F A T O } ,$ the perimeter should be defined with a painted dashed line. 5.3.2.4 The FATO perimeter marking, or markers should have the following characteristics: a. be located on the edge of the FATO b. be 30 cm in width, and 1.5 m in length c. have end-to-end spacing of not less than 1.5 m and not more than 2 m with corners of a square or rectangular FATO defined d. be coloured white. 5.3.3 TLOF perimeter marking 5.3.3.1 A TLOF perimeter marking should be displayed if the perimeter of the TLOF is not selfevident, as shown in Figures 12a, 12b, 12c and 12d. 5.3.3.2 A TLOF perimeter marking should be located along the edge of the TLOF. 5.3.3.3 A TLOF perimeter marking should consist of a continuous white line with a width of 30 cm. 5.3.4 Touchdown positioning marking 5.3.4.1 A touchdown/positioning marking (TDPM) should be provided where a VCA is to touchdown or be accurately placed in a specific position, as shown in Figures 12a, 12b, 12c and 12d. 5.3.4.2 The TDPM should be: a. when there is no limitation on the direction of touchdown/positioning, a touchdown/positioning circle (TDPC) marking a. when there is a limitation on the direction of touchdown/positioning a single shoulder line with an associated centreline 5.3.4.3 The TDPM should have the following characteristics: a. the inner edge/inner circumference of the TDPM should be at 0.25 Design D from the centre of the area in which the VCA is to be positioned. a. when a shoulder line, the length of the marking should be 0.5 Design D b. be a yellow line with a width of at least 0.5 m. 5.3.4.4 The TDPM should be the primary marking when used in conjunction with other markings on the TLOF. 5.3.5 Aiming point marking 5.3.5.1 An aiming point marking should be provided at a vertiport where it is necessary for a pilot to make an approach to a particular point above a FATO before proceeding to a TLOF, as shown in Figure 12c. The aiming point marking should be located at the centre of the FATO 5.3.5.2 The aiming point marking should have the following characteristics: a. be an equilateral triangle with the bisector of one of the angles aligned with the preferred landing direction a. consist of continuous lines b. the dimensions of the marking should conform to those shown in Figure 11. Figure 11: Aiming point marking 5.3.6 Vertiport identification marking 5.3.6.1 A vertiport identification marking may be provided within a FATO, as shown in Figures 12a, 12b and 12d. 5.3.6.2 Where a TDPC is provided, the vertiport identification marking should be in the centre of the TDPC. Otherwise, the vertiport identification marking should be located at or near the centre of the FATO. 5.3.6.3 A vertiport identification marking should have the following characteristics: a. a form that identifies the vertiport b. have colour(s) that do not conflict with or detract from the TDPC, where used c. have a size that not less than 3 m and not greater than 0.5 Design D in its longest dimension d. have a form that allows the marking to be aligned with the preferred landing direction. 5.3.6.4 The use of the letter "H" and "X" should not be used to avoid confusion with the heliport identification and unserviceability markings, respectively. Note: The vertiport identification marking need not be limited to a single form for all vertiports. However, the marking used should be consistent across a facility. For example, a vertiport operator may choose to use a vertiport identification marking defined by another aviation authority, or they may choose to use a corporate logo or brand that aligns with the characteristics in 5.3.6.3. 5.3.6.5 Where a vertiport is equipped with two or more FATOs, vertiport identification markings may be supplemented or replaced with an ordinal number marking, as shown in Figure 12d. 5.3.6.6 An ordinal number FATO marking should consist of the following characteristics: a. arranged as to be readable from the preferred landing direction b. a number, beginning with 1 and ending in the last of the numbered FATOs c. have a colour consistent with the vertiport identification marking d. have a size not less than 1.5 m and not greater than 0.5 Design D in its longest dimension. 5.3.7 Vertiport name marking 5.3.7.1 A vertiport name marking may be provided at a vertiport, as shown in Figure 12d. 5.3.7.2 A vertiport name marking should consist of the name or the alphanumeric designator of the vertiport. 5.3.7.3 A vertiport name marking intended for use at night should be illuminated, either internally or externally. 5.3.7.4 The characters of the marking should be not greater than 1.2 m in height. Figure 12a: Vertiport marking example 1 Figure 12a illustrates an example of marking a FATO on a natural surface and includes: - FATO – Natural surface. White flush markers (1.5m x 0.3m) - TLOF – Grey painted square with edge marked by continuous white line (>0.3m) - TDPM – Always an internal diameter 0.5 of Design D. Marked by a continuous yellow circle (0.5- 1m wide) - vertiport identification – European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) white V on a blue background - D-Value and maximum allowable weight markings. Note: The image is an example only and does not limit possible marking combination on a natural surface. Figure 12b: Vertiport marking example 2 Figure 12b illustrates an example of marking a FATO on a paved surface and includes: - FATO – Light coloured paving. White markings (1.5m x 0.3m) with black outline for contrast with paving - TLOF – Green painted circle with edge marked by continuous white line (>0.3m) and a black outline for contrast with paving - TDPM – Always an internal diameter 0.5 of Design D. Marked by a continuous yellow circle (0.5- 1m wide) - vertiport Identification – Federal Aviation Administration broken wheel - 2 types of flight path alignment guidance markings. Note: The image is an example only and does not limit possible marking combination on a paved surface. Figure 12c: Vertiport marking example 3 Figure 12c illustrates an example of marking a FATO with an aiming point and stand and includes: - FATO – Natural surface. White flush markers (1.5m x 0.3m) - Air-taxi route markers – 1.5 m x 0.15 m yellow markers - TLOF – Mesh deck with edge marked by continuous white line (>0.3m) - TDPM – Internal diameter 0.5 of Design D, marked by a continuous yellow circle (0.5-1m wide) - vertiport identification – none - flight path alignment – white arrow markings. Note: The image is an example only and does not limit possible marking combinations Figure 12d: Vertiport marking example 4 Figure 12d illustrates an example of marking a FATO on a paved surface and includes: - FATO – Self-evident as dark paving against light concrete - TLOF (at 1 Design D) – Painted paved octagon with edge marked by continuous white line (>0.3m.) - TDPM – Internal diameter 0.5 of Design D marked by a continuous yellow circle (0.5-1m wide) - vertiport identification – Corporate logo with ordinal number - vertiport name marking. Note: The image is an example only and does not limit possible marking combinations 5.3.8 Maximum allowable weight marking 5.3.8.1 A maximum allowable weight marking may be displayed to provide the weight limitation of the TLOF, as shown in Figures 12a and 12d. 5.3.8.2 A maximum allowable weight marking should be located within the TLOF. 5.3.8.3 A maximum allowable weight marking should consist of a one-, two- or three-digit number. 5.3.8.4 The maximum allowable weight should be expressed in tonnes to the nearest 100 kg. The marking should be presented to one decimal place and rounded to the nearest 100 kg followed by the lower case letter “t”. 5.3.8.5 The maximum allowable weight marking should consist of the following characteristics: a. arranged as to be readable from the preferred landing direction. b. have a size that not less than 0.6 m in its longest dimension. 5.3.9 D-Value marking 5.3.9.1 A D-value marking may be displayed to provide the pilot with the limiting D of the FATO or TLOF, as shown in Figures 12a and 12d. 5.3.9.2 A D-value marking should be located within the FATO or TLOF and so arranged as to be readable from the preferred landing direction(s). 5.3.9.3 The D-value marking should be rounded to the nearest whole metre with 0.5 rounded down. 5.3.9.4 The D-Value marking should consist of the following characteristics: a. arranged as to be readable from the preferred landing direction b. have a size that not less than 0.6 m in its longest dimension 5.4 Markers and markings - taxiways and stands 5.4.1 VCA taxiway markings and markers 5.4.1.1 The centreline of a VCA taxiway should be marked, as shown in Figure 13. 5.4.1.2 A VCA taxiway centre line marking should be a continuous yellow line 15 cm in width. 5.4.1.3 A VCA taxiway that will not accommodate painted markings should be marked with flush in-ground yellow markers, 15 cm wide and approximately 1.5 m in length, spaced at intervals sufficient to provide directional guidance to pilots. 5.4.2 VCA air taxi-route markings and markers 5.4.2.1 The centre line of a VCA air taxi-route should be marked, as shown in Figure 13. 5.4.2.2 A VCA air taxi-route centre line marking should be a continuous yellow line 15 cm in width. 5.4.2.3 A VCA air taxi-route that will not accommodate painted markings should be marked with flush in-ground 15 cm wide and approximately 1.5 m in length yellow markers, spaced at intervals sufficient to provide directional guidance to pilots. 5.4.3 VCA stand markings 5.4.3.1 A VCA stand should be marked, as shown in Figure 13 and consist of the following elements: a. a TDPM b. a stand perimeter marking c. lead-in/lead-out markings. 5.4.3.2 VCA stand markings may also include: a. an alignment line b. a stand designation marking c. stand limitation markings. Touchdown positioning marking (TDPM) 5.4.3.3 A stand should be provided with the appropriate TDPM, according to 5.3.4. Stand perimeter marking 5.4.3.4 A VCA stand perimeter marking should consist of a continuous yellow line and have a line width of 15 cm. 5.4.3.5 When unpaved, the stand perimeter should be marked with flush in-ground markers. Lead-in/lead-out lines and alignment line 5.4.3.6 The TDPM, alignment lines and lead-in/lead-out lines should be located such that every part of the VCA can be contained within the VCA stand during positioning and permitted manoeuvring. 5.4.3.7 Curved portions of alignment lines and lead-in/lead-out lines should have radii appropriate to the design aircraft or the ground equipment used to position aircraft for that stand. 5.4.3.8 Alignment lines and lead-in/lead-out lines should be continuous yellow lines and have a width of 15 cm. Where it is intended that VCA proceed in one direction only, arrows indicating the direction to be followed may be added as part of the alignment lines. Stand designation marking 5.4.3.9 VCA stand designation markings may be provided where there is a need to identify individual stands. 5.4.3.10 A stand designation marking should consist of the following characteristics: a. arranged as to be readable from the preferred approach direction/s b. an ordinal designation of alphanumeric characters c. be yellow in colour d. have a size that not less than 0.5 m and not greater than 0.25 Design D in its longest dimension. Stand limitation marking 5.4.3.11 Where a stand is designed to accommodate a design aircraft with a smaller D-value, or a lesser weight than is accommodated by other vertiport facilities, the marking showing the limiting D-value or weight should be displayed on the lead-in line to that stand. 5.4.3.12 The stand limitation marking should consist of the following characteristics: a. arranged as to be readable prior to entering the stand b. be yellow in colour c. have a size that not less than 0.5 m and not greater than 0.25 Design D in its longest dimension d. centrally located on the lead-in line, with the lead in line broken to accommodate the marking. 5.4.3.13 A weight-based stand limitation marking should be consistent with 5.3.8. 5.4.3.14 A D-value based stand limitation marking should be consistent with 5.3.9. Figure 13: Stand markings 5.5 Visual Aids - Lighting 5.5.1 General 5.5.1.1 Lights and lighting systems should be installed, in accordance with the following specifications, at a vertiport intended to be used at night. 5.5.1.2 The photometrics for vertiport lights and lighting elements should be appropriate to the vertiport environment and intended operations without being visually distracting or confusing to pilots. 5.5.1.3 If the operating environment varies, lighting systems should be adjustable in order to achieve the appropriate intensity, if needed. 5.5.2 Approach lighting system Reserved 5.5.3 Flight path alignment guidance lighting system 5.5.3.1 Flight path alignment guidance lighting system(s) (FPAGLS) should be provided at a vertiport where it is desirable and practicable to indicate available landing and/or takeoff path direction(s), as shown in Figure 14. 5.5.3.2 The flight path alignment guidance lighting system should be located in a straight line along the direction(s) of approach and/or departure path to/from the TLOF or FATO within the FATO, TLOF or protection area. 5.5.3.3 If combined with a flight path alignment guidance marking, as far as is practicable the lights should be located inside the “arrow” markings. 5.5.3.4 A flight path alignment guidance lighting system should consist of the following characteristics: a. a row of three or more lights spaced uniformly with a total minimum distance of 6 m b. intervals between lights should not be less than 1.5 m and should not exceed 3 m c. where space permits, there should be 5 lights. (See Figure 14) d. be steady omnidirectional inset white lights. 5.5.3.5 Where a FPAGLS is for an approach only or departure only (but not both), additional lights can be added to indicate the desired direction. These lights should have the following characteristics: a. a barrette of 3 lights, spaced 0.5 m apart b. perpendicular to the line of the FPAGLS c. located centrally between the last and second to last light to form an arrow-head (see Figure 14). 5.5.3.6 The system should allow an adjustment of light intensity to meet the prevailing conditions and to balance the flight path alignment guidance lighting system with other vertiport lights and general lighting that may be present around the vertiport. Note - Markings have been shaded to emphasise the lighting Figure 14: Flight path alignment guidance lights and arrangement for aiming point lights 5.5.4 Visual alignment guidance system Reserved 5.5.5 Visual approach slope indicator Reserved 5.5.6 FATO Perimeter lights 5.5.6.1 Where a FATO is established at a vertiport for use at night, the FATO should be provided with perimeter lights, as shown in Figures 15a, 15b and 15c. 5.5.6.2 FATO perimeter lights should be placed along, outside and within 0.3 m of the edge(s) of the FATO. The lights should be uniformly spaced as follows: a. for a straight edge, a light at the end of each edge, then with lights evenly spaced at not more than 5 m apart b. for a curved edge, lights evenly spaced and not more than 5 m apart. 5.5.6.3 FATO perimeter lights should have the following characteristics: a. be fixed omnidirectional lights b. white in colour c. be inset where the FATO and TLOF are collocated and accessed by a taxiway, otherwise, be not more than 25 cm in height. 5.5.7 Aiming point lights 5.5.7.1 Where an aiming point marking is provided at a vertiport intended for use at night, aiming point lights should be provided, as shown in Figures 14 and 15c. 5.5.7.2 Aiming point lights should be collocated with the aiming point marking. 5.5.7.3 Aiming point lights should form a pattern of at least six omnidirectional white lights as shown in Figure 14 and 15c. The lights should be inset when a light extending above the FATO could endanger VCA operations. 5.5.8 TLOF lighting system 5.5.8.1 Where a TLOF is established at a vertiport intended for use at night, the TLOF perimeter should be lit, unless the TLOF is centrally located within the FATO, the TDPC is lit, or is located within a stand lit by floodlighting, as shown in Figures 15a and 15c. 5.5.8.2 The lighting for the TLOF should consist of: a. TLOF perimeter lights and/or b. TDPC lighting segments TLOF - perimeter lights 5.5.8.3 TLOF perimeter lights should be placed along, outside and within 0.3 m of the edges of the TLOF. The lights should be uniformly spaced as follows: a. for a straight edge, a light at the end of each edge, then with lights evenly spaced between at not more than 3 m apart b. for a curved edge, light evenly spaced and not more than 3 m apart. 5.5.8.4 TLOF perimeter lights should have the following characteristics: a. be fixed omnidirectional lights b. green in colour c. be inset where the TLOF is accessed by a taxiway, otherwise, be not more than 5 cm in height. TLOF - lighting segments Reserved TDPC - lighting segments 5.5.8.5 Lighting segments should have the following characteristics: a. a width no larger than the marking it defines b. a frame the same colour as the marking it defines. c. have a finish that does not reduce surface friction of the TLOF. 5.5.8.6 Lighting segments, where provided to identify the TDPC as shown in Figure 15b, should have the following characteristics: a. a total length of lighting segments, in a pattern, of between 50% and 75% of the length of the pattern b. be evenly spaced with gaps between lighting segments of not less than 0.5 m c. be placed within the marking designating the TDPC such that the lighting segments are within 10 cm of the inner edge of the marking d. show yellow light. 5.5.9 Vertiport identification marking lighting 5.5.9.1 The vertiport identification marking may be lit. 5.5.9.2 Vertiport identification marking lighting should not adversely impact the TLOF surface. 5.5.10 VCA taxiway/air taxi-route lighting 5.5.10.1 Where a taxi-route is established at a vertiport intended for use at night, the taxi-route centreline should be lit. 5.5.10.2 Taxi-route lights should be placed along the taxiway centreline spaced at intervals sufficient to provide directional guidance to pilots. 5.5.10.3 Taxiway lighting should be yellow, and air taxi-route lighting should be alternating yellow and green, as shown in Figure 15c. 5.5.11 VCA stand lighting 5.5.11.1 VCA stand lighting should be provided on a stand intended to be used at night by VCA. 5.5.11.2 VCA stand lighting floodlights as shown in Figure 15c should be located so as to provide adequate illumination, with a minimum of glare to the pilot of an aircraft in flight and on the ground, and to personnel on the stand. The arrangement and aiming of floodlights should be such that a VCA stand receives light from two or more directions to minimise shadows. 5.5.11.3 The spectral distribution of stand floodlights should be such that the colours used for surface and obstacle markings can be correctly identified. 5.5.11.4 Horizontal and vertical illuminance should be sufficient to ensure that visual cues are discernible for required manoeuvring and positioning, and essential operations round the VCA can be performed expeditiously without endangering personnel or equipment. Figure 15a: Vertiport lighting examples Figure 15a demonstrates an example of marking a FATO that includes: – FATO white omnidirectional lights <5 m apart – TLOF green omnidirectional perimeter lights <3 m apart – TDPC – in this case not lit – flight path alignment guidance lighting of 5 white omnidirectional lights. Note: The image is an example only and does not limit possible vertiport lighting combinations. Figure 15b: Vertiport lighting examples Figure 15b demonstrates an example of marking a FATO that includes: – FATO white omnidirectional lights <5 m apart – TLOF – not lit as the TDPC is lit – TDPC Yellow panel lights. Note: The image is an example only and does not limit possible vertiport lighting combinations. Figure 15c: Vertiport lighting examples Figure 15c demonstrates an example of lighting a FATO that includes: – aiming point with 6 white omnidirectional lights – FATO white omnidirectional lights evenly spaced <5 m apart – flight path alignment guidance lights of 5 white omnidirectional lights – air-taxi route markers – yellow/green omnidirectional lights – stand TLOF & TDPM – stand floodlights – vertiport identification which is not lit. Note: The image is an example only and does not limit possible vertiport lighting combinations. 5.6 Machine-readable visual aids Nothing in the specifications above preclude the use of machine-readable aids, such as QR codes, being used for aircraft or vehicle guidance on a vertiport. EASA PTS-VPT-DSN Vertiport Design Vertiports Prototype Technical Specifications for the Design of VFR Vertiports for Operation with Manned VTOL-Capable Aircraft Certified in the Enhanced Category (PTS-VPT-DSN) March 2022 Europe is at the forefront of a worldwide effort to enable new mobility concepts. The European aviation industry is already planning and investing in the development of new aircraft capable of vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) and in vertiports, which will be used as take-off and landing sites for those VTOL aircraft. With this document, EASA is publishing the world’s first detailed prototype technical specifications for the design of vertiports (PTS-VPT-DSN) in the form of guidance. These prototype specifications describe in detail the physical characteristics of a vertiport, the required obstacle environment, visual aids, lights and markings, as well as concepts for en-route alternate vertiports for continued safe flight and landing. Many of these vertiports will be built within an urban environment, and the EASA guidance therefore offers new and innovative solutions specifically for congested urban environments. One notable innovation is the concept of a funnel-shaped area above the vertiport, designated as an obstacle-free volume. This concept is tailored to the operational capabilities of the new VTOL aircraft, which can perform landings and take-offs with a significant vertical segment. Depending on the urban environment and on the performance of certain VTOL-capable aircraft, omnidirectional trajectories to vertiports will be also possible. Such approaches can more easily take account of environmental and noise restrictions and are therefore more suitable for an urban environment than conventional heliport operations, which are more constrained in the approaches that can be safely applied. The guidance in this document has been developed under the leadership of EASA, working in cooperation with the world’s leading vertiport companies and VTOL manufacturers, and with the support of experts from European Member States. In a second step, EASA will develop a full regulatory framework for vertiport design and certification, operations, and oversight of vertiport operators in the context of a rulemaking task (RMT.230). For the rulemaking task EASA will make good use of its pivotal role in setting safety standards and developing regulatory frameworks. This will provide the basis for a global vertiport market to support the wide range of stakeholders involved in Urban Air Mobility including cities/communities, vertiport operators, VTOL aircraft manufacturers, Member States, and competent authorities. We have a unique opportunity in aviation history to develop technical standards from scratch which will ensure that vertiports are safe and can be adapted to a succession of new VTOL aircraft types that we expect to be developed in the future. We invite you to offer your comments on this first edition of the prototype specifications for vertiports. Your feedback will help support our future rulemaking activities to enable safe vertiport design and operations. LEGAL DISCLAIMER: All information provided in this Prototype Technical Specifications (PTS) for vertiports is of non-binding nature and is not intended to address specific circumstances of any one facility or organisation. Its only purpose is to provide technical guidance, recommendations, and best practices without prejudice to officially adopted or future legislative and regulatory provisions, in particular future validated and finalised certification specifications adopted as a result of the respective rulemaking task (RMT.0230). It is not intended and should not be relied upon, as any form of warranty, representation, undertaking, contractual, or other commitment binding in law upon EASA. EASA does not express or imply any warranty or assume any liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information or recommendation included in the prototype technical specifications (PTS) for vertiports. To the extent permitted by Law, EASA shall not be liable for any kind of damages or other claims or demands arising out of or in connection with the use of the PTS. COPYRIGHT CLAUSE: Copyright European Union Aviation Safety Agency, 2003-2022. Ownership of all copyright and other intellectual property rights in this material including any documentation, data and technical information, remains vested to the European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All logo, copyrights, trademarks, and registered trademarks that may be contained within are the property of their respective owners. CONTACT NOTICE: If you want to comment on the PTS, please contact EASA under the following address: Flight Standards Directorate Aerodromes Standards and Implementation Section (FS 2.4) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Postfach 10 12 53, D-50452 Cologne, Germany Tel: +49 221 89990 1000 Email: aerodromes@easa.europa.eu PLACE AND DATE OF PUBLICATION: EASA, Cologne, Germany, March 2022 Vertiports Prototype Technical Specifications for the Design of VFR Vertiports for Operation with Manned VTOL-Capable Aircraft Certified in the Enhanced Category (PTS-VPT-DSN) 24 March 2022 Letter to urban air mobility (UAM) manufacturers, sent by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Vertiport Task Force (VPTTF) on 18 May 2021: The EASA VPTTF, established for developing vertiport design requirements, addressed a letter to UAM manufacturers to gather sufficient data for developing vertiports’ design (VPT-DNS) specifications. The details of the request to manufacturers are explained below. EASA ensured that all data received was treated confidentially and not disclosed outside EASA or within the VPTTF without the explicit authorisation of the sender. VTOL-CAPABLE AIRCRAFT DATA SURVEY FOR DEVELOPING PROTOTYPE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR VERTIPORT DESIGN (prepared by the VPTTF) Notes: The VTOL-capable aircraft considered in this document correspond to the ‘Category Enhanced’ as defined in EASA ‘Special Condition for small-category VTOL aircraft’1. In addition, the ‘Prototype Technical Specifications for Vertiports Design’ (PTS-VPT-DSN) are developed for manned vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL)-capable aircraft (EASA operations (OPS) Type#3). According to EASA SC-VTOL-01, ‘vertiport’ means ‘an area of land, water, or structure used or intended to be used for the landing and take-off of VTOL-capable aircraft’. However, for the purpose of Aerodrome (ADR) and Vertiport (VPT) regulations, VPT should be classified as aerodrome by the definition. Sensitivity and confidentiality of data: The VPTTF Focal Point (FP) ensures strict confidentiality of the received material within EASA. A sender of data may also allow the VPTTF FP to have insight into the replies sent to EASA on the draft means of compliance (MOC) for VTOL aircraft performance. Only with the sender’ s prior approval, received material (or part of it) may be shared within the VTPTF. VTOL manufacturers are requested to provide information to better define the requirements for the design of the vertiport infrastructure. The information provided will be used to evaluate the technical specifications for VTP-DSN and operation of VTOL-capable aircraft. Information on VTOL-capable aircraft includes, but is not limited to, the following: VTOL dimensions: shape/configuration, largest overall length and width, ‘D-value’; VTOL maximum take-off mass (MTOM); request for a lateral manoeuvring area during take-off from a final-approach and take-off area (FATO) to a take-off decision point (TDP) (including synthetic means, i.e. cameras to ensure the approach and take-off path); approach/departure paths compared to obstacle limitation surfaces (OLSs), as provided in International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 14, Volume II, ‘Heliports’ (are those OLSs sufficient for the approach and take-off manoeuvres? — provide different requirements, if necessary); rejected take-off distance (RTOD), characteristics of the load-bearing surface needed for rejected take-off (RTO); landing gear geometry and dimensions, minimum ground turn radius; VTOL taxiing, ground movement and parking requirements (specify the moving infrastructure for VTOL-capable aircraft, and whether the ‘D-value’ changes from landing to taxiing and parking); visual angle in the vertical plane through pilot eye position (examples: Figures 2 and 3); possible impact of battery charging/swapping procedures on taxiway and parking position design requirements; downwash protection area to be considered (to allow safe operation and minimise hazards for ground personnel); Note: To support the drafting of VPT-DSN specifications, the following information on the radial component of the downwash (‘outwash’) is required: VTOL manufacturers should report if while the aircraft is in a low hover at the limits of a cylinder volume of diameter 2 D around the VTOL-capable aircraft / from the ground/surface up to 1.5 m of height, the maximum measured radial speed is lower than 60 km/h in any wind conditions within the VTOL limit flight envelope (see EASA SC-VTOL-01, VTOL.2135). If the downwash temperature at those limits of the cylinder volume is more than 10°C above the ambient temperature, this should be also reported); and minimum handling-area requirements around the VTOL-capable aircraft, including passenger handling and areas anticipated for the VTOL-capable aircraft services (i.e. battery charging, swap area, and the like). SC-VTOL-01 and MOC: ‘D’ means the diameter of the smallest circle enclosing the VTOL aircraft projection on a horizontal plane, while the aircraft is in the take-off or landing configuration, with rotor(s) turning, if applicable (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Dimension ‘D’ Figure 2. Visual angle in the vertical plane through pilot eye position (example) Figure 3. Illustration of helicopter CAT A approaches with angles higher than $30 ^ { \circ }$ from the horizontal plane TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of contents ........ List of abbreviations..... 10 CHAPTER A — GENERAL ..... . 12 PTS VPT-DSN.A.010 Applicability .... .... 12 PTS VPT-DSN.A.020 Definitions..... ....................................................... ...... 14 CHAPTER B — VERTIPORT DATA..... ...... 20 PTS VPT-DSN.B.100 Aeronautical data.. .... 20 PTS VPT-DSN.B.110 Vertiport reference point... ............................... .... 20 PTS VPT-DSN.B.120 Vertiport elevation.. ... 21 PTS VPT-DSN.B.130 Vertiport dimensions and related information... ..... 21 PTS VPT-DSN.B.140 Vertiport declared distances.... .. 22 PTS VPT-DSN.B.150 Coordination between aeronautical information services and vertiport authorities... .. 22 PTS VPT-DSN.B.160 Safeguarding of vertiports . ..... 23 CHAPTER C — PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS . .. 25 PTS VPT-DSN.C.200 General. .. 25 PTS VPT-DSN.C.210 Final-approach and take-off areas (FATOs).. .... 26 PTS VPT-DSN.C.220 Safety areas.... ... 27 PTS VPT-DSN.C.230 Downwash protection.......................................................... 28 PTS VPT-DSN.C.240 Protected side slope.. ................. ... 30 PTS VPT-DSN.C.250 VTOL-capable aircraft clearway ...... .................... ..... 31 PTS VPT-DSN.C.260 Touchdown and lift-of area (TLOF) .. ... 31 PTS VPT-DSN.C.270 VTOL-capable aircraft taxiways and taxi-routes .................. 33 PTS VPT-DSN.C.280 VTOL-capable aircraft taxiways.... .. 33 PTS VPT-DSN.C.290 VTOL-capable aircraft taxi routes.... ..... 34 PTS VPT-DSN.C.300 VTOL-capable aircraft ground taxi-routes..... .......... ... 35 PTS VPT-DSN.C.310 VTOL-capable aircraft air taxi-routes ........................... ..... 36 PTS VPT-DSN.C.320 VTOL-capable aircraft stands . ... 37 PTS VPT-DSN.C.330 VTOL-capable aircraft stand protection area..... ..... 41 PTS VPT-DSN.C.340 Location of a final-approach and take-off area (FATO) in relation to another FATO ...... ..... 44 PTS VPT-DSN.C.350 Location of a final-approach and take-off area (FATO) in relation to an aerodrome runway or taxiway....... ........ 45 CHAPTER D — OBSTACLE ENVIRONMENT . . 46 PTS VPT-DSN.D.400 Applicability .. .. 46 CHAPTER D, Subpart 1 — OBSTACLE LIMITATION SURFACES .........47 PTS VPT-DSN.D.405 General... ... 47 PTS VPT-DSN.D.410 Approach surface.. ................... .... 52 PTS VPT-DSN.D.415 Transitional surface .... ..... 54 PTS VPT-DSN.D.420 Take-off climb surface ... 59 PTS VPT-DSN.D.425 Application of obstacle limitation surfaces ................ ...... 60 PTS VPT-DSN.D.430 Obstacle limitation requirements...... ........ 61 CHAPTER D, Subpart 2 — OBSTACLE-FREE VOLUME... .... 62 PTS VPT-DSN.D.440 General...... ...... 62 PTS VPT-DSN.D.445 Generic volume...... ...... 62 PTS VPT-DSN.D.450 Final-approach and take-off area (FATO) and safety area (SA) .... 64 PTS VPT-DSN.D.455 Obstacle-free volume (OFV) . ... 65 PTS VPT-DSN.D.460 Approach surface.. ..... 66 PTS VPT-DSN.D.465 Take-off climb surface . ..................... ..... 66 PTS VPT-DSN.D.470 Bidirectional volume..... ................................... ..... 67 PTS VPT-DSN.D.475 Omnidirectional volume ........................................... ...... 67 PTS VPT-DSN.D.480 Omnidirectional obstacle-free volume with prohibited sector ... 70 PTS VPT-DSN.D.485 Reference volume Type 1 .......... ........ 72 PTS VPT-DSN.D.490 Link to VTOL-capable aircraft requirements.... ..... 76 CHAPTER E — VISUAL AIDS............... ..... 80 PTS VPT-DSN.E.500 Visual aids – General .... ..... 81 PTS VPT-DSN.E.510 Wind direction indicator . .... 81 PTS VPT-DSN.E.520 Vertiport identification marking... .... 83 PTS VPT-DSN.E.530 FATO identification marking........... ................................... 86 PTS VPT-DSN.E.540 Maximum allowable mass marking.. ................... ..... 88 PTS VPT-DSN.E.550 D-value marking ...... ....... ..... 89 PTS VPT-DSN.E.560 FATO perimeter marking or markers .... .... 90 PTS VPT-DSN.E.570 FATO designation markings for runway-type FATOs . ... 92 PTS VPT-DSN.E.580 Aiming point marking .............. ...... 93 PTS VPT-DSN.E.590 TLOF perimeter marking ....... ...... 94 PTS VPT-DSN.E.600 Touchdown positioning marking (TDPM). .. 94 PTS VPT-DSN.E.610 Obstacle sector marking... ... 95 PTS VPT-DSN.E.620 Vertiport name marking.. ... 96 PTS VPT-DSN.E.630 VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway markings and markers.........97 PTS VPT-DSN.E.640 VTOL-capable aircraft air taxi-route markings and markers .. 100 PTS VPT-DSN.E.650 VTOL-capable aircraft stand markings ...... ... 101 PTS VPT-DSN.E.660 Apron safety lines..... ... 104 PTS VPT-DSN.E.670 Flight path alignment guidance marking....... .. 105 PTS VPT-DSN.E.680 Visual aids for denoting restricted-use areas........ ...... 106 PTS VPT-DSN.E.700 Lights — general.. ... 108 PTS VPT-DSN.E.710 Vertiport beacon ...... .... 109 PTS VPT-DSN.E.720 Approach lighting system.... ... 110 PTS VPT-DSN.E.730 Flight path alignment guidance lighting system.. ... 112 PTS VPT-DSN.E.740 Visual alignment guidance system . ..114 PTS VPT-DSN.E.750 Visual approach slope indicator .. ..115 PTS VPT-DSN.E.760 FATO lighting systems . .. 120 PTS VPT-DSN.E.770 Aiming point lights . .. 122 PTS VPT-DSN.E.780 TLOF lighting system .. 122 PTS VPT-DSN.E.790 Vertiport identification marking lighting.. .. 125 PTS VPT-DSN.E.800 The TLOF in a FATO lighting... .. 127 PTS VPT-DSN.E.810 Vertiport stand floodlighting.. . 137 PTS VPT-DSN.E.820 VTOL-capable aircraft stand lighting .. ..137 PTS VPT-DSN.E.830 VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway/air taxi-route lighting........ 138 PTS VPT-DSN.E.840 Visual aids for denoting obstacles outside and below the obstacle limitation surface.. .. 138 PTS VPT-DSN.E.850 Floodlighting of obstacles.. .. 139 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (Used in PTS-VPT-DSN) AFM aircraft flight manual (a VTOL-capable AFM also refers to a helicopter flightmanual) APAPI abbreviated precision approach path indicator ASPSL arrays of segmented point source lighting CAT commercial air transport cd candelas CFP critical failure for performance C/L centre line cm centimetres CS-ADR-DSN Certification Specifications and Guidance Material for Aerodrome Design CS-HPT-DSN Certification Specifications and Guidance Material for the design of surface-levelVFR heliports located at aerodromes that fall under the scope of Regulation (EU)2018/1139 D See PTS VPT-DSN.A.020 Definitions D-value a limiting dimension, in terms of D, for a vertiport or for a defined area within avertiport. Design D See PTS VPT-DSN.A.020 Definitions DP decision point DR horizontal distance that the helicopter has travelled from the end of the take-offdistance available EASA European Union Aviation Safety Agency FATO final-approach and take-off area ft feet HAPI helicopter approach path indicator HEMS helicopter emergency medical services $Hz$ Hertz ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization IFR instrument flight rules kg kilograms km/h kilometres per hour kt knots LDAV landing distance available (for VTOL-capable aircraft) LDRV landing distance required (for VTOL-capable aircraft) LDP landing decision point LED light-emitting diode LP luminescent panel lx lux m metres MTOM maximum take-off mass NVIS night vision imaging system OLS obstacle limitation surfaces PAPI precision approach path indicator PC performance class PTS-VPT-DSN Prototype technical specifications for the design of VFR vertiports R/T radiotelephony or radio communications RFFS rescue and firefighting services RTO rejected take-off RTOD rejected take-off distance RTODV rejected take-off distance (for VTOL-capable aircraft) RTODAV rejected take-off distance available (for VTOL-capable aircraft) RTODRV rejected take-off distance required (for VTOL-capable aircraft) S seconds SA safety area SARPS Standards and Recommended Practices (ICAO) t tonne (1 000 kg) TDP take-off decision point TODAV take-off distance available (for VTOL-capable aircraft) TODRV take-off distance required (for VTOL-capable aircraft) TDPC touchdown positioning circle TDPM touchdown positioning marking TLOF touchdown and lift-off area UCW undercarriage width VFR visual flight rules VPT vertiport VPTTF EASA Vertiport Task Force VRP vertiport reference point VSS visual-segment surface VTOL vertical take-off and landing VTOSS vertical take-of safety speed (for helicopters certified in category A) Symbols μ the coefficient of friction (u=Mu) is the ratio between the friction force and thevertical load 。 degrees = equalsper cent % CHAPTER A — GENERAL PTS VPT-DSN.A.010 Applicability Rationale The vertiport (VPT) rules will be developed in two stages: In the first stage, EASA will introduce the Prototype Technical Specifications as non-regulatory material for the design of VFR vertiports or parts thereof, applicable for the operation of manned VTOL-capable aircraft certified in the enhanced category (PTS-VPT-DSN, hereinafter ‘PTSs’). In the second stage, the rules will cover vertiports that are considered to be in the scope of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 (the ‘Basic Regulation’): a full set of vertiport rules, including the authority, vertiport operator and vertiport operation requirements, will be introduced, along with the certification specifications (CSs) and guidance material (GM) for vertiport design and certification. The Basic Regulation (Article 2(1) (e)) defines the aerodromes (vertiports) that fall under its scope. To be proportionate to the nature and risk of the activities performed at vertiports, VTOLcapable aircraft certified in the ‘Category Enhanced’ (see EASA SC-VTOL-01) are selected as reference for the developments of PTSs. The enhanced category (similar to performance class (PC) 1 of helicopters) allows proportionality in safety objectives and enables the highest level of safety in protecting third parties when flying over congested areas and when conducting commercial air transport (CAT) operations with passengers. VTOL-capable aircraft certified in the enhanced category must meet the requirements for continued safe flight and landing (CSFL) and be able to continue to the original intended destination or a suitable alternate vertiport after a failure. EASA developed the PTSs at the request of Member States to introduce technical specifications for the design of vertiports, which Member States may use as input to their national regulatory frameworks for the design of vertiports. The EASA VPTTF developed the PTSs based on the ADR rules (EU regulations and EASA certification specifications (CS-ADR-DSN and CS-HPT-DSN (Certification Specifications for Heliports)), as well as on ICAO Annex 14, Volume I, ‘Aerodromes’, Volume II, ‘Heliports’, ICAO Document 9261, Heliport Manual, and inputs from VTOL manufacturers and experts. PTSs include objectives, applicability, characteristics, and location, which consist of one or more statements that describe(s) usage and limitations, attributes (without values or detailed specifications), and necessary associations. The values or attributes are normally specified with reference to the ‘design VTOL-capable aircraft’. Each defined area is fully described along with its attributes, allowing it to be considered in isolation or in combination with other defined or subsidiary areas. The PTSs are developed for the design of VFR vertiports or parts thereof for the operation of manned VTOL-capable aircraft certified in the enhanced category, carrying passengers or cargo. It is assumed that VTOL-capable aircraft can operate at heliports or aerodromes if their performance can meet the design criteria of the heliport or aerodrome. However, the appropriate level of emergency equipment, e.g. for firefighting, which is determined by the level of the VTOL-capable aircraft operations at the heliport, should be ensured. Applicability matrix of the PTSs Aircraft certification according to SC-VTOL categories Enhanced Basic Passenger transport Cargo Passenger(non-commercial) Cargo Commercial Non-commercial Mannedoperation Yes Yes Yes n/a n/a Unmannedoperation n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Table A-1. Applicability matrix of the PTSs Yes: applicable. n/a: outside the scope; however, vertiports designed according to that PTS may be used for such aircraft and/or use cases, unless they are subject to more demanding requirements stemming from other applicable standards or regulations. ‘Category Enhanced’ under SC-VTOL (hereinafter the ‘enhanced category’) is required for personcarrying VTOL operation over congested areas or for CAT pax operations. ‘Basic category’ is the opposite of the ‘enhanced category’, e.g. it covers non-CAT pax/cargo operations outside congested areas, CAT cargo operations outside congested areas, and training flights. It is at the discretion of the competent authority to use the PTSs as a reference for the development of requirements for the design of vertiport infrastructure to serve unmanned operations or operations in the basic category for VTOL-capable aircraft. The limiting dimensions that are provided for in ICAO Annex 14, Volume II, ‘Heliports’ and ICAO Document 9261, Heliport Manual, are based on the principle of the helicopter design and on statistical analysis of the population of helicopters, as described in Appendix A to Chapter 3 of the Heliport Manual. A similar analysis will be required for the VPT regulations, when all information from the VTOL manufacturers is available. (a) The Prototype Technical Specifications (PTS-VPT-DSN) are developed as non-regulatory material for the design of VFR vertiports or parts thereof and are applicable for operation of manned VTOL-capable aircraft certified in the enhanced category. (b) PTS-VPT-DSN contains technical specifications for physical characteristics, obstacle environment, and visual aids for the design of vertiport, and are not intended to limit or regulate the operation of VTOL-capable aircraft. (c) For vertiport facilities located at aerodromes that fall under the scope of Regulation (EU) 2018/11391 (the ‘Basic Regulation’), and where relevant, CS-ADR-DSN and CS-HPT-DSN apply to the areas and infrastructure used by VTOL-capable aircraft. (d) Unless otherwise specified, the colour specifications used in PTS-VPT-DSN are those contained in CS-ADR-DSN. (e) When designing a vertiport, the following parameters should be considered: the set of the largest dimensions the maximum take-off mass (MTOM), and the most critical obstacle avoidance criteria of the population of VTOL-capable aircraft that the vertiport is intended to serve. (f) The vertiport designer, operator, and user should be assured that when a VTOL-capable aircraft is within the D-value and maximum allowable mass (promulgated, and in most cases displayed on the FATO) and is operated in accordance with normal practice, all defined areas are safe to use. Note: The maximum allowable mass represents a limitation on the actual mass of the VTOLcapable aircraft on arrival or departure. PTS VPT-DSN.A.020 Definitions Rationale According to the MOC-2 SC-VTOL ‘D’ means the diameter of the smallest circle enclosing the VTOL aircraft projection on a horizontal plane, while the VTOL aircraft is in the take-off or landing configuration, with rotor(s) turning, if applicable. The operator should publish D in metres, rounded up to the next tenth. If the VTOL aircraft changes dimension during taxiing or parking (e.g. folding wings), a corresponding Dtaxiing or Dparking should also be provided (see also CAT.POL.H.110 of Annex IV (Part-CAT) to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 (the ‘Air OPS Regulation’)2). The definition of ‘distance DR’ (i.e. the horizontal distance that the VTOL-capable aircraft has travelled from the end of the take-off distance available (TODA) to the obstacle) will be used to define the DR for VTOL-capable aircraft i.e. the horizontal distance that the VTOL-capable aircraft has travelled from the end of the TODA to the obstacle or from the back of the FATO to the obstacle (see also CAT.POL.H.110). To be proportionate to the nature and risk of the activities performed by VTOL-capable aircraft, two certification categories are introduced in the above SC VTOL, namely the ‘basic category’ and the ‘enhanced category’, which are linked to the intended type of operations. A direct relationship between airworthiness and types of operations already exists, for example when certifying for visual flight rules (VFR) or instrument flight rules (IFR) operations. Introducing this additional link allows proportionality in safety objectives and enables the highest level of safety in the enhanced category in protecting third parties when flying over congested areas and when conducting commercial air transport (CAT) operations of passengers. The operational rules can then be built on demonstrated aircraft safety levels and adapted as necessary to local particularities (see EASA SC-VTOL-01). VTOL-capable aircraft certified in the enhanced category must meet the requirements for continued safe flight and landing (CSFL) and be able to continue to the original intended destination or a suitable alternate vertiport after a failure. For the basic category, only controlled-emergency landing requirements must be met, in a similar manner to a controlled glide or autorotation (see EASA SC-VTOL-01). The types of operations that the enhanced-category aircraft perform correspond to the highest operational risk for third parties and/or for passenger transport for remuneration. For this reason, the most stringent system safety objectives are assigned regardless of the number of occupants. These safety objectives have been established based upon two complementary EASA evaluations, which converged on a numerical value of the same order of magnitude (see EASA SC-VTOL-01). The definition of ‘charging facilities’ by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), adapted to vertiports, is also provided. For the purposes of PTS-VPT-DSN, the following definitions apply: ‘Aerodrome’ means a defined area (including any buildings, installations, and equipment) on land or water or on a fixed offshore or floating structure intended to be used either wholly or in part for the arrival, departure, and surface movement of aircraft. ‘Charging facility’ means a charging station that supplies alternating current (AC) and/or direct current (DC) to an electric aircraft for recharging its batteries, including, if needed, the connection between charging station and electric aircraft (refer to the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)). ‘Category Enhanced’ means a certification category for VTOL-capable aircraft according to which the aircraft meets the requirements for continued safe flight and landing (CSFL) after a critical failure for performance (CFP). ‘Category Basic’ means a certification category for VTOL-capable aircraft according to which the aircraft meets the requirements for controlled emergency landing after a critical failure for performance (CFP). ‘Clearway’, for VTOL-capable aircraft, means a defined area on the ground or water, selected and/or prepared as a suitable area over which a VTOL-capable aircraft that is certified in the enhanced category may accelerate and achieve a specified set of flight conditions. ‘Commercial air transport operation’ means an aircraft operation involving the transport of passengers, cargo, or mail for remuneration or hire. ‘Congested area’ means, in relation to a city, town, or settlement, any area that is substantially used for residential, commercial, or recreational purposes. ‘Continued safe flight and landing (CSFL)’ means, in relation to a VTOL-capable aircraft, that the aircraft is capable of continued controlled flight and landing at a vertiport, possibly using emergency procedures, without requiring exceptional piloting skill or strength. ‘D’, for helicopters, means the largest overall dimension of the helicopter, when rotor(s) are turning, measured from the most forward position of the main rotor tip path plane to the most rearward position of the tail rotor tip path plane or helicopter structure. ‘D’, for VTOL aircraft, means the diameter of the smallest circle enclosing the VTOL aircraft projection on a horizontal plane, while the aircraft is in the take-off or landing configuration, with rotor(s) turning, if applicable (see also PTS VPT-DSN.D.490 and Appendix 1). Note: If the VTOL aircraft changes dimensions during taxiing or parking (e.g. folding wings), a corresponding $\mathsf { D } _ { \mathsf { t a x i i n g } } \mathsf { o r } \mathsf { D } _ { \mathsf { p a r k i n g } }$ should also be provided. Figure A-1. Centre and diameter ‘D’ of the smallest enclosing circle ‘D-value’ means a limiting dimension, in terms of D, for a vertiport, or for a defined area within a vertiport. ‘Design D’ means the D of the design VTOL-capable aircraft. ‘Design VTOL-capable aircraft’ means the VTOL-capable aircraft type that the vertiport is intended to serve, which has the largest set of dimensions, the greatest maximum take-off mass (MTOM), and the most critical obstacle avoidance criteria. Those attributes may not reside in the same VTOL-capable aircraft capability. ‘Distance DR’ means the horizontal distance that the VTOL-capable aircraft has travelled from the end of the take-off distance available (TODA) to the obstacle or from the back of the final-approach and take-off area (FATO) to the obstacle. ‘Dynamic load-bearing surface’ means a surface capable of supporting the loads that are generated by a VTOL-capable aircraft in motion. ‘Elongated’ means, when used with touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) or final approach and take-off area (FATO), an area which has a length more than twice its width. ‘Essential objects permitted’ includes, but may not be limited to, around the touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF), perimeter lights and floodlights, guttering and raised kerb, foam monitors or ring-main system, handrails and associated signage, other lights. ‘Elevated VTOL-capable aircraft clearway’ means a clearway raised to a level that provides obstacle clearance. ‘Heliport’ means an aerodrome or a defined area on a structure intended to be used wholly or in part for the arrival, departure, and surface movement of helicopters. ‘Landing distance available (LDAV)’, for VTOL-capable aircraft, means the length of the FATO plus any additional area that is declared available and suitable for VTOL-capable aircraft to complete the landing manoeuvre from a defined height. ‘Landing distance required (LDRV)’ for VTOL-capable aircraft, means the horizontal distance that is required for landing and coming to a full stop from a point that is 15 m (50 ft) above the landing surface. ‘Landing decision point (LDP)’, for VTOL-capable aircraft, means a point along the landing flight path, which is defined as the last point from which a balked landing can be performed. After the LDP, a balked landing is not ensured. If the aircraft is certified in the enhanced category, then a landing should be possible following a critical failure for performance (CFP) before or after the LDP. ‘Obstacle’ means all fixed (whether temporary or permanent) and mobile objects, or parts thereof, that: are located on an area intended for the surface movement of VTOL-capable aircraft; extend above a defined surface intended to protect VTOL-capable aircraft in flight; or stand outside those defined surfaces but, nonetheless, are assessed as a hazard to air navigation. ‘Protection area’ means a defined area, surrounding a stand, which is intended to reduce the risk of damage from VTOL-capable aircraft accidentally diverging from the stand. ‘Rejected take-off distance (RTODV)’, for VTOL-capable aircraft, means the length of the finalapproach and take-off area (FATO) that is declared available and suitable for VTOL-capable aircraft to complete a rejected take-off in accordance with the category (enhanced or basic) in which the aircraft is operated. ‘Rejected take-off distance available (RTODAV)’, for VTOL-capable aircraft, means the length of the FATO that is declared available and suitable for VTOL-capable aircraft to complete a rejected take-off in accordance with the category (enhanced or basic) in which the aircraft is certified. ‘Rejected take-off distance required (RTODRV)’, for VTOL-capable aircraft, means the horizontal distance that is required from the start of the take-off to the point where the aircraft comes to a full stop, following a critical failure for performance (CFP) that is recognised at the take-off decision point (TDP). ‘Runway-type FATO’ means a final-approach and take-off area (FATO) that has characteristics similar in shape to a runway. ‘Safety area (SA)’ means a defined area on a vertiport, which surrounds the final-approach and takeoff area (FATO) and is free of obstacles, other than those required for air navigation purposes, and which is intended to reduce the risk of damage to VTOL-capable aircraft accidentally diverging from the FATO. ‘Static load-bearing area’ means a surface capable of supporting the mass of the VTOL-capable aircraft that is situated upon it. ‘Take-off decision point (TDP)’, for VTOL-capable aircraft, means the first point that is defined by a combination of speed and height from which continued take-off can be made meeting the certified minimum performance (CMP) following a critical failure for performance (CFP), and is the last point in the take-off path from which a rejected take-off (RTO) is ensured. ‘Take-off distance available (TODAV)’, for VTOL-capable aircraft, means the length of the finalapproach and take-off area (FATO) plus the length of any clearway (if provided) that is declared available and suitable for VTOL-capable aircraft to complete the take-off. ‘Take-off distance required (TODRV)’, for VTOL-capable aircraft, means the projected horizontal distance from the start of the take-off to the point at which safe obstacle clearance and a positive climb gradient are achieved, following a critical failure for performance (CFP) recognised at the takeoff decision point (TDP). ‘Take-off flight path’, for VTOL-capable aircraft, means the vertical and horizontal path that extends from the take-off point to a point at which the aircraft is at 305 m (1 000 ft) above the take-off elevation or at such other height above the take-off elevation that allows the aircraft to clear all obstacles. ‘Touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF)’ means an area where a VTOL-capable aircraft may touch down or lift off. ‘Touchdown positioning circle (TDPC)’ means a touchdown positioning marking (TDPM) in the form of a circle, which is used for omnidirectional positioning in a touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF). ‘Touchdown positioning marking (TDPM)’ means a marking or set of markings that provide visual cues for the positioning of VTOL-capable aircraft. ‘Touchdown positioning marking (TDPM) circle’ means the reference marking for a normal touchdown, which is so located that when the pilot’s seat is over the marking, the whole of the undercarriage will be within the touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) and all parts of the VTOL-capable aircraft will be clear of any obstacles by a safe margin. ‘Vertiport’ means an area of land, water, or structure that is used or intended to be used for the landing, take-off, and movement of VTOL-capable aircraft. ‘Vertiport elevation’ means the highest point of the final-approach and take-off area (FATO). ‘Vertical procedures’ means take-off and landing procedures that include an initial vertical/steep climb and a final vertical/steep descent profile. The profile may or may not include a lateral component. ‘Vertiport operator’ means any legal or natural person that is operating or proposing to operate one or more vertiports. ‘Vertiport reference point (VRP)’ means the designated geographical location of a vertiport. ‘VTOL-capable aircraft’ means a heavier-than-air aircraft, other than aeroplane or helicopter, capable of performing vertical take-off and landing by means of more than two lift/thrust units that are used to provide lift during the take-off and landing. ‘VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway’ means a defined path on a vertiport that is intended for the ground movement of VTOL-capable aircraft and that may be combined with an air taxi-route to permit both ground and air taxiing. ‘VTOL-capable aircraft stand’ means a defined area that is intended to accommodate a VTOL-capable aircraft for loading or unloading passengers, mail, or cargo, fuelling/charging, parking, or maintenance, and, for the TLOF, where air taxiing operations are contemplated, the TLOF. ‘VTOL-capable aircraft taxi-route’ means a defined path that is established for the movement of VTOL-capable aircraft from one part of a vertiport to another: (a) an air taxi-route: a marked taxi-route that is intended for air taxiing; and (b) a ground taxi-route: a taxi-route that is centred on a taxiway. Where relevant, the definitions provided in CS-ADR-DSN and CS-HPT-DSN apply accordingly. CHAPTER B — VERTIPORT DATA PTS VPT-DSN.B.100 Aeronautical data Rationale This Chapter B ‘Vertiport data’ is drafted with reference to and based on ICAO Annex 14, Volume II, ‘Heliports’, and ICAO Document 9261, Heliport Manual. Vertiport data and procedures, provided in this chapter, for coordination with the competent authorities and the aeronautical information services (AIS) are at this stage at the discretion of the national competent authorities (NCAs) of the Member States (MSs). As a next step, EASA will develop a full set of vertiport rules, including authority and operator requirements, under Rulemaking Task (RMT).0230 ‘Introduction of a regulatory framework for the operation of drones’. (a) The determination and reporting of vertiport-related aeronautical data should be in accordance with the accuracy and integrity classification that is required in order to meet the needs of the end user of aeronautical data. Further information on specifications concerning the accuracy and integrity classification of heliport-related aeronautical data are contained in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/4691 and in ICAO Document 10066, ‘PANS-AIM’, Appendix 1. (b) Digital data error detection techniques should be used during the transmission and/or storage of aeronautical data and digital data sets. Note: Detailed specifications concerning digital data error detection techniques are contained in ICAO Document 10066, ‘PANS-AIM’. PTS VPT-DSN.B.110 Vertiport reference point Rationale Rules for the coordination between aeronautical information services (AIS) and vertiport authorities are not provided in PTS-VPT-DSN, and will be developed under RMT.0230. If a vertiport is certified, data and guidance on the aeronautical information to be provided, as well as the procedures for promulgating such information should be sought from the competent authority. If regular VTOL-capable aircraft operations are to take place at an uncertified vertiport, the location of the vertiport should be also published and flying activity should be coordinated with other nearby aviation activity. Individual Member State (MS) legislation should determine how to promulgate information on uncertified vertiports. (a) A vertiport reference point (VRP) should be established for a vertiport. Note: When the vertiport is collocated with an aerodrome, the established aerodrome reference point serves both the aerodrome and the vertiport. (b) The VRP should be located at the geometric centre of the vertiport. (c) The position of the VRP should be measured and reported to the appropriate authority in degrees, minutes, and seconds. PTS VPT-DSN.B.120 Vertiport elevation (a) The elevation of the VRP and geoid undulation at the VRP elevation position should be measured and reported to the appropriate authority with accuracy of half a metre. (b) The elevation of the touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) and/or the elevation and geoid undulation of each final-approach and take-off area (FATO), where appropriate, should be measured and reported to the appropriate authority with accuracy of half a metre. Note: Geoid undulation must be measured in accordance with the appropriate aviation system of coordinates. PTS VPT-DSN.B.130 Vertiport dimensions and related information (a) The following data should be measured or described, as appropriate, for each facility provided at a vertiport: (1) vertiport type: surface level or vertiport that is elevated. A vertiport that is located on a raised structure on land of 3 m or more is considered elevated; (2) TLOF: dimensions to the nearest metre, slope, surface type and bearing strength to the nearest 100 kg; (3) FATO: type of FATO, true bearing to one-hundredth of a degree, designation number (where appropriate), length and width to the nearest metre, slope, and surface type; (4) SA: length, width, and surface type; (5) VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway and taxi-route: designation, width, and surface type; (6) maximum D-Value and maximum take-off mass (MTOM) allowed; (7) apron: surface type and VTOL-capable aircraft stands; (8) clearway (if provided): length, ground profile or, when elevated, height above the FATO, and length and width; and (9) visual aids for approach procedures, marking and lighting of the FATO, TLOF, VTOL-capable aircraft taxiways, air taxiways, taxi-routes, and stands. (b) The geographical coordinates of the geometric centres of the TLOF(s) and/or of each threshold of the FATO(s) (where appropriate) should be measured and reported to the appropriate authority, if required, in degrees, minutes, seconds, and hundredths of seconds. (c) The geographical coordinates of appropriate centre line points of VTOL-capable aircraft taxiways should be measured and reported to the appropriate authority, if required, in degrees, minutes, seconds, and hundredths of seconds. (d) The geographical coordinates of each VTOL-capable aircraft stand should be measured and reported to the appropriate authority, if required, in degrees, minutes, seconds, and hundredths of seconds. (e) The geographical coordinates of obstacles in Area 2 (the part within the vertiport boundary) and in Area 3 should be measured and reported, if required, to the appropriate authority in degrees, minutes, seconds, and tenths of seconds. In addition, the top elevation, type, and marking and lighting (if any) of obstacles should be reported to the appropriate authority. Note 1: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 (the ‘ATM/ANS Regulation’)1 and ICAO Document 10066, ‘PANS-AIM’, Appendix 8, provide requirements for obstacle data determination in Areas 2 and 3. Note 2: See ICAO Annex 15, ‘Aeronautical Information Services’, Chapter 10, ‘Electronic terrain and obstacle data requirements’. PTS VPT-DSN.B.140 Vertiport declared distances The following distances to the nearest metre should be declared, where relevant, for a vertiport for VTOL-capable aircraft: (a) landing distance available (LDAV), (b) landing distance required (LDRV), (c) rejected take-off distance available (RTODAV), (d) rejected take-off distance required (RTODRV), (e) rejected take-off distance (RTODV), (f) take-off distance available (TODAV), and (g) take-off distance required (TODRV). PTS VPT-DSN.B.150 Coordination between aeronautical information services and vertiport authorities (a) To ensure that aeronautical information services (AIS) providers obtain information that allows them to provide up-to-date pre-flight information and in-flight information, arrangements should be made in due time between AIS providers and the vertiport operator, to report to the responsible AIS unit: (1) information on vertiport conditions; (2) the operational status of associated facilities, services, and navigation aids within their area of responsibility; and (3) any other information that is considered to be of operational significance. (b) Before introducing changes to the air navigation system, the services responsible for such changes should take due account of the time needed by the AIS providers to prepare, produce, and distribute the relevant material for promulgation. To ensure timely provision of the information to the AIS providers, close coordination between the services concerned is therefore required. (c) Of particular importance are changes to aeronautical information affecting charts and/or computer-based navigation systems that qualify to be notified by the aeronautical information regulation and control (AIRAC) system, as specified in ICAO Annex 15, Chapter 6. The responsible vertiport services should consider the predetermined, internationally agreed AIRAC effective dates when submitting raw information/data to the AIS providers. Note: Detailed specifications on the AIRAC system are contained in ICAO Doc 10066, PANS-AIM, Chapter 6. (d) The vertiport services responsible for the provision of raw aeronautical information/data to the AIS providers should do so taking into account accuracy and integrity requirements that are necessary to meet the needs of the end user of aeronautical information/data. Note1: Specifications on the accuracy and integrity classification of heliport (vertiport)-related aeronautical data are contained in ICAO Document 10066, ‘PANS-AIM’, Appendix 1. Note 2: Specifications for issuing a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) and NOTAM on snow conditions (SNOWTAM) are contained in ICAO Annex 15, Chapter 6, and ICAO Document 10066, ‘PANS-AIM’, Appendices 3 and 4 respectively. Note 3: The AIRAC information is distributed at least 42 days in advance of the AIRAC effective dates to reach recipients at least 28 days in advance of the effective date. Note 4: The schedule of the predetermined, internationally agreed, and common AIRAC effective dates at intervals of 28 days, as well as guidance on the AIRAC use, are contained in ICAO Document 8126, ‘AIS Manual’, Chapter 2, Section 2.6. PTS VPT-DSN.B.160 Safeguarding of vertiports (a) Obstacle limitation surfaces (OLSs) and obstacle-free volume (OFV) (see Chapter D) describe the airspace around vertiports that allow safe VTOL-capable aircraft operations and prevent vertiports from becoming unusable due to obstacles growing around them. (b) Vertiport safeguarding is the process by which vertiport operators can, in consultation with the local authorities and within their capability, protect the environment surrounding the vertiport from developments that may affect the vertiport’s operation and/or business. (c) Vertiport safeguarding assesses the implications of any development being proposed in the vicinity of an established vertiport to ensure, as far as practicable, that the vertiport and its surrounding airspace are not adversely affected by those proposals, thus ensuring the continued safety of VTOL-capable aircraft operating at the location. (d) Vertiport safeguarding covers several aspects. Its purpose is to protect: (1) the airspace around a vertiport to ensure no buildings or structures cause danger to aircraft either in the air or on the ground, through the provision of OLSs or OFV; (2) all the elements of vertiport lighting by ensuring that they are not obscured by any proposed development and that any proposed lighting, either temporary or permanent, is not confused with aeronautical ground lighting; (3) the vertiport from any increased risk of wildlife strike, in particular bird strikes, which pose a serious threat to flight safety (e.g. the proximity of a garbage and waste disposal site); (4) vertiport operations from interference by any construction processes that produce dust and smoke, by temporary lighting or by construction that affects navigational aids; and (5) VTOL-capable aircraft from the risk of collision with obstacles, through appropriate lighting. The vertiport operator should consider all the above when assessing the vertiport development proposals. (e) For the purposes of safeguarding, the vertiport operator should provide a layout plan that shows the following key dimensions: vertiport elevation, TLOF size, FATO size, SA size, clearway, distance from the SA or clearway perimeter to the vertiport edges, and approach/departure paths showing locations of buildings, trees, fences, power lines, obstructions (including elevations), schools, places of worship, hospitals, residential areas, and other significant features. (d) For vertiports that are elevated, the vertiport operator should provide the above-mentioned layout plan, together with OLSs, OFV, and virtual clearways, with the altitude of their origins. Further guidance on safeguarding is provided in ICAO Document 9261, ‘Heliport Manual’. CHAPTER C — PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Rationale One of the important elements of design infrastructure requirements is the analysis of the error margin for establishing distance from obstacles (on the heliport/vertiport). Therefore the requirement for, and minimum dimensions of, defined and subsidiary areas should be based upon: (1) for helicopters: human performance, which is considered to be: (i) margins of normal errors of manoeuvring (FATO, TLOF, taxiways, taxi-routes, stands, etc.); and/or (ii) margins of abnormal errors of manoeuvring under challenging environmental conditions (SA and protection area). human performance (as for helicopters); or (ii) automation or autonomy based on machine or positional errors, for which little data exists. 2. It would be extremely challenging to provide limiting dimensions without knowledge of the population of vehicles that will use the vertiport — particularly as those vehicles are as diverse from each other as they are from helicopters. It is unlikely that a satisfactory standard could be produced (or justified) without a comprehensive analysis process as the one performed for helicopters. Documenting that process a supporting Appendix or other associated document might be necessary. PTS VPT-DSN.C.200 General (a) The technical specifications of this Chapter are based on the design assumption that no more than one VTOL-capable aircraft is in the FATO at the same time. (b) A vertiport consists of various essential components or defined areas that are the basic building blocks of the design process. Each defined area has an objective, which is described in terms of usage, limitations, and attributes, as well as necessary subsidiary areas associated with it. The vertiport design follows the principle of encapsulation, which means that each defined area can be positioned in isolation or in combination with other defined or subsidiary areas without the need for tables specifying the separation distance. Encapsulation provides flexibility in design, as an area can be present within the boundaries of any defined or subsidiary area. The defined areas are: FATO, TLOF, stand, taxiway, ground taxi-route, and air taxi-route. The subsidiary areas are SA, clearway, and protection area. (c) The technical specifications of this Chapter assume that when conducting operations to a FATO in proximity to another FATO, those operations will not be simultaneous. If simultaneous VTOLcapable aircraft operations are required, appropriate separation distances between FATOs need to be determined, giving due regard to such issues as downwash, take-off and landing performance, and airspace requirements, and ensuring that the flight paths for each FATO do not overlap. (d) Where relevant and appropriate, for the design of vertiports infrastructure or parts thereof, at aerodromes that fall under the scope of the Basic Regulation, CS-ADR-DSN and CS-HPT-DSN apply. (e) For the design of vertiports infrastructure or parts thereof, that lie outside the scope of the Basic Regulation, national rules for the design of aerodromes and heliports apply. (f) When designing VTOL-capable aircraft stands, the location and dimensions of the charging facility should be taken into consideration. PTS VPT-DSN.C.210 Final-approach and take-off areas (FATOs) (a) An FATO should: (1) provide: (i) an area free of obstacles (except for essential objects which because of their function are located on it), and of sufficient size and shape to ensure containment of every part of the design VTOL-capable aircraft in the final phase of the approach and at the commencement of the take-off in accordance with the intended procedures; Note: Essential objects are visual aids (e.g. lighting or roll-over protection if the vertiport is elevated) or other aids (e.g. firefighting systems) necessary for safety purposes; and (ii) when solid, a surface resistant to the effects of downwash, which: (A) when collocated with a TLOF, is contiguous and flush with the TLOF, has a bearing strength capable of withstanding the intended loads, and ensures effective drainage; or (B) when not collocated with a TLOF, is free of hazards, should a forced landing be required; Note: ‘Resistant’ implies that downwash effects neither cause a degradation of the surface nor result in flying debris; and (2) be associated with an SA. (b) A vertiport should be provided with at least one FATO, which need not be solid. Note: An FATO may be located on or near an aerodrome runway strip or taxiway strip. (c) The minimum dimensions of an FATO should be: (1) the length of the RTODV for the required take-off procedure that is prescribed in the aircraft flight manual (AFM) of the VTOL-capable aircraft for which the FATO is intended, or 1.5 Design D, whichever is greater; and (2) the width for the required procedure that is prescribed in the AFM of the VTOL-capable aircraft for which the FATO is intended, or 1.5 Design D, whichever is greater. Note: Local conditions, such as elevation, temperature, and permitted manoeuvring may have to be considered when determining the size of an FATO in accordance with SC VTOL.2105. (d) Essential objects that are located within an FATO should not penetrate the horizontal plane at the FATO elevation by more than 5 cm. Note: At vertiports that are elevated, roll-over protection may be provided. (e) When the FATO is solid, its overall slope should not exceed 2 per cent (to horizontal) in any direction. Higher slopes are possible, according to the AFM. (f) The FATO should be located so as to minimise the influence of the surrounding environment, including turbulence, which could adversely affect VTOL-capable aircraft operations. (g) A FATO should be surrounded by an SA that need not be solid. Figure C-1. FATO and associated safety area PTS VPT-DSN.C.220 Safety areas (a) The objective of the SA is to provide a free-of-obstacles area that extends beyond the FATO, to compensate for manoeuvring errors under challenging environmental conditions. (b) A SA should provide: (1) a free-of-obstacles area, except for essential objects which because of their function are located on it, to compensate for manoeuvring errors; and (2) when solid, a surface that is contiguous and flush with the FATO, is resistant to downwash effects, and ensures effective drainage. (c) The SA surrounding an FATO should extend outwards from the periphery of the FATO for a distance of at least 3 m or 0.25 Design D, whichever is greater. (d) No mobile object should be permitted in an SA during VTOL-capable aircraft operations. (e) Essential objects that are located within the SA should not penetrate a surface that starts at the edge of the FATO at a height of 25 cm above the plane of the FATO sloping upwards and outwards with a gradient of 5 per cent. (f) When solid, the slope of the SA should not exceed an upward slope of 4 per cent outwards from the edge of the FATO. PTS VPT-DSN.C.230 Downwash protection (a) The AFM for VTOL-capable aircraft provides the value of the downwash that is measured on a 2 D circle while the aircraft is in a 1-m hover in no-wind conditions. (b) This value can be used to evaluate the adequacy of the SA to protect from downwash. An initial evaluation can be carried out using the values of Table C-1. However, the evaluation should be complemented by a study taking into account the specific local conditions and relevant wind comfort criteria of the affected population (e.g. bicycle path, vegetation, light structures, local regulations, etc.). Maximumdownwashvelocity Type of area 60 km/h for areas of a vertiport traversed by flight crew, or passengers, boarding or leavingan aircraft 60 km/h for public areas, within or outside the vertiport boundary, where passengers ormembers of the public are likely to walk or congregate 80km/h for public areas where passengers or others are not likely to congregate 50 km/h for public roads where the vehicle speed is likely to be 80 km/h or more 60 km/h for public roads where the vehicle speed is likely to be less than 80 km/h 80 km/h for any personnel working near an aircraft 80 km/h for equipment on an apron 100 km/h for buildings and other structures Adapted from the Australian Government Civil Aviation Safety Authority Part 139 (Aerodromes) Manual of Standards 20191 (c) If the AFM value of the downwash on the 2 D circle is above the recommended maximum downwash velocity, an additional downwash protection area should be created so that the downwash at the boundaries is lower than the recommended maximum. Jet blast fences that are positioned respecting PTS VPT-DSN.C.240 and applicable OLSs and /or OFV can also be used. An extension beyond the 2 D circle may also be warranted to take into account significant mean winds. (d) If a downwash protection area is established, it may coincide with the placement and size of the SA when the SA is not solid. (e) It should be noted that the AFM value is measured in a 1-m hover radially and a particularly dynamic take-off or landing procedure, or a hover at a different height (e.g. out-of-ground effect), may generate a stronger downwash. A downwash will also be generated on the arrival or departure paths and may affect other areas of the vertiport and nearby environment. A safety assessment and an operational evaluation of individual aircraft type to be approved for a given vertiport is thus also recommended. (f) For vertiports that are elevated, the downwash protection area may need to be extended below the level of the FATO as illustrated in Figure C-2. A safety assessment should be conducted to determine whether such an extension is necessary. Figure C-2. Downwash protection area extended below the vertiport that is elevated PTS VPT-DSN.C.240 Protected side slope (a) A vertiport should be provided with at least one protected side slope, rising at 45 degrees outward from the edge of the SA and extending to a distance of 10 m (see Figure C-3). (b) The surface of a protected side slope should not be penetrated by obstacles. Figure C-3. FATO simple/complex SA and side slope protection Note: These diagrams show a number of configurations of FATO/SA/side slopes. For a more complex arrival/departure arrangement which consists of: two surfaces that are not diametrically opposed; more than two surfaces; it can be seen that appropriate provisions are necessary to ensure that there are no obstacles between the FATO and/or SA and the arrival/departure surfaces. PTS VPT-DSN.C.250 VTOL-capable aircraft clearway Note: The inclusion of detailed specifications for VTOL-capable aircraft clearways is not intended to imply that a clearway has to be provided. (a) A VTOL-capable aircraft clearway should provide: (1) an area free of obstacles, except for essential objects which because of their function are located on it, and of sufficient size and shape to ensure containment of the design VTOLcapable aircraft when it is accelerating in level flight, and close to the surface, to achieve its take-off safety speed; and (2) when solid, a surface which: is contiguous and flush with the FATO and SA; is resistant to the effects of downwash; and is free of hazards if a forced landing is required; or (3) when elevated, clearance above all obstacles. (b) When a VTOL-capable aircraft clearway is provided, the inner edge should be located: (1) at the outer edge of the SA; or (2) when elevated, directly above, or directly below, the outer edge of the SA. (c) The width of a VTOL-capable aircraft clearway should not be less than the width of the FATO and associated SA (see Figure C-1). (d) When solid, the ground in a VTOL-capable aircraft clearway should not project above a plane having an overall upward slope of 3 per cent or having a local upward slope exceeding 5 per cent, the lower limit of this plane being a horizontal line which is located on the periphery of the FATO. PTS VPT-DSN.C.260 Touchdown and lift-of area (TLOF) (a) A vertiport should be provided with at least one TLOF. (b) A TLOF should be provided: (i) whenever it is intended that the undercarriage of the VTOL-capable aircraft will touch down within a FATO, or stand, or lift off from a FATO or stand. (ii) at least one TLOF should be provided at vertiport. That does not preclude when a VTOLcapable aircraft air taxi from a FATO to a stand, or from a stand to a FATO, it has to touch down on or lift off a taxiway to complete its movement. (iii) where the taxiway is associated with an air taxi-route, the overall protection provided for the width of the surface, the surface loading and the width of the air taxi-route should be appropriate to that provided for a TLOF/FATO or TLOF/stand. (c) A TLOF should: (1) provide: (i) an area free of obstacles and of sufficient size and shape to ensure containment of the undercarriage of the most demanding VTOL-capable aircraft the TLOF is intended to serve in accordance with the intended orientation; (ii) a surface which: (A) has sufficient bearing strength to accommodate the dynamic loads associated with the anticipated type of arrival of the VTOL-capable aircraft at the designated TLOF; (B) is free of irregularities that would adversely affect the touchdown or lift-off of VTOL-capable aircraft; (C) has sufficient friction to avoid skidding of VTOL-capable aircraft or slipping of persons; (D) is resistant to the effects of downwash; and (E) ensures effective drainage while having no adverse effect on the control or stability of a VTOL-capable aircraft during touchdown and lift-off, or when stationary; and (2) be associated with a FATO, a portion of a taxiway or a stand. (d) The minimum dimensions of a TLOF should be 0.83 D or the dimensions for the required procedure prescribed in the AFM of the VTOL-capable aircraft for which the TLOF is intended, whichever is greater. (e) For a vertiport that is elevated, the minimum dimensions of a TLOF, when in a FATO, should be of sufficient size to contain a circle of diameter of at least 1 Design D. For a non-solid FATO, TLOF should be of sufficient size to permit servicing of the aircraft. (f) When a TLOF is within a FATO it should be: (1) centred on the FATO; or (2) for an elongated FATO, centred on the longitudinal axis of the FATO. (g) when a TLOF is within a VTOL-capable aircraft stand, centred on the stand. (h) A TLOF should be provided with markings which clearly indicate the touchdown position and, by their form, any limitations on manoeuvring. Note: When a TLOF in a FATO is larger than the minimum dimensions, the touchdown positioning marking (TDPM) (not the TLOF) may be offset while ensuring containment of the undercarriage within the TLOF and the VTOL-capable aircraft within the FATO. (i) Where more than one TDPMs are provided, they should be placed to ensure containment of the undercarriage within the TLOF and the aircraft within the FATO. Note: The efficacy of the rejected take-off or landing distance will be dependent upon the VTOLcapable aircraft being correctly positioned for take-off, or landing. (j) Safety devices such as safety nets or safety shelves should be located around the edge of a vertiport that is elevated but should not exceed the height of the TLOF. (k) Where provided, a safety net support assembly and its fixings to the vertiport primary structure should be designed to withstand the static load of the whole support structure, the netting system, and any attached appendages plus at least 125 kg load imposed on any section of the netting system. Where the safety shelving is provided, rather than netting, the construction and layout of the shelving should not promote any adverse wind flow issues over the FATO, while providing equivalent personnel safety benefits, and should be installed to the same minimum dimensions as the netting system, beyond the edge of the TLOF/FATO. It may also be further covered with netting to improve grab capabilities. PTS VPT-DSN.C.270 VTOL-capable aircraft taxiways and taxi-routes Note 1: The specifications for ground taxi-routes and air taxi-routes are intended for the safety of simultaneous operations during the manoeuvring of VTOL-capable aircraft. The effect of wind velocity/turbulence induced by the downwash would need to be considered. Note 2: The defined areas addressed in PTS: (a) Taxiways may be associated either with air taxi-routes or ground taxi-routes. (b) Ground taxi-routes are meant for use by ground taxiing of VTOL-capable aircraft under their own power or by means of ground movement equipment. (c) Air taxi-routes are meant for use by air taxiing only. PTS VPT-DSN.C.280 VTOL-capable aircraft taxiways Note 1: A VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway is intended to permit the surface movement of a VTOLcapable aircraft either under its own power or by means of ground movement equipment. Note 2: A VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway should be designed to accommodate the undercarriage width (UCW) of the most demanding aircraft that it is intended to serve, as well as the width of the required ground movement equipment, whichever is greater. Note 3: A VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway can be used by a VTOL-capable aircraft for air taxi if associated with a VTOL-capable aircraft air taxi-route. Note 4: When a taxiway is intended for use by aeroplanes, helicopters and VTOL-capable aircraft, the provisions for aeroplane taxiways, taxiway strips; helicopter taxiways, taxi-routes; and VTOL-capable aircraft taxiways and taxi-routes will be taken into consideration and the more stringent requirements will be applied. (a) A VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway should: (1) provide: (i) an area free of obstacles and of sufficient width to ensure containment, including taxiing deviations, of the undercarriage of the most demanding VTOL-capable aircraft, the taxiway is intended to serve; (ii) a surface which: (A) has bearing strength to accommodate the taxiing loads of the VTOL-capable aircraft, that the taxiway is intended to serve; (B) is free of irregularities that would adversely affect the ground taxiing or movement of VTOL-capable aircraft; (C) where relevant, is resistant to the effects of downwash; and (D) ensures effective drainage while having no adverse effect on the control or stability of a VTOL-capable aircraft when being manoeuvred under its own power or by means of ground movement equipment, or when stationary; and (2) be associated with a taxi-route. (b) The minimum width of a VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway should be the lesser of: (1) Two times the UCW of the most demanding VTOL-capable aircraft the taxiway is intended to serve; or (2) a width meeting the requirements of PTS VPT-DSN.C.280 (a)(1)(i), above. (c) The transverse slope of a VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway should not exceed 2 per cent and the longitudinal slope should not exceed 3 per cent. (d) When defining the minimum distance between a ground taxiway and another ground taxiway, fixed or movable object, the following should be considered: (1) 0.75 maximum width of the aircraft intending to use the ground taxiway when defining the distance between the ground taxiway centre line and a fixed or movable object; and (2) 1.25 maximum width of the aircraft intending to use the ground taxiway when defining the separation between parallel ground taxiway centre lines. (e) When defining the distance between ground taxiways used by large wingspan VTOL-capable aircraft, the separation distance between the centre line of a ground taxiway and the centre line of a parallel ground taxiway or an object should take into consideration a minimum wingtip clearance of at least 0.25 D. PTS VPT-DSN.C.290 VTOL-capable aircraft taxi routes (a) A VTOL-capable aircraft taxi-route should provide: (1) an area free of obstacles, except for essential objects which because of their function are located on ${ \mathrm { i t } } ,$ established for the movement of VTOL-capable aircraft, with sufficient width to ensure containment of the largest VTOL-capable aircraft the taxi-route is intended to serve; (2) when solid, and where relevant, a surface which is resistant to the effects of rotor downwash and, (i) when collocated with a taxiway: (A) is contiguous and flush with the taxiway; (B) does not present a hazard to operations; and (C) ensures effective drainage; and (ii) when not collocated with a taxiway, is free of hazards if a forced landing is required. (b) No mobile object should be permitted on a taxi-route during VTOL-capable aircraft operations. (c) When solid and collocated with a taxiway, the taxi-route should not exceed an upward transverse slope of 4 per cent outwards from the edge of the taxiway. PTS VPT-DSN.C.300 VTOL-capable aircraft ground taxi-routes (a) A VTOL-capable aircraft ground taxi-route should have a minimum width of 1.5 times the overall width of the largest VTOL-capable aircraft it is intended to serve, and be centred on a taxiway (see Figure C-4). Note: If the VTOL-capable aircraft designs allow for width changes (e.g. folding wings), a corresponding overall width should be considered for defining the taxi-route width. (b) Essential objects located in a VTOL-capable aircraft ground taxi-route should not: (1) be located at a distance of less than 50 cm outwards from the edge of the VTOL-capable aircraft ground taxiway; and (2) penetrate a surface originating 50 cm outwards of the edge of the VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway and a height of 25 cm above the surface of the taxiway, and sloping upwards and outwards at a gradient of 5 per cent up to the outer edge of the ground taxi-route. Figure C-4. VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway/ground taxi-route PTS VPT-DSN.C.310 VTOL-capable aircraft air taxi-routes Note: A VTOL-capable aircraft air taxi-route is intended to permit the movement of a VTOL-capable aircraft above the surface at a height normally associated with ground effect and at ground speed less than 37 km/h (20 kt). (a) A VTOL-capable aircraft air taxi-route should have a minimum width of twice the overall width of the largest VTOL-capable aircraft it is intended to serve. Note: If the VTOL-capable aircraft designs allow for width changes (e.g. folding wings), a corresponding overall width should be considered for defining the taxi-route width. (b) If collocated with a taxiway for the purpose of permitting both ground and air taxi operations (see Figure C-5): (1) the VTOL-capable aircraft air taxi-route should be centred on the taxiway; and (2) the essential objects located in the VTOL-capable aircraft air taxi-route should not: (i) be located at a distance of less than 50 cm outwards from the edge of the VTOLcapable aircraft taxiway; and (ii) penetrate a surface originating 50 cm outwards of the edge of the VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway and a height of 25 cm above the surface of the taxiway and sloping upwards and outwards at a gradient of 5 per cent. (c) When not collocated with a taxiway, the slopes of the surface of an air taxi-route should not exceed the slope landing limitations of the VTOL-capable aircraft the taxi-route is intended to serve. In any event, the transverse slope should not exceed 10 per cent and the longitudinal slope should not exceed 7 per cent. Figure C-5. VTOL-capable aircraft air taxi route and combined air taxi-route/taxiway PTS VPT-DSN.C.320 VTOL-capable aircraft stands (a) Where provided, a VTOL-capable aircraft stands and aprons should permit the safe loading and off-loading of passengers and/or cargo, as well as the servicing of VTOL-capable aircraft without interfering with the apron traffic. Note: A space for safe ground handling should be considered by planning the VTOL-capable aircraft stand design. In the case of a geometry-based stand, where appropriate, a tail clearance should be also provided (see Figure C-7). (b) A VTOL-capable aircraft stand should: (1) provide an area and its associated volume free of obstacles and of sufficient size and shape to ensure containment of every part of the largest VTOL-capable aircraft the stand is intended to serve when it is being positioned within the stand; (2) provide a surface which: (i) is resistant to the effects of downwash, where required; (ii) is free of irregularities that would adversely affect the manoeuvring of VTOLcapable aircraft; (iii) has bearing strength of static aircraft loads, loads of people and ground movement and handling equipment, intended to be used or, if collocated with TLOF, dynamic loads should be considered; (iv) has sufficient friction to avoid skidding of VTOL-capable aircraft or slipping of persons; and (v) ensures effective drainage while having no adverse effect on the control or stability of a VTOL-capable aircraft when being manoeuvred under its own power, when being moved by means of ground movement equipment, or when stationary; and (3) be associated with a protection area. Note: It is not considered good practice to locate VTOL-capable aircraft stands under a flight path, due to possible downwash and depending on the local conditions, obstacle environment, etc. The extended flight path could go along the vertiport; see the following example in Figure C-6. Figure C-6. Example of not providing parking stands under a flight path Note: When determining the VTOL-capable aircraft stand and apron layout, the vertiport designer and/or operator should take into consideration various designs of the aircraft that the vertiport intends to serve. The configurations of VTOL-capable aircraft vary significantly (e.g. a multi-copter, a winged aircraft, etc.). As a result, it proved to be challenging to introduce a single, unified design of a VTOL-capable aircraft stand, based on the D-value, as it is commonly done in today’s helicopter world. Furthermore, certain VTOL-capable aircraft can execute a power-in/push-back type manoeuvre under their own power or using a tug avoiding the need for hover turns, which resembles an aeroplane operation at an aerodrome. Hence, a concept of a ‘vertiport apron’ and a ‘geometry-based stand’ are introduced in addition to conventional stands, originating from aerodrome design rules (namely, ADR.DSN.E.350 Size of aprons). (d) VTOL-capable aircraft stands and the vertiport apron layout should be designed based on the geometry, ground movement and servicing requirements of a VTOL-capable aircraft intended to be served, taking into consideration the following factors: (1) the size and manoeuvrability characteristics of the aircraft intending to use the VTOLcapable aircraft stand; (2) clearance requirements; (3) type of ingress and egress to the VTOL-capable aircraft stand; (4) vertiport layout; (5) VTOL-capable aircraft ground equipment and servicing requirements; (6) taxiway access; (7) intended use of the VTOL-capable aircraft stand (such a turning or taxi-through). Note: Stands designed for turning or associated with a TLOF should be defined and sized based on the D-value considerations. D-value-based VTOL-capable aircraft stand (e) When the VTOL-capable aircraft stand design is based on D-value, the minimum dimensions should be: (1) a circle of diameter of 1.2 D of the largest VTOL-capable aircraft the stand is intended to serve; or (2) when there is a limitation on manoeuvring and positioning, of sufficient width to meet the requirement of PTS VPT-DSN.C.320(b)(1) above, but not less than 1.2 times overall width of largest VTOL-capable aircraft the stand is intended to serve. (f) A D-value-based VTOL-capable aircraft stand should be surrounded by a protection area which need not be solid. Note 1: For a VTOL-capable aircraft stand intended to be used for taxi-through only, a width less than 1.2 D but which provides containment and still permits all required functions of a stand to be performed, might be used in accordance with PTS VPT-DSN.C.320(a), above. Note 2: Each stand should be provided with positioning markings to clearly indicate where the VTOLcapable aircraft is to be positioned and, by their form, any limitations on manoeuvring. Geometry-based VTOL-capable aircraft stands (g) For a VTOL-capable aircraft that enters/exits the stand with surface movement either under its own power or by means of ground movement equipment, where practical, stands may be designed in accordance with the geometry of the aircraft, following the aerodrome apron concept. (h) The minimum dimension of a single geometry-based stand should rely on the geometry and performance of the VTOL-capable aircraft intending to use the geometry-based stand and provide the following minimum clearances between an aircraft entering or exiting the stand and any adjacent building and aircraft of another stand: VTOL-capable aircraft width Clearance(see Figure C-7) Up to but not including 24 m 3m 24 m up to but not including 36 m 4.5m 36 m up to but not including 80 m 7.5m (i) The minimum nose (VTOL-capable aircraft front point) to buildings clearance on geometrybased stands and/or the minimum side clearance between a VTOL-capable aircraft entering or exiting the stand and any adjacent building may be reduced to 2 m, if a safety assessment indicates that it would not adversely affect the safety of operations of a VTOL-capable aircraft (e.g. by demonstrating the accuracy of ground movement equipment used). Note 1: The wingtip clearance to objects and neighbouring aircraft should be at least 3 m; however, the wingtip clearances of neighbouring aircraft may fully overlap, in case one is stationary. Note 2: The minimum wingtip clearance of 3 m assumes that there are no moving parts that extend beyond the wingtip (e.g. open rotors at the tip of the wing) while entering or exiting the stand. Note 3: With the minimum clearance ensured as per the table above, the geometry-based stand does not require an additional protection area surrounding it. Figure C-7. VTOL-capable aircraft stand with a protection area based on VTOL geometry showing unshrouded rotors not turning Figure C-8. VTOL-capable aircraft stands with a protection area PTS VPT-DSN.C.330 VTOL-capable aircraft stand protection area (a) A protection area should be provided when the VTOL-capable aircraft stand is designed in accordance with the D-value-based VTOL-capable aircraft stand principles described above. (b) The protection area should provide: (1) an area free of obstacles, except for essential objects which because of their function are located on it; and (2) when solid, a surface which is contiguous and flush with the stand; where relevant, is resistant to the effects of downwash, and ensures effective drainage. (c) When associated with a stand designed for turning, the protection area should extend outwards from the periphery of the stand for a distance of 0.4 D or rely on turning circle data provided in the AFM of VTOL-capable aircraft intending to use the stand (see Figure C-9). (d) When associated with a stand designed for taxi-through, the minimum width of the stand and protection area should not be less than the width of the associated taxi-route (see Figure C-10 and Figure C-11). (e) When associated with a stand designed for non-simultaneous use (see Figure C-12 and Figure C-13): (1) the protection area of adjacent stands may overlap but should not be less than the required protection area for the larger of the adjacent stands; and (2) the adjacent non-active stand may contain a static object, but it should be wholly within the boundary of the stand. Note: To ensure that only one of the adjacent stands is active at a time, the instruction provided to pilots should make clear that a limitation on the use of the stands is in force. (f) No mobile object should be permitted in a protection area during VTOL-capable aircraft movement, unless the object is used to support the movement of the VTOL-capable aircraft (e.g. a towing vehicle). (g) Essential objects located within the protection area should not: (1) if located at a distance of less than 0.75 D from the centre of the VTOL-capable aircraft stand, penetrate a surface at a height of 5 cm above the surface of the central zone; (2) if located at a distance of 0.75 D or more from the centre of the VTOL-capable aircraft stand, penetrate a surface at a height of 25 cm above the plane of the central zone and sloping upwards and outwards at a gradient of 5 per cent. (h) When solid, the slope of a protection area should not exceed an upward slope of 4 per cent outwards from the edge of the stand. Figure C-9. Turning VTOL-capable aircraft stands (with air taxi-routes) — simultaneous use Figure C-10. Ground taxi-through stands (with taxiway/ground taxi-route) — simultaneous use Figure C-11. Air taxi-through stands (with air taxi-route) — simultaneous use Figure C-12. Turning stands (with air taxi-routes) — non-simultaneous use — outer stands active Figure C-13. Turning stands (with air taxi-route) — non-simultaneous use — inner stand active PTS VPT-DSN.C.340 Location of a final-approach and take-off area (FATO) in relation to another FATO (a) When determining the distance between two FATOs, a safety assessment should indicate that this would not adversely affect the safety of operations of a VTOL-capable aircraft. (b) The safety assessment should take into consideration, at least the following aspects: (1) type of operation; (2) orientation of departure and approach flight path; (3) balked landing procedure; (4) the downwash data (provided in AFM); (5) ensuring that SAs do not overlap. Note 1: A 60-m separation distance between two FATOs has been recognised as a reference for simultaneous helicopter landings and take-offs where the courses to be flown do not conflict and where the MTOW of the helicopter does not exceed 3 175 kg. This distance can be used as a reference for conducting a safety assessment to determine whether the distance for VTOL-capable aircraft should be adapted. Note 2: When there is a need to adapt a rectangular area, such as already existing runway type FATO or the runway at aerodrome, for simultaneous or quasi-simultaneous and close in space operations of VTOL-capable aircraft, following the assumption that no more than one VTOL-capable aircraft will be in the FATO at the same time, the principle of building blocks and encapsulation should be applied. The existing rectangular area has to be replaced by several FATOs in close proximity. Whether the operations can be simultaneous or not will depend on the separation of the FATOs in close proximity according to PTS VPT-DSN.C.340 (b). PTS VPT-DSN.C.350 Location of a final-approach and take-off area (FATO) in relation to an aerodrome runway or taxiway (a) Where a FATO is located near a runway or taxiway and where simultaneous operations are planned, the separation distance between the edge of a runway or taxiway and the edge of a FATO should not be less than the appropriate dimension in Table C-2. (b) A FATO should not be located: (1) near taxiway intersections or holding points where jet engine efflux is likely to cause high turbulence; or (2) near areas where aeroplane vortex wake generation is likely to exist. If aeroplane mass and/or VTOL-capable aircraftmass are Distance between FATO edge and runway edge ortaxiway edge up to but not including 3 175 kg 60m 3 175 kg up to but not including 5 760 kg 120m 5 760 kg up to but not including 100 000 kg 180m 100 000 kg and over 250mNote: The values specified in this table are primarily intended to mitigate risks of wake turbulence encounters. In addition to this table, when positioning a FATO intended to be used simultaneously with a nearbyrunway or taxiway, attention should be given to other CS ADR-DSN requirements such as the minimumrunway strip width. Local environment should be taken into account when setting the separationbetween the FATO and nearby infrastructure elements to ensure the safety of simultaneous operations. Table C-2. FATO minimum separation distance CHAPTER D — OBSTACLE ENVIRONMENT PTS VPT-DSN.D.400 Applicability Rationale Chapter D is composed of two subparts, Subpart 1 for OLSs, and Subpart 2 for OFV. The limitation surface should be such that the population of VTOL-capable aircraft can achieve conformance in the case of a failure or failures that have a severity of less than catastrophic. There are two main issues: the maximum slope that can be achieved for the population of vehicles; and the type of take-off and landing profiles that are envisaged. The Chapter is providing a minimum requirement to be set in the design of vertiport. The surfaces require a clear area surrounding the vertiport. Because the majority of vertiports will be sited in urban areas and the environment will be rich in obstacles, it is likely that the take-off and landing profiles will have to perform a vertical element and the clearways (if necessary and provided) and take-off, climb and landing surfaces will be elevated. The vertical transit, from/to the vertiport surface, will be conditioned by the type of operation that is envisaged. The ascent/descent path for operations with a pilot should be pilot’s field of view (FOV) to conduct a take-off/landing/reject — this is likely to require a sideways or backwards element, with the associated human error margins. More guidance on the separation between the ascent/descent path and transitional surface is provided in ICAO Document 9261, Heliport Manual, Appendix A to Chapter 4 — tailored to the error margins associated with the type of operation. The objectives of the technical specifications in this Chapter are to describe the airspace around vertiports to permit intended VTOL-capable aircraft operations to be conducted safely and to prevent vertiports from becoming unusable by the growth of obstacles around them. This is achieved by establishing a series of OLSs and OFVs that define the limits to which objects may project into the airspace. Note. This Chapter contains two separate Subparts. Subpart 1 refers to the conventional Obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS), provided in Annex 14, Volume II, Heliports, Chapter 4 and in ICAO Document 9261, Heliport Manual. Subpart 2 refers to the concept of the ‘obstacle-free volume’ established at the vertiport. CHAPTER D, SUBPART 1 — OBSTACLE LIMITATION SURFACES PTS VPT-DSN.D.405 General (a) In order to safeguard a VTOL-capable aircraft during its approach to the FATO and in its climb after take-off, an approach surface and a take-off climb surface through which no obstacle is permitted to project is established for each approach and take-off climb path designated as serving the FATO. (b) The minimum dimensions required for such surfaces will vary considerably and depend on the: (1) VTOL-capable aircraft size, its climb gradient, particularly for critical failure for performance (CFP), its approach speed and rate of descent on the final approach, and its controllability at such speeds; and (2) conditions under which the approaches/departures are made. (c) In many instances, the presence of permanent, high obstacles such as radio masts, buildings or areas of high ground may preclude the provision of the required take-off climb/approach surfaces for a straight take-off climb or approach, whereas the criteria required for the surfaces would be feasible if: (1) a curved flight path avoiding the obstacles is established; or (2) the origin of the approach or take-off climb surfaces is elevated with or without a turn. Note: The slope design categories depicted in Table D-1 represent minimum design slope angles and not operational slopes. Consultation with VTOL-capable aircraft operators will help to determine the appropriate slope category according to the vertiport environment and the VTOL-capable aircraft the vertiport is intended to serve. (d) In the case of an approach or take-off climb surface involving a turn: (1) when selecting a curved flight path, the performance and handling characteristics of the VTOL-capable aircraft, eluding undue discomfort to the passengers and minimising noise nuisance by avoiding the overflying of populated areas, should be considered (see Figure D-1); (2) the lateral and vertical surfaces should be the same as those for a straight approach surface; (3) more than one curved portion, separated by a straight section of more than 150 m, are permitted; (4) The sum of the radius of arc defining the centre line of the approach surface and the length of the straight portion originating at the inner edge should not be less than 575 m. Any combination of curve and straight portion may be established using the following formula: S+R ≥575 m and R ≥ 270 m where S = 305 m where S is the length of the straight portion and R is the radius of turn. Note: Because VTOL-capable aircraft take-off performance is reduced in a turn, a straight portion along the take-off climb surface prior to the start of the curve should be considered. This will permit an acceleration with CFP to achieve a stable climb attitude and speed before a turn is initiated. Limits on bank angle and degradation of turns on performance in accordance with the AFM should be noted and applied to the design VTOL-capable aircraft. (5) In the case of an approach and departure surface involving turns, the surface should be a complex surface containing the horizontal normals to its centre line and the slope of the centre line should be the same as that for a straight approach surface. (6) When a VTOL-capable aircraft is capable of performing turns with smaller radius and straight portions, the minimum radius of turns and the length of the straight portion may be reduced, if the safety assessment determines that it would not adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of operations of VTOL-capable aircraft at vertiport. The safety assessment should consider the turn values and limitations on bank angles and CFP degradation provided in the AFM of the most demanding VTOL-capable aircraft that the vertiport is intended to serve. Further guidance is given in EASA SC-VTOL.2115. Figure D-1. Curved approach and take-off climb surface for all FATOs Blending the spaces between the approach or take-off climb surface and SA (e) The reference circle is an inscribed circle inside the FATO/SA that is used for orienting the approach/take-off and climb surface, transition area and VTOL-capable aircraft clearway. (f) Areas between the inner edge of the approach or take-off climb surface and the SA, if any, should have the same characteristics as the SA, since it would be unacceptable for such areas to have characteristics that were below the standards of either of the adjoining surfaces. Note: Figure D-2 to Figure D-5 illustrate such areas by shading the relevant portions, but these are, of necessity, shown only for the basic configurations of FATO and SA and are not drawn to scale. However, the planned direction of the approach surface may not be located in line with, or at a convenient 45° to, the centre line of the FATO. Furthermore, the FATO, and thus the SA, may be of irregular shape or be much larger than one which can only just accommodate a circle of the minimum specified dimensions. Figure D-2. Square FATO with reference circle and surfaces separated by 135⁰ Figure D-3. Octagonal FATO with reference circle and diametrically opposed surfaces (g) The issues involved with such deviations from the basic configurations are: (1) where the inner edge should be located; and (2) the shapes and sizes of the shaded areas may vary considerably. (h) To identify the shaded areas, if any, it is necessary to consider their side edges as extending from the ends of the inner edge to points where they meet the tangent of the reference circle at right angles to the centre line of the surface. The shaded areas will then be bounded by these side edges, the inner edge and the edges of the SA. (i) Where the FATO is elongated, there should be two reference circles within the SA, each located at the appropriate approach end of the SA (see Figure D-4). Figure D-4. Rectangular FATO with two reference circles and surfaces separated by 135⁰ (j) Where a clearway has been established, the shaded area should be between the FATO/SA and clearway (see Figure D-5); the inner edge of the approach or take-off climb surface will abut the clearway. Figure D-5. Rectangular FATO with two reference circles and helicopter clearway Number and separation of take-off and climb and approach surfaces (k) Vertiport design and location should be such that downwind operations are avoided, crosswind operations are kept to a minimum, and balked landings can be carried out with the minimum change of direction. (l) The vertiport should have at least two take-off and climb and approach surfaces with a recommend separation of at least 135⁰ (see Figure D-2) but ideally separated by 180⁰. Additional approach surfaces may be provided, the total number and orientation ensuring that the vertiport usability factor will be at least 95 per cent for the VTOL-capable aircraft the vertiport is intended to serve. These criteria should apply equally to vertiports at surface level or vertiports that are elevated. (m) Where the prototype technical specifications above cannot be met, the separation may be decreased or the number of take-off and climb and approach surfaces reduced to one, if the safety assessment determines that it would not adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of operations of VTOL-capable aircraft at vertiport. (n) When only a single approach and take-off climb surface is provided, a safety assessment should be undertaken considering, as a minimum, the following factors: (1) the area/terrain over which the flight is being conducted; (2) the obstacle environment surrounding the vertiport; and the availability of at least one protected side slope; (3) the performance and operating limitations of VTOL-capable aircraft intending to use the vertiport; and (4) the local meteorological conditions including the prevailing winds. SURFACE AND DIMENSIONS SLOPE DESIGN CATEGORIES A B C APPROACH AND TAKE-OFF CLIMBSURFACE: Length of inner edge Width of SA Width of SA Width of SA Location of inner edge SA boundary(Clearway boundary ifprovided) SA boundary SA boundary Divergence: (1st and 2nd section) Day use only 10% 10% 10% Night use 15% 15% 15% First section: Length 3 386m 245m 1220m Slope 4.5%(1:22.2) 8%(1:12.5) 12.5%(1:8) Outer width (b) N/A (b) Second section: Length N/A 830m N/A Slope N/A 16%(1:6.25) N/A SURFACE AND DIMENSIONS SLOPE DESIGN CATEGORIES A B C Outer width N/A (b) N/A Total length from inner edge (a) 3386mc 1075mc 1220mc TRANSITIONAL SURFACEd: Slope: 50% 50% 50% (1:2) (1:2) (1:2) Height: 45 m 45m 45m Table D-1. Dimensions and slopes of OLSs for all visual FATOs PTS VPT-DSN.D.410 Approach surface (a) Applicability The purpose of the approach surface is to protect a VTOL-capable aircraft during the final approach to the FATO by defining the area that should be kept free from obstacles to protect a VTOL-capable aircraft in the final phase of the approach-to-land manoeuvre. (b) Description An incline plane or a combination of planes or, when a turn is or turns are involved, a complex surface sloping upwards from the inner edge and centred on a line passing through the centre of the FATO. Figure D-6. Generic approach/take-off climb surface (c) Characteristics (1) The limits of an approach surface should comprise: (i) an inner edge, horizontal and equal in length to the minimum specified width of the FATO plus the SA, perpendicular to the centre line of the approach surface and located at: (A) for a runway-type FATO, the outer edge of the SA; or (B) for other than a runway-type FATO, the outer edge of the reference circle; (ii) two side edges originating at the ends of the inner edge and diverging uniformly at a specified rate from the vertical plane, containing the centre line of the FATO to a specified width and continuing thereafter at that width for the remaining length of the approach surface; and (iii) an outer edge horizontal and perpendicular to the centre line of the approach surface at a specified height above the elevation of the FATO. (2) The elevation of the inner edge should be the elevation of the SA at the point on the inner edge that is intersected by the centre line of the approach surface. When safety assessment determines that it would not adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of operations of VTOL-capable aircraft at vertiport, the origin of the inclined plane may be raised directly above the FATO. (3) The slope(s) of the approach surface should be measured in the vertical plane containing the centre line of the surface. (4) In the case of an approach surface involving a turn, the surface should be a complex surface containing the horizontal normals to its centre line and the slope of the centre line should be the same as that for a straight approach surface. (5) Where a curved portion of an approach surface is provided, the sum of the radius of arc defining the centre line of the approach surface and the length of the straight portion originating at the inner edge should not be less than 575 m. (6) Any variation in the direction of the centre line of an approach surface should be designed so as not to necessitate a turn radius less than 270 m. Further guidance on elevating approach surface is provided in ICAO Document 9261, Heliport Manual. PTS VPT-DSN.D.415 Transitional surface (a) Objective The objective of the transitional surface is to provide a protected airspace when vertical procedures include lateral transit. The transitional surface defines the limit of the area where obstacles are, or may be, located (i.e. buildings, structures or natural obstructions such as trees). (b) Applicability Where appropriate, a transitional surface may be provided at VFR vertiports for the safety of VTOL-capable aircraft when vertical procedures with lateral transit are planned. (c) Description A complex surface bounded by a lower and upper edge and sloping upwards and outwards from one to the other (see Figure D-7, Figure D-8 and Figure D-9). Figure D-7. Transitional, backup and take-off climb surface Figure D-8. Transitional, backup and approach surface Figure D-9. Transitional surface (d) Characteristics (1) The transitional surface should comprise: (i) a lower edge beginning at the point where the approach, or take-off climb, surface and upper edge of the transitional surface are at the same height, then extending downwards and along the side of the approach surface, or take-off climb surface to the inner edge and from there: (A) where provided, along the side of the clearway; then (B) for a runway-type FATO, along the length of the side of the SA parallel to the centre line of the FATO; or (C) for other than a runway-type FATO, along the tangent of the reference circle parallel, and equal in length, to its diameter; and (ii) an upper edge located at 45 m above the FATO. (2) The extended transitional surface and modified extended transitional surface should comprise: (i) a lower edge beginning at the point where the approach surface, or take-off climb surface and upper edge of the transitional surface are at the same height, then extending downwards and along the side of the approach, or take-off climb, surface to the inner edge and from there: (A) for the take-off climb along the length of the clearway to the inner edge; then (B) directly down to, and connecting with, the outer edge of the SA (see Figure D-10); (C) along the tangent of the reference circle until level with the back edge of the SA; then (D) up and along the outer edge of the backup obstacle surface until reaching the upper edge; (ii) an upper edge located at 45 m (150 ft) plus the elevation of the OLS origin/clearway. Figure D-10. Transitional surface (showing the drop from clearway to SA) (3) The slope of the transitional surface should be measured in a vertical plane at right angles to the centre line of the FATO and should be: (i) for a transitional surface and extended transitional surface 50 per cent (1:2) (see Table D-1); or (ii) for a modified extended transitional surface 1:1 (45°). Figure D-11. Elevated OLS and transitional surface Note 1: The modified extended transitional surface can be regarded as an extension to the protected side slope (see PTS VPT-DSN.C.240). Note 2: Further guidance on elevating an approach and take-off climb surface is provided in ICAO Document 9261, Heliport Manual. Note 3. Further guidance on how to protect airspace during the backup procedure of VTOLcapable aircraft is provided in the Air OPS Regulation, in ICAO Document 9261, Heliport Manual, and in the AFM. Note 4: Additional clarification on the transitional surface: Principles of the basic transitional surface: The upper edge is 45 m above the OLS origin. The upper and lower edges commence at a point adjacent to the back edge of the SA. The lower edge and upper edge meet on the side of the OLS. The lower edge tracks along the tangent to the reference circle, parallel with the centre line of the FATO, to the inner edge of the OLS and then along the OLS until meeting the upper edge. The slope of the transitional surface is 1:2. Principles of the extended transitional surface (in addition to those of the basic transitional surface): The upper edge is extended upwards by the elevation of the OLS origin. The rear of the extended surface is attached to the outer edge of the backup surface. The lower edge rises directly from the outer edge of the SA to the inner edge of the clearway or OLS. Principles of the modified extended transitional surface (in addition to/modification of those of the extended): The slope of the modified extended transitional surface is 1:1. The characteristics of the take-off climb surface are provided in PTS VPT-DSN.D.420 and in Table D-1. The characteristics of the extended clearway for the take-off climb: The clearway is elevated to a level that permits clearance of obstacles in the take-off climb. The width of the clearway is extended on each side, by twice its elevation, to meet the surface of the extended transitional surface. The characteristics of the modified extended clearway for take-off climb (in addition to/modification of those of the basic clearway): The width of the clearway is extended on each side, by its elevation, to meet the surface of the extended modified transitional surface. The origin of the extended the take-off climb surface: The inner edge of the take-off climb surface is at the outer edge of the clearway. The width of the inner edge of the take-off climb surface is the width of the clearway. The characteristics of the approach surface are provided PTS VPT-DSN.D.410 and in Table D-1: The origin of the approach surface is elevated to a level that permits clearance of obstacles in the approach. The inner edge of the approach surface is extended on each side by: twice the amount of elevation, to meet the surface of the extended transitional surface; or the amount of elevation, to meet the surface of the extended modified transitional surface. The backup procedure may be of three types: pure backup procedure: it does not need lateral protection; limited lateral procedure: the required lateral protection is ensured by a modified extended transitional surface; and full lateral procedure: the required lateral protection is ensured by an extended transitional surface. PTS VPT-DSN.D.420 Take-off climb surface (a) Applicability The purpose of the take-off climb surface is to protect a VTOL-capable aircraft on take-off and during climb-out. (b) Description An inclined plane, a combination of planes or, when a turn is or turns are involved, a complex surface, sloping upwards from the end of the SA, or of the clearway, when it is provided, and centred on a line passing through the centre of the FATO. (c) Characteristics (1) The limits of a take-off climb surface should comprise (see Figure D-6): (i) an inner edge horizontal and equal in length to the minimum specified width of the FATO plus the SA, perpendicular to the centre line of the take-off climb surface and located at: (A) for a runway-type FATO, the outer edge of the SA; (B) for other than a runway-type FATO, the tangent of the outer edge of the reference circle; or (C) the outer edge of the clearway; (ii) two side edges originating at the ends of the inner edge and diverging uniformly at a specified rate from the vertical plane, containing the centre line of the FATO to a specified final width and continuing thereafter at that width for the remaining length of the take-off climb surface; and (iii) an outer edge horizontal and perpendicular to the centre line of the take-off climb surface and at a specified height above the elevation of the FATO. (2) The elevation of the inner edge should be the elevation of the SA at the point on the inner edge that is intersected by the centre line of the take-off climb surface except that when a helicopter clearway is provided, the elevation should be equal to the highest point on the ground on the centre line of the helicopter clearway (for a take-off climb surface with an elevated origin). (3) In the case of a take-off climb surface involving a turn, the surface should not contain more than one curved portion. (4) The slope should be measured in the vertical plane containing the centre line of the surface. Further guidance on elevating take-off approach surface is provided in ICAO Document 9261, Heliport Manual. PTS VPT-DSN.D.425 Application of obstacle limitation surfaces (a) The obstacle limitation requirements for vertiports at surface level and vertiports that are elevated will be the same. For vertiports that are elevated, the specified surfaces should be defined relative to the horizontal plane at the elevation of the FATO. (b) The following OLSs should be established for a FATO at a vertiport: (i) take-off climb surface; (ii) approach surface; and (iii) where provided (see PTS VPT-DSN.D.415, above), transitional surface. (c) The dimensions of the take-off climb/approach surfaces should be considered in two parts. (1) In the first part, the lateral edges of the surface diverge from the direction of the centre line by 10 per cent on each side for daylight operations and 15 per cent on each side for night operations (see Figures D-12). The divergence should extend until the overall width of the surface has reached, for daylight operations 7 times D-value, and for night operations 10 times D-value. The increase in divergence and width at night is to allow for lack of visual references. (2) In the second part, the width of the surface should remain constant at the 7 D or 10 Dvalues, as appropriate. The surface ends where the surface slope reaches 152 m (500 ft) above FATO elevation. Figure D-12. Take-off climb/approach widths (schematic) Further guidance for vertiports with elevated origin of an approach and take-off climb surfaces is provided in ICAO Document 9261, Heliport Manual, and in the AFM. Further guidance on how to protect airspace and surrounding during the backup procedure of VTOLcapable aircraft is provided in the Air OPS Regulation, in ICAO Document 9261, Heliport Manual, and in the AFM. PTS VPT-DSN.D.430 Obstacle limitation requirements Note 1: The requirements for OLSs are specified on the basis of the intended use of a FATO, i.e. approach manoeuvre to hover or landing, or take-off manoeuvre and type of approach, and are intended to be applied when such use is made of the FATO. In cases where operations are conducted to or from both directions of a FATO, then the function of certain surfaces may be nullified because of more stringent requirements of another lower surface. (a) The slopes of the OLSs should not be greater than, and their other dimensions not less than, those specified in Table D-1 and should be located as shown in Figure D-1 to Figure D-12. (b) For vertiports that have an approach/take-off climb surface with a 4.5 per cent slope design, objects can be permitted to penetrate the OLS, if after a safety assessment, it is determined that the object would not adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of operations of VTOL-capable aircraft. (c) New objects or extensions of existing objects should not be permitted above the approach or take-off climb surfaces except when shielded by an existing immovable object or when after a safety assessment, it is determined that the object would not adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of operations of VTOL-capable aircraft. (d) Existing objects above the approach and take off climb surfaces should, as far as practicable, be removed except when the object is shielded by an existing immovable object or when after a safety assessment, it is determined that the object would not adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of operations of VTOL-capable aircraft. Note 2: Once such surfaces are established, it may become necessary to remove existing obstacles which project through the surface and restrict the erection of new structures which would become obstacles. Mobile or temporary objects such as cranes, lorries, boats and trains may be obstacles at times, in which case it might be necessary to delay VTOL-capable aircraft operations until the obstacle is moved clear, or temporary operational limits are temporarily established (e.g. reduction of take-off mass). For longer lasting temporary obstacles, supplementary take-off climb or approach surfaces might have to be developed and promulgated. CHAPTER D, SUBPART 2 — OBSTACLE-FREE VOLUME PTS VPT-DSN.D.440 General The objective of the obstacle-free volume (OFV) is to provide protection above vertiports to facilitate the introduction of vertiports in congested areas and an obstacle populated environment for VTOLcapable aircraft. The corresponding procedure is designated as ‘vertical take-off and landing’. Due to the reduced footprint and vertical nature of the take-off and landing, synthetic cues may have to be used to guide the aircraft. PTS VPT-DSN.D.445 Generic volume (a) Characteristics (1) The obstacle-free volume is derived from the vertical take-off and landing procedure volume, provided in the AFM, expressed in terms of the parameters listed in Table D-2 and depicted in Figure D-13 and Figure D-14: Parameter Short description $\mathsf { h } _ { 1 }$ Low hover height $\mathsf { h } _ { 2 }$ High hover height $\mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { w i d t h } }$ Width at $\mathsf { h } _ { 2 }$ $\mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { f r o n t } }$ Front distance at $\mathsf { h } _ { 2 }$ $\mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { b a c k } }$ Back distance at $\mathsf { h } _ { 2 }$ $\mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { w i d t h } }$ Width of the FATO $\mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { f r o n t } }$ Frontdistanceon FATO $\mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { b a c k } }$ Back distance on FATO $\mathsf { \theta _ { a p p } }$ Slope of approach surface ${ \mathsf { \theta } } _ { \mathsf { d e p } }$ Slope of departure surface Table D-2. Generic vertical take-off and landing procedure parameters Figure D-13. Generic vertical take-off and landing procedure parameters Figure D-14. Vertical take-off and landing procedure volume (2) The FATO needed for the aircraft to perform an approved vertical take-off and landing procedure is characterised by the parameters $\mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { b a c k } _ { i } }$ , $\mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { f r o n t } }$ and $F A T O _ { w i d t h }$ . FATOback and $\mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { f r o n t } }$ are referenced to the centre of the smallest circle enclosing the aircraft, which is also used to define D (see MOC VTOL.2115). From the rectangular edges of the FATO, the procedure volume extends vertically to the low hover height $\mathsf { h } _ { 1 } ,$ from which it widens linearly up to the high hover height h2. At that height, the volume has the width ${ \mathsf { T O } } _ { \mathsf { w i d t h } }$ , while it extends to the back and to the front by the distances $\mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { b a c k } }$ and $\mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { f r o n t } }$ . At the back and the front edges, approach and departure surfaces are angled with gradients $\mathsf { \theta _ { a p p } }$ and $\theta _ { \mathsf { d e p } } .$ . Some aircraft can perform a turn during the climb, in which case the corresponding turn and climb capability will be provided in the AFM. (3) To qualify as a vertical take-off and landing procedure, the parameters defining the procedure must meet certain minima or maxima as provided in Table D-3. Parameter Minimum/maximum $\mathsf { h } _ { 1 }$ - h2 ≥h1 $\mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { w i d t h } }$ ≤5D $\mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { f r o n t } }$ ≤5D $\mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { b a c k } }$ ≤5D $\mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { w i d t h } }$ ≥ 1.5 D $\mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { f r o n t } }$ ≥ 0.75 D $\mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { b a c k } }$ ≥0.75 D $\mathsf { \theta _ { a p p } }$ ≥4.5% ${ \mathsf { \theta } } _ { \mathsf { d e p } }$ ≥4.5% Table D-3. Vertical take-off and landing procedure parameters minima/maxima (b) A vertiport obstacle-free volume compatible with the aircraft vertical take-off and landing procedure can be established as described in the following paragraphs. PTS VPT-DSN.D.450 Final-approach and take-off area (FATO) and safety area (SA) (a) The minimum dimensions of the FATO should be: (1) the length $\mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { b a c k } }$ behind the aircraft and the length $\mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { f r o n t } }$ in front of the aircraft, referenced to the VTOL-capable aircraft centre of the smallest enclosing circle; and (2) the width $\mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { w i d t h } }$ (b) All other characteristics should be as per PTS1 VPT-DSN.C.210. (c) The FATO should be surrounded by an SA as per PTS1 VPT-DSN.C.220. Note: A larger SA may be warranted for specific local conditions, e.g. severe aerology. PTS VPT-DSN.D.455 Obstacle-free volume (OFV) (a) The obstacle-free volume, as depicted in Figure D-15, is created by extending vertically upward the outside edges of the SA up to height h1. The edges at height h1 are then extended upwards linearly up to height $\mathsf { h } _ { 2 }$ to provide a funnel-shaped volume. At height $\mathsf { h } _ { 2 } ,$ 0.5 D are added on each side of the VTOL procedure volume so that the dimensions of the obstacle-free volume at height h2 are: (1) the length $( \mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { b a c k } ^ { + } } 0 . 5 \mathsf { D } )$ behind the aircraft and the length $( \mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { f r o n t } } + \mathsf { O } . 5 ~ \mathsf { D } )$ in front of the VTOL-capable aircraft, referenced to the aircraft centre of the smallest enclosing circle when positioned on the FATO; and (2) the width $( \mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { w i d t h } } + 1 \mathsf { D } )$ (b) The obstacle-free volume should not be penetrated by obstacles. Note: A larger SA may be warranted for specific local conditions, e.g. severe aerology. Figure D-15. SAs added to the vertical take-off and landing procedure parameters to establish the vertiport obstacle-free volume PTS VPT-DSN.D.460 Approach surface (a) The limits of the OLS approach surface comprise: (1) an inner edge, horizontal and equal in length to width $( \mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { w i d t h } } + 1 \mathsf { D } )$ located at the aft edge of the obstacle-free volume at height h2; (2) two side edges originating at the ends of the inner edge diverging uniformly at a specified rate from the vertical plane containing the centre line of the FATO to a specified width and continuing thereafter at that width for the remaining length of the approach surface; (3) an outer edge horizontal and perpendicular to the centre line of the approach surface at a height of 152 m (500 ft) above the elevation of the FATO, unless the en-route structure allows the OLS to stop at a lower altitude; and (4) The slope of the approach surface is $\mathsf { \theta _ { a p p } }$ and should be measured in the vertical plane containing the centre line of the surface. (b) All other characteristics should be as per PTS VPT-DSN.D.410. PTS VPT-DSN.D.465 Take-off climb surface (a) The limits of the OLS take-off climb surface comprise: (1) an inner edge, horizontal and equal in length to width $( \mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { w i d t h } } + 1 \mathsf { D } )$ located at the front edge of the obstacle-free volume at height h2; (2) two side edges originating at the ends of the inner edge diverging uniformly at a specified rate from the vertical plane containing the centre line of the FATO to a specified width and continuing thereafter at that width for the remaining length of the take-off climb surface; and (3) an outer edge horizontal and perpendicular to the centre line of the take-off climb surface at a height of 152 m (500 ft) above the elevation of the FATO, unless the en-route structure allows the OLS to stop at a lower altitude. (4) The slope of the take-off climb surface is $\mathsf { \boldsymbol { \theta } } _ { \mathsf { d e p } }$ and should be measured in the vertical plane containing the centre line of the surface. (b) All other characteristics should be as per PTS VPT-DSN.D.420. (c) All other characteristics (e.g. transitional surface) as per PTS VPT-DSN, Chapter C – Physical characteristics and Chapter D, Subpart 1 – Obstacle limitation surfaces. PTS VPT-DSN.D.470 Bidirectional volume A bidirectional volume (where each OLS can be used for both take-off climb and approach) can be created by taking the largest values of the front and back parameters of the vertical take-off and landing procedure and the lowest of the gradients (see Table D-4). To this volume the SAs should be added, and the obstacle-free volume derived as described in the preceding paragraphs. Parameter Bidirectional volume $\mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { f r o n t b i d i r e c t i o n } } =$ $\mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { b a c k \thinspace b i d i r e c t i o n } }$ $\mathsf { m a x } ( \mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { f r o n t } } , \mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { b a c k } } )$ $\mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { f r o n t b i d i r e c t i o n } } =$ $\mathsf { F A T O _ { b a c k \ b i d i r e c t i o n } }$ $\mathsf { m a x } ( \mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { f r o n t } } , \mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { b a c k } } )$ $\mathsf { \theta _ { a p p b i d i r e c t i o n } = }$ $\mathsf { \theta _ { d e p \ b i d i r e c t i o n } }$ $\mathsf { m i n } ( \mathsf { \theta } _ { \mathsf { a p p } } , \mathsf { \theta } _ { \mathsf { d e p } } )$ Table D-4. Bidirectional VTOL procedure volume derived from vertical take-off and landing procedure parameters (without an SA) PTS VPT-DSN.D.475 Omnidirectional volume (a) An omnidirectional VTOL procedure volume (where the final part of the approach or the initial part of the departure can be conducted from any direction) can be created by replacing the rectangular volumes with cylindrical volumes, and a conical OLS with the parameters given in Table D-5 (see also Figure D-16), centred on the centre of the smallest enclosing circle. From this procedure volume, the vertiport obstacle-free volume can be derived by adding 0.5 D or 6 m, whichever is greater, to the diameter at FATO level and 1 D at height h2 as an SA. The OLS starts at height $\mathsf { h } _ { 2 }$ on the circle with the added SA and finishes at a height of 152 m (500 ft) above the elevation of the FATO, unless the en-route structure allows the OLS to stop at a lower altitude. Parameter omnidirectional volume $\emptyset \intercal 0 _ { \mathrm { o m n i d i r e c t i o n } }$ $\mu \times \mathsf { m a x } ( \mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { f r o n t } } , \mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { b a c k } } ) ^ { 2 } + \mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { w i d t h } } ^ { 2 }$ √ $\emptyset \mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { o m n i d i r e c t i o n } }$ $\sqrt { 4 \times \mathsf { m a x } ( \mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { f r o n t } } , \mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { b a c k } } ) ^ { 2 } + \mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { w i d t h } } ^ { 2 } }$ $\mathsf { \theta _ { o m n i d i r e c t i o n } }$ min $( \mathsf { \boldsymbol { \theta } } _ { \mathsf { a p p } } , \mathsf { \boldsymbol { \theta } } _ { \mathsf { d e p } } )$ Table D-5. Omnidirectional VTOL procedure volume derived from vertical take-off and landing procedure parameters (without an SA) Figure D-16. VTOL procedure volume with omnidirectional approach and take-off climb surface (without SAs) (b) If a VTOL-capable aircraft has been certified for a vertical procedure, it should be able to operate in the corresponding omnidirectional obstacle-free volume with conical OLS. (c) Instead of a conical OLS, discrete planar approach and take-off climb surfaces (see Figure D-17 and Figure D-18), as per PTS VPT-DSN.D.410 and PTS VPT-DSN.D.420, can be created as follows: (1) the inner edges are horizontal, equal in length to width $( \mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { o m n i d i r e c t i o n } } + 1 \mathsf { D } )$ , located at height h2 and tangent at their centre to the circle of diameter $( \mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { o m n i d i r e c t i o n } } + 1 \mathsf { D } )$ centred on the centre of the smallest enclosing circle; (2) an additional horizontal surface bridges the space between the circle of diameter (TOomnidirection+1 D) and the inner edges of the OLS. (d) It should be verified that a given VTOL-capable aircraft can operate in such a volume, e.g. can perform the turn between approach and take-off climb surfaces in case of a balked landing, without encroaching on the protection surfaces. Figure D-17. Vertiport omnidirectional obstacle-free volume with discrete planar approach and take-off climb surfaces — perspective view Figure D-18. Vertiport omnidirectional obstacle-free volume with discrete planar approach and take-off climb surfaces — top view PTS VPT-DSN.D.480 Omnidirectional obstacle-free volume with prohibited sector (a) A sector of the omnidirectional obstacle-free volume with conical OLS can be declared prohibited, e.g. to avoid an obstacle (see Figure D-19 and Figure D-20). (b) The prohibited sector is defined as follows: (1) an inner edge coinciding at the FATO with the circle of diameter FATOomnidirection centred on the centre of the smallest enclosing circle. The inner surface extends vertically upwards from this edge up to a height of 152 m (500 ft) above the elevation of the FATO, unless the en-route structure allows the OLS to stop at a lower altitude; (2) two side planes originating at the ends of the inner edge diverging radially; (3) an outer edge coinciding with the outer edge of the conical OLS. The outer surface extends vertically downwards down to the elevation of the FATO; (4) an upper surface to close the sector, horizontal at height 152 m (500 ft), unless the enroute structure allows the OLS to stop at a lower altitude. (c) It should be verified that a given VTOL-capable aircraft can operate in such a volume, e.g. can avoid the prohibited sector in case of a balked landing. Corresponding operational limitations should be set as necessary. Figure D-19. Vertiport obstacle-free volume with omnidirectional approach and take-off climb surface and prohibited sector — perspective view Figure D-20. Vertiport obstacle-free volume with omnidirectional approach and take-off climb surface and prohibited sector — top view PTS VPT-DSN.D.485 Reference volume Type 1 A specific vertical take-off and landing procedure has been foreseen with given values for the defining parameters to further facilitate standardisation of vertiports. The VTOL-capable aircraft manufacturer can voluntarily choose to demonstrate that the VTOL-capable aircraft can perform a vertical take-off and landing within this volume referred to as ‘Reference volume Type 1’. Additional reference volume types can be developed if deemed useful by the community. (a) The Reference volume Type 1 dimensions with the SAs included are depicted on Table D-6 and Figure D-21: Parameter Reference volume Type 1 $\mathsf { h } _ { 1 }$ 3 m (10) $\mathsf { h } _ { 2 }$ 30.5 m (100) $\mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { w i d t h } }$ 3D $\mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { f r o n t } }$ 2D $\mathsf { T O } _ { \mathsf { b a c k } }$ 2D $\mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { w i d t h } }$ 2D $\mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { f r o n t } }$ 1D $\mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { b a c k } }$ 1D ${ \underline { { \theta _ { \mathsf { a p p } } } } }$ 12.5 % $\theta _ { \mathsf { d e p } }$ 12.5 % Table D-6. Reference volume Type 1 parameters (with the SAs) Figure D-21. Reference volume Type 1 dimensions (with the SAs) (b) A Reference volume Type 1 is by design bidirectional. (c) An omnidirectional vertiport obstacle-free volume can be derived from the Reference volume Type 1 and has then the dimensions given in Table D-7. Parameter omnidirectional volume $\mathsf { h } _ { 1 }$ 3m (10) $\mathsf { h } _ { 2 }$ 30.5 m (100) $\emptyset \intercal 0 _ { \mathrm { o m n i d i r e c t i o n } }$ 5D $\emptyset \mathsf { F A T O } _ { \mathsf { o m n i d i r e c t i o n } }$ 2.83 D $\mathsf { \theta _ { o m n i d i r e c t i o n } }$ 12.5% Table D-7. Omnidirectional vertiport obstacle-free volume derived from the Reference volume Type 1 (with the SAs) Examples of the potential vertiports with the Reference volume Type 1 established in congested urban areas (for illustration purposes only; the actual suitability has not been assessed) are presented in Figure D-22. Figure D-22. Examples of potential vertiports with Reference volume Type 1 (for illustration purposes only; the actual suitability has not been assessed) PTS VPT-DSN.D.490 Link to VTOL-capable aircraft requirements Requirements have been established for the aircraft designer to facilitate vertiport design; for example, to report certain characteristics of the aircraft in the AFM. Below are some of these requirements contained in EASA Special Condition VTOL and its corresponding Means of Compliance. Some requirements are still under development and the different documents can be found at https://www.easa.europa.eu/domains/rotorcraft-vtol/VTOL. Dimension ‘D’ ‘D’ means the diameter of the smallest circle enclosing the VTOL aircraft projection on a horizontal plane, while the aircraft is in the take-off or landing configuration, with rotor(s) turning, if applicable (Figure D-23). Publish D in metres, rounded up to the next tenth. If the VTOL aircraft changes dimension during taxi or parking (e.g. folding wings), a corresponding Dtaxi and Dparking should also be provided. Figure D-23. Dimension ‘D’ and centre of the smallest enclosing circle An example of difference between the largest overall dimension and the diameter of the smallest enclosing circle is provided in Figure D-24. Appendix 1 provides clarification that if the largest overall dimension for obstacle protection is used, there could be a 15 % error in the unsafe direction. For VTOL-capable aircraft, the dimension D used for obstacle protection and vertiport design is thus defined based on the smallest enclosing circle, as stated above. Figure D-24. Example of unsafe difference between the largest overall dimension and the diameter of the smallest enclosing circle ‘Undercarriage width’ (UCW) means the maximum width of the undercarriage/landing gear projection on a horizontal plane (Figure D-25). The UCW should be published in metres, rounded up to the next tenth. Figure D-25. Undercarriage width Undercarriage footprint ‘Undercarriage’ footprint means the diameter of the circle containing the landing gear contact area while the aircraft is in the take-off or landing configuration (Figure D-26). The undercarriage footprint can be used for the determination of the undercarriage containment area and the TLOF. The undercarriage footprint should be published in metres, rounded up to the next tenth. Figure D-26. Undercarriage footprint Take-off performance Figure D-27. Possible take-off paths Note A: The altitudes of 200 ft and 1 000 ft are proposed in the development of the take-off flight path as currently used for Category A helicopters. Different take-off heights can be considered if compatible with the departure and en-route structure; in particular, accelerating from VTOSS to VFTO at a higher altitude allows to leave the obstacle environment faster. Landing performance Figure D-28. Landing path CHAPTER E — VISUAL AIDS Rationale 1. 2. The specifications for wind direction indicator, marking and markers have been adapted from Annex 14, Volume II, Heliports, 5th edition, Amendment 9. All notes from Annex 14 referring to guidance in ICAO Document 9261, Heliport Manual, have been included in the specifications. All PTS specifications are considered as guidance material, so the term 'should' is used instead 3. of 'shall' for Annex 14 Standards. The term 'may' is kept when the text is derived from material adapted from the Heliport Manual. The specifications must be reviewed after data of the VTOL-capable aircraft from the 4. manufactures are received. AIll specifications are preceded by the objective of the visual aid, taken from ICAO Annex 14 5. or the Heliport Manual. Offshore installations from Annex 14 are not included in this PTS, as VTOL offshore and sling/hoist operations are not expected in the near future. The following sections from ICAO Annex 14, Volume Il, Heliports have been deleted and all subsequent sections renumbered: Winching area marking Helideck obstacle-free sector (chevron) marking 6. Helideck and shipboard heliport surface marking Runway-type FATOs can be useful for VTOL-capable aircraft with the ability to use such runways. 7. New sections have been included: PTS VPT-DSN.E.530 FATO identification marking. To provide a marking to differentiate FATOs in close proximity. pTs VPT-DSN.E.670 Apron safety lines. To provide markings for the limits for ground equipment. The battery replacement equipment can be large. The text is in line with CS ADR-DSN.L.595 Apron safety lines and the associated GM. PTs VPT-DsN.E.680 Visual aids for denoting restricted use areas. To provide marking 8. for closed FATOs, TLOFs, stands and taxiways and to mark areas under maintenance. This text is in line with CS ADR-DSN.R.855, CS ADR-DSN.R.870 and the associated GM. The dimensions of all markings will have to be reviewed when input from the manufacturers 9. on the size of the FATOs for VTOL-capable aircraft is received. The colour scheme of Annex 14 and CS-HPT-DSN for markings and markers is proposed to be kept for conspicuity, and it is proposed to provide the differentiation for heliports and vertiports with the vertiport identification marking. PTS VPT-DSN.E.500 Visual aids – General Note 1: The PTS on the runway-type FATO is provided in this PTS edition pending decision on its applicability to VTOL-capable aircraft. (a) The procedures used by some VTOL-capable aircraft require that they utilise a FATO having characteristics similar in shape to a runway for fixed wing aircraft. An FATO having characteristics similar in shape to a runway is considered to be satisfying the concept for a ‘runway-type FATO’. For such arrangements, it is sometimes necessary to provide specific markings to enable a pilot to distinguish a runway-type FATO during an approach. Appropriate markings are contained within paragraph entitled ‘Runway-type FATOs’. The requirements applicable to all other types of FATOs are given within paragraphs entitled ‘All FATOs except runway-type FATOs’. (b) Unless otherwise specified, the specifications for a colour referred to within PTS-VPT-DSN should be those contained in CS-ADR-DSN. (c) The FATO may contain additional markings that support vertical approach or take-off subject to the specifications of Chapter D, Subpart 2, provided they do not interfere with other markings within or near the FATO and their meanings. Note 2: It has been found that, on vertiport surfaces of light colour, the conspicuity of white markings can be improved by outlining them in black. PTS VPT-DSN.E.510 Wind direction indicator Rationale New text on the objective of the wind direction indicator has been included from the Heliport Manual. The term ‘rotor downwash’ has been adapted to read ‘downwash from the lift/thrust units’; the term that has been taken from EASA SC-VTOL-1. A new location for wind direction indicator for vertiport that is elevated or an obstacle-free volume FATO has been included. Guidance on the wind sleeve location has been taken from the Heliport Manual. The possibility to obtain meteorological information from meteorological stations has been included. Meteorological information could be certified and transmitted within the appropriate service such ATIS, UNICOM of AFIS, all to be aligned with ATM developments. The sizes of wind direction indicator are kept. The sizes depend on the ability of the pilot to see the wind direction indicator. (a) The objective of the wind direction indicator is to provide the pilot with a visual indication of the wind direction and give an indication of the wind speed in the vicinity of the FATO and TLOF. (b) Applicability A vertiport should be equipped with at least one wind direction indicator. (c) Location (1) A wind direction indicator should be located so as to indicate the wind conditions over the FATO and TLOF and in such a way as to be free from the effects of airflow disturbances caused by nearby objects or downwash from the lift/thrust units. It should be visible from a VTOL aircraft in flight, in a hover or on the movement area. (2) At vertiports that are elevated or where an obstacle-free volume is provided, the wind direction indicator may be located at a nearby structure. (3) Where a TLOF and/or FATO may be subject to a disturbed airflow, additional wind direction indicators located close to the area should be provided to indicate the surface wind on the area. (4) The indicator should be sited to avoid the effects of turbulence and should be of sufficient size to be visible from VTOL aircraft flying at a height of 200 m. Where a TLOF may be subjected to a disturbed air flow, then additional small lightweight wind vanes located close to the area may prove useful. (5) For FATOs located in environments where the airflow may be disturbed by nearby objects, such as in urban vertiports and congested areas, where more than one wind direction indicator may be needed, or when the wind direction indicators may be difficult to place near the FATO that is elevated, information on the wind direction and speed and other wind characteristics such as gusts or turbulence may be obtained from meteorological stations located near the FATO and be broadcasted/radio transmitted to the pilots. (d) Characteristics (1) A wind direction indicator should be constructed so that it gives a clear indication of the direction of the wind and a general indication of the wind speed. (2) A wind direction indicator should be a truncated cone made of lightweight fabric and should have the following minimum dimensions: Surface level VPT VPT that is elevated Length 2.4m 1.2m Diameter (larger end) 0.6 m 0.3 m Diameter (smaller end) 0.3m 0.15 m (3) The colour of the wind direction indicator should be so selected as to make it clearly visible and understandable from a height of at least 200 m (650 ft) above the vertiport, having regard to background. Where practicable, a single colour, preferably white or orange, should be used. Where a combination of two colours is required to give adequate conspicuity against changing backgrounds, they should preferably be orange and white, red and white, or black and white, and should be arranged in five alternate bands the first and last band being the darker colour. (4) A wind direction indicator at a vertiport intended for use at night should be illuminated. PTS VPT-DSN.E.520 Vertiport identification marking Rationale 1. A vertiport identification marking consisting of a 'V' letter inside a blue circle has been proposed and agreed. See figures. However, the input from pilot view after simulating approach and landing at vertiports wil be used for the final decision. Commentators are invited to provide their feedback. 2. The dimensions of all markings wil have to be reviewed when input from the manufacturers (a) The objective of a vertiport identification marking is to provide the pilot with an indication of the presence of a vertiport; with its form, likely usage; and, the preferred direction(s) of approach. (b) Applicability A vertiport identification marking should be provided at a vertiport. (c) Location — all FATOs except runway-type FATOs (1) A vertiport identification marking should be located at or near the centre of the FATO. (2) Where a vertiport that is elevated or an obstacle-free volume is provided, the vertiport identification marking should be located within the FATO or TLOF. (3) If the TDPM is offset, the vertiport identification marking should be established in the centre of the TDPM. (4) On a FATO which does not contain a TLOF, and which is marked with an aiming point marking (see PTS VPT-DSN.E.580), the vertiport identification marking should be established in the centre of the aiming point marking as shown in Figure E-1 and Figure E-2. (5) On a FATO which contains a TLOF, a vertiport identification marking should be located within the FATO so the position of it coincides with the centre of the TLOF. (d) Location — runway-type FATOs A vertiport identification marking should be located within the FATO and when used in conjunction with FATO designation markings, should be displayed at each end of the FATO as shown in Figure E-3. (e) Characteristics (1) A vertiport identification marking, except for a vertiport at a hospital, should consist of a letter ‘V’ in white inside a blue circle. The dimensions of the ‘V’ and the blue circle markings should be no less than those shown in Figure E-4. Note: The colour conspicuity of the blue circle and the dimensions should be tested and confirmed in simulators. (2) A vertiport identification marking for a vertiport at a hospital should consist of a letter ‘V’ in red inside a blue circle, on a white cross made of squares adjacent to each of the sides of a square containing the ‘V’ as shown in Figures E-2 and E-4. (3) A vertiport identification marking should be oriented with its symmetry axis aligned with the preferred final approach direction and so arranged as to be readable from the preferred final approach direction. Note. - The aiming point, vertiport identification and FATO perimeter marking are white and may be edged with a 10 cm black border to improve contrast Figure E-1. Combined vertiport identification, aiming point and FATO perimeter marking Figure E-2. Vertiport identification markings with TLOF and aiming markings for vertiport and hospital vertiport Figure E-3. FATO designation marking and vertiport identification marking for a runway-type FATO Figure E-4. Hospital vertiport identification and vertiport identification marking PTS VPT-DSN.E.530 FATO identification marking Rationale A FATO identification marking to distinguish between close FATOs has been proposed. See figures. (a) The objective of the FATO identification markings is to provide the pilot with an identification of different FATOs at vertiport equipped with two or more FATOs. (b) FATO identification markings are not intended to be used in runway-type FATOs where the differentiation can be provided by the designation markings. (c) Applicability Where appropriate for differentiation, FATO identification markings should be provided. (d) Location A FATO identification marking should be located within the FATO and so arranged as to be readable from the preferred final approach direction. (e) Characteristics (1) Each FATO identification marking should consist of an ordinal number, beginning with 1 and ending in the last of the numbered FATOs (see Figure E-5). (2) The numbers wil have the size and proportions shown in Figure E-6. (3) The FATO identification number will be inside a blue circle with diameter 175 cm as shown in Figure E-5. V height 260 cm Vwidth 260 cm V base 70 cm V line width 60 cm V vertex height 90 cm Blue circle 340 cm FATO/TLOF 15x15 m TLOF perimeter line width 30 cm TDPM inner circle 6,2 m TDPM line width 0,5 m V height 260 cm V width 260 cm V base 70 cm V line width 60 cm V vertex height 90 cm Blue circle 340 cm FATO 15x15 m FATO dashed line 150x30 cm Aiming point marking 9 m side triangle Number height 150 cm Number width 30-100 cm Separation V – Number 30 cm Small blue circle 175 cm V height 260 cm V width 260 cm Blue circle 340 cm Number height 150 cm Number width 30-100 cm Separation V – Number 30 cm Small blue circle 175 cm FATO/TLOF 15x15 m TLOF perimeter line width 30 cm Hospital cross height 9 m Hospital cross width 9 m Figure E-5. Vertiport identification, FATO identification, maximum allowable mass and D-value markings PTS VPT-DSN.E.540 Maximum allowable mass marking Rationale Only metric units are employed for maximum allowable mass marking and D-value marking. Imperial units are not used in the EU. The reference to shipboard vertiports (offshore) has been eliminated. The mass is applicable only when required, to avoid proliferation of markings in the FATO; the distinctions between elevated and surface level vertiports have been eliminated to avoid duplication. According to the actual masses of the VTOL in development (Volocity 900 kg (D 11,3 m) Lilium Jet 640 kg (D 13,9 m) CityAirbus 2 200 kg (D 8 m)), it has been proposed to use a two- or three-digit number (mass expressed to the nearest 100 kg) and eliminate the one-digit number (1 000 kg) for greater precision. (a) The objective of the maximum allowable mass marking is to provide the mass limitation of the vertiport such that it is visible to the pilot from the preferred final approach direction. (b) Applicability When required, a maximum allowable mass marking should be displayed at a vertiport. (c) Location A maximum allowable mass marking should be located within the TLOF or FATO and so arranged as to be readable from the preferred final approach direction. (d) Characteristics (1) A maximum allowable mass marking should consist of a two- or three-digit number. (2) The maximum allowable mass should be expressed to the nearest 100 kg. The marking should be presented to one decimal place and rounded to the nearest 100 kg followed by the letter ‘t’. The decimal place should be preceded with a decimal point marked with a 30-cm square. (3) All FATOs except runway-type FATOs The numbers and the letter of the marking should have a colour contrasting with the background and should be in the form and proportion shown in Figure E-6 for a D-value of more than 30 m. For a D-value between 15 m and 30 m, the height of the numbers and the letter of the marking should be a minimum of 90 cm, and for a D-value of less than 15 m, the height of the numbers and the letter of the marking should be a minimum of 60 cm, each with a proportional reduction in width and thickness. (4) Runway-type FATOs The numbers and the letter of the marking should have a colour contrasting with the background and should be in the form and proportion shown in Figure E-6. Figure E-6. Form and proportions of numbers and letters PTS VPT-DSN.E.550D-value marking Rationale Only metric units are employed for maximum allowable mass marking and D-value marking. 1. 2. Imperial units are not used in the EU. The D-value is applicable only when required, to avoid proliferation of markings in the FATO; the distinctions between vertiports that are elevated and surface level vertiports have been eliminated to avoid duplication. (a) The objective of D-value marking is to provide the pilot with the ‘D’ of the largest VTOL aircraft that can be accommodated on the vertiport. This value may differ in size from the FATO and the TLOF provided in compliance with Chapter C. (b) The D-value is not required to be marked on a vertiport with a runway-type FATO. (c) Applicability Where appropriate, a D-value marking should be displayed at a vertiport. (d) Location (1) A D-value marking should be located within the TLOF or FATO and so arranged as to be readable from the preferred final approach direction. (2) Where there is more than one approach direction, additional D-value markings should be provided such that at least one D-value marking is readable from the final approach direction. (e) Characteristics (1) The D-value marking should be white. The D-value marking should be rounded to the nearest whole metre with 0.5 rounded down. (2) Where the D-value marking is located within a TLOF or TDPC, it should represent the D of the largest VTOL aircraft admitted, regardless of the configuration and dimensions of the VTOL aircraft during taxiing $( \mathsf { D } _ { \mathtt { t a x i } } )$ or parking $( { \sf D } _ { \sf p a r k i n g } )$ (2) The numbers of the marking should have a colour contrasting with the background and should be in the form and proportion shown in Figure E-6 for a D-value of more than 30 m. For a D-value between 15 m and 30 m, the height of the numbers of the marking should be a minimum of 90 cm, and for a D-value of less than 15 m, the height of the numbers of the marking should be a minimum of 60 cm, each with a proportional reduction in width and thickness. PTS VPT-DSN.E.560 FATO perimeter marking or markers Rationale ICAO Annex 14 Volume II, Heliports SARPs for FATO perimeter markings apply only to surface level heliports. For vertiports, the scope is enlarged for vertiports that are elevated, as there are projects containing whole-size solid FATOs that may require marking. However, there could be non-solid FATOs that would not require perimeter markings. Markers are kept as useful visual aids for unpaved vertiports. The VTOL-capable aircraft may change configuration for taxiing and parking, and this has been reflected in the specifications. The reference to helidecks or shipboard vertiports (offshore) has been eliminated. (a) The objective of FATO perimeter marking or markers is to provide the pilot, where the perimeter of the FATO is not self-evident, with an indication of the area that is free of obstacles, and in which intended procedures or permitted manoeuvring may take place. (b) Applicability FATO perimeter marking or markers should be provided at a vertiport where the extent of a FATO with a solid surface is not self-evident. (c) Location The FATO perimeter marking or markers should be located on the edge of the FATO. (d) Characteristics — runway-type FATOs (1) The perimeter of the FATO should be defined with markings or markers spaced at equal intervals of not more than 50 m with at least three markings or markers on each side including a marking or marker at each corner. (2) A FATO perimeter marking should be a rectangular stripe with a length of 9 m or one-fifth of the side of the FATO which it defines and a width of 1 m. (3) FATO perimeter markings should be white. (4) A FATO perimeter marker should have dimensional characteristics as shown in Figure E-7. (5) FATO perimeter markers should be of colour(s) that contrast effectively against the operating background. (6) FATO perimeter markers should be a single colour, orange or red, or two contrasting colours, orange and white or, alternatively, red and white should be used except where such colours would merge with the background. (e) Characteristics — all FATOs except runway-type FATOs (1) For an unpaved FATO, the perimeter should be defined with flush in-ground markers. The FATO perimeter markers should be 30 cm in width, 1.5 m in length, and with end-to-end spacing of not less than 1.5 m and not more than 2 m. The corners of a square or rectangular FATO shall be defined. (2) For a paved FATO, the perimeter should be defined with a dashed line. The FATO perimeter marking segments should be 30 cm in width, 1.5 m in length, and with end-toend spacing of not less than 1.5 m and not more than 2 m. The corners of the square or rectangular FATO should be defined. (3) FATO perimeter markings and flush in-ground markers should be white. Figure E-7. Runway-type FATO edge marker PTS VPT-DSN.E.570 FATO designation markings for runway-type FATOs Rationale The text has been transposed from ICAO, Annex 14, Volume I, Heliports. (a) The objective of FATO designation markings for runway-type FATOs is to provide the pilot with an indication of the magnetic heading of the runway. (b) Applicability A FATO designation marking should be provided at a vertiport where it is necessary to designate the FATO to the pilot. (c) Location A FATO designation marking should be located at the beginning of the FATO as shown in Figure E-3. (d) Characteristics A FATO designation marking should consist of a two-digit number. The two-digit number should be the whole number nearest to one-tenth of the magnetic North when viewed from the direction of approach. When this rule would give a single-digit number, it should be preceded by a zero. The marking, as shown in Figure E-3, should be supplemented by the vertiport identification marking ‘V’. PTS VPT-DSN.E.580 Aiming point marking Rationale It may be required to develop visual aids for obstacle-free volume FATOs after input from manufacturers on the performance of VTOL-capable aircraft is received. Possible confusion of the aiming point marking with the vertiport identification marking is avoided due to the blue circle surrounding the ‘V’. (a) The objective of the aiming point marking is to provide the pilot with a visual cue indicating the preferred approach/departure direction, the point to which the aircraft with VTOL capability approaches to the hover before positioning to a stand where a touchdown can be made, and that the surface of the FATO is not intended for touchdown. (b) The aiming point marking is not required to be marked on FATOs elevated over the surface of the vertiport or obstacle-free volume FATOs. (c) Applicability An aiming point marking should be provided at a vertiport where it is necessary for a pilot to make an approach to a particular point above a FATO before proceeding to a TLOF. (d) Location — runway-type FATOs The aiming point marking should be located within the FATO. (e) Location — all FATOs except runway-type FATOs The aiming point marking should be located at the centre of the FATO as shown in Figure E-1. (f) Characteristics The aiming point marking should be an equilateral triangle with the bisector of one of the angles aligned with the preferred approach direction. The marking should consist of continuous lines providing a contrast with the background colour, and the dimensions of the marking should conform to those shown in Figure E-8. Figure E-8. Aiming point marking PTS VPT-DSN.E.590 TLOF perimeter marking Rationale TLOF perimeter markings should always be displayed at vertiports that are elevated, but only on surface level vertiports if the perimeter is not self-evident. The reference to helidecks or shipboard vertiports (offshore) has been eliminated. (a) The objective of a TLOF perimeter marking is to provide the pilot with an indication of an area that is free of obstacles; has dynamic load bearing; and in which, when positioned in accordance with the TDPM, undercarriage containment is assured. (b) Applicability: (1) A TLOF perimeter marking should be displayed on a TLOF located within a FATO at a surface-level vertiport if the perimeter of the TLOF is not self-evident. (2) A TLOF perimeter marking should be displayed on a vertiport that is elevated. (c) Location A TLOF perimeter marking should be located along the edge of the TLOF. (d) Characteristics A TLOF perimeter marking should consist of a continuous white line with a width of at least 30 cm. PTS VPT-DSN.E.600 Touchdown positioning marking (TDPM) Rationale 1 The usefulness of TDPM for VTOL-capable aircraft should be evaluated after input from manufacturers, including distinction between circular and shoulder ones. The prohibited landing sector marking for helidecks (offshore) has been eliminated. (a) The objective of TDPM is to provide visual cues which permit a VTOL-capable aircraft to be placed in a specific position such that, when the pilot’s seat is above the marking, the undercarriage is within the load-bearing area and all parts of the VTOL-capable aircraft will be clear of any obstacles by a safe margin. (b) Applicability (1) A TDPM should be provided for a VTOL-capable aircraft to touchdown or be accurately placed in a specific position. (2) The TDPM should be: (i) when there is no limitation on the direction of touchdown/positioning, a touchdown/positioning circle (TDPC) marking; and (ii) when there is a limitation on the direction of touchdown/positioning in the form of unidirectional applications, a shoulder line with an associated centre line. (c) Location The inner edge/inner circumference of the TDPM should be at a distance of 0.25 D from the centre of the area in which the VTOL-capable aircraft is to be positioned. (d) Characteristics (1) The inner diameter of the TDPC should be 0.5 D of the largest VTOL-capable aircraft the area is intended to serve. (2) A TDPM should have a line with a width of at least 0.5 m. (3) The length of a shoulder line should be 0.5 D of the largest VTOL-capable aircraft the area is intended to serve. (4) The TDPM should take precedence when used in conjunction with other markings on the TLOF. Figure E-9. Multidirectional TDPC with no limitations (left) Unidirectional marking shoulder line with associated centre line (centre) PTS VPT-DSN.E.610 Obstacle sector marking Rationale The omnidirectional obstacle-free volume may have sectors with obstacles that cannot be used for take-off and landing of the VTOL-capable aircraft. To provide the pilots with an indication of those sectors, a new marking is devised based on the prohibited landing sector marking of the helidecks. The proposed name is obstacle sector marking and it will be white and red chequered instead of hatched, to differentiate it from the prohibited landing sector marking of the helidecks While, according to the Heliport Manual, the prohibited landing sector marking is used where it is necessary to protect the helicopter from landing or manoeuvring in close proximity to obstacles that may affect the tail rotor beyond the view of the air crew, by marking the sector where the nose of the helicopter should not be placed, the obstacle sector marking is devised to avoid take-off and landing of the VTOL-capable aircraft in the marked sector due to the presence of obstacles in the omnidirectional obstacle-free volume inside the sector. The marking is not intended to mark objects in the SA or in the protected side slope. (a) The objective of obstacle sector marking is to provide the pilot with an indication of the sector of an omnidirectional obstacle-free volume that should not be used for take-off and landing due to the presence of obstacles above the revolution obstacle-free volume. The obstacle sector marking is not intended to indicate objects in the SA or in the protected side slope of the FATO. (b) Applicability An obstacle sector marking should be provided at a vertiport where there are obstacles above the omnidirectional obstacle-free volume that cannot be removed. (c) Location Obstacle sector markings should be located at the edge of the vertiport identification marking or on the TDPM if it is provided, within the relevant headings, and extend to the inner edge of the FATO. (d) Characteristics (1) The prohibited sector marking should be indicated by white and red chequered markings as shown in Figure E-9. (2) FATO, TLOF TDPM and vertiport identification markings shall take precedence over obstacle sector markings. (3) The arc of coverage of the obstacle sector marking should be sufficient to ensure a lateral separation between the VTOL-capable aircraft and the obstacle of 3.5 D for day operations and 5 D for night operations, when the VTOL-capable aircraft lands or takes off clear of the obstacle sector marking. PTS VPT-DSN.E.620 Vertiport name marking Rationale No location specification is given in ICAO Annex 14, Volume II for name markings in vertiports others than helidecks and shipboard heliports. Thus, a new text allowing maximum flexibility is provided. The reference to helidecks or shipboard vertiports (offshore) has been eliminated. (a) The objective of vertiport name marking is to provide the pilot with a means of identifying a vertiport which can be seen, and read, from all directions of approach. (b) Applicability A vertiport name marking should be provided at a vertiport where there is insufficient alternative means of visual identification. (b) Location The vertiport name marking should be located at a position such as it can be seen and read from all directions of approach. (c) Characteristics (1) A vertiport name marking should consist of the name or the alphanumeric designator of the vertiport as used in the radio (R/T) communications. (2) A vertiport name marking intended for use at night or during conditions of poor visibility should be illuminated, either internally or externally. (3) Runway-type FATOs: The characters of the marking should be not less than 3 m in height. (4) All FATOs except runway-type FATOs: The characters of the marking should be not less than 1.5 m in height at surface-level vertiports and not less than 1.2 m on vertiports that are elevated. The colour of the marking should contrast with the background and preferably be white. PTS VPT-DSN.E.630 VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway markings and markers Rationale The ICAO Annex 14, Volume II note on the applicability of runway position markings of ICAO Annex 14, Volume I has been kept changing reference for aerodrome Certification Specifications. Holding position markings can be useful for vertiports. Taxiways have been considered suitable for VTOL-capable aircraft taxiing by means of ground movement equipment. Markers have been kept for their usefulness for unpaved taxiways. Location distances have been considered enough to provide clearance for VTOL-capable aircraft (in line with Chapter C clearances for stands) but may need to be reconsidered after input from manufacturers. Guidance on taxiway edge markers from the Heliport Manual has been included along with a new figure. The term ‘frangible to the wheeled undercarriage of a helicopter’ has been replaced with ‘frangible to the wheeled undercarriage of a VTOL-capable aircraft’. (a) The objective of VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway markings and markers is, without being a hazard to the VTOL-capable aircraft, to provide the pilot by day and, if necessary, by night, with visual cues to guide movement along the taxiway. (b) The specifications for runway-holding position markings in certification specifications for aerodrome design, CS ADR-DSN.L.575, are equally applicable as guidance material to taxiways intended for ground taxiing of VTOL-capable aircraft. (c) Ground taxi-routes and air taxi-routes over a taxiway are not required to be marked. (d) Unless otherwise indicated, it may be assumed that a VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway is suitable for ground taxiing, air taxiing and taxiing by means of ground movement equipment of VTOLcapable aircraft. (e) Signage may be required on an aerodrome where it is necessary to indicate that a VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway is suitable only for the use of VTOL-capable aircraft. (f) Applicability (1) The centre line of a VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway should be identified with a marking. (2) The edges of a VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway, if not self-evident, should be identified with markers or markings. (g) Location (1) VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway markings should be along the centre line and, if required, along the edges of a VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway. (2) VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway edge markers should be located at a distance of 1 m to 3 m beyond the edge of the VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway. (3) VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway edge markers should be spaced at intervals of not more than 15 m on each side of straight sections and 7.5 m on each side of curved sections with a minimum of four equally spaced markers per section. (h) Characteristics (1) On a paved taxiway, a VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway centre line marking should be a continuous yellow line 15 cm in width. (2) On an unpaved taxiway that will not accommodate painted markings, a VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway centre line should be marked with flush in-ground 15-cm-wide and approximately 1.5 m in length yellow markers, spaced at intervals of not more than 30 m on straight sections and not more than 15 m on curves, with a minimum of four equally spaced markers per section. (3) VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway edge markings should be a continuous double yellow line, each 15 cm in width, and spaced 15 cm apart (nearest edge to nearest edge). (4) A VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway edge marker should be lightweight and frangible to the undercarriage of a VTOL-capable aircraft. (4) A VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway edge marker should not exceed a plane originating at a height of 25 cm above the plane of the VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway, at a distance of 0.5 m from the edge of the VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway and sloping upwards and outwards at a gradient of 5 per cent to a distance of 3 m beyond the edge of the VTOLcapable aircraft taxiway. (5) A VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway edge marker should be blue. Note: If blue markers are used on an aerodrome, signage may be required to indicate that the VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway is suitable only for VTOL-capable aircraft. (6) If the VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway is to be used at night, the edge markers should be internally illuminated or retroreflective. (7) The marked surface of the marker, as seen by the pilot, should be a rectangle and have a minimum viewing area of 150 cm2, as shown in Figure E-10. Markers commonly used are cylindrical in shape. Figure E-10. VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway edge marker PTS VPT-DSN.E.640 VTOL-capable aircraft air taxi-route markings and markers Rationale The markers have been kept for their usefulness for unpaved air taxi-routes. Guidance from the Heliport Manual has been included, and the Characteristics section has been restructured. The air taxi-route markers of the Heliport manual are not flush in ground. The specifications of ICAO Annex 14, Volume II are kept with flush in-ground markers, and the figure of the Heliport Manual has been adapted to show flush in ground markers. (a) The objective of VTOL-capable aircraft air taxi-route markings and markers is to provide the pilot by day and, if necessary, by night, with visual cues to guide movement along the air taxiroute. (b) Applicability The centre line of a VTOL-capable aircraft air taxi-route should be identified with markers or markings. (c) Location A VTOL-capable aircraft air taxi-route centre line marking or flush in-ground centre line marker should be located along the centre line of the VTOL aircraft air taxi-route. (d) Characteristics (1) Where an air taxi-route is collocated with a taxiway, the centre line markings will be those of the taxiway. (2) Where an air taxi-route is not collocated with a taxiway: (i) when on a paved surface, the air taxi-route centre line should be marked with a continuous yellow line 15 cm in width; (ii) when on an unpaved surface that will not accommodate painted markings, the air taxi-route centre line should be marked with flush in-ground 15 cm-wide and approximately 1.5 m in length yellow markers, spaced at intervals of not more than 30 m on straight sections and not more than 15 m on curves, with a minimum of four equally spaced markers per section. (3) If the VTOL-capable aircraft air taxi-route is to be used at night, markers should be either internally illuminated or retroreflective. Figure E-11. Air taxi route marker PTS VPT-DSN.E.650 VTOL-capable aircraft stand markings Rationale Consideration has been given to the design of stands according to Chapter C (PTS HPT-DSN.C.310), where two types of stands have been designed: the D-value-based stand and the geometry-based stand. For the latter stand, perimeter lines may not be provided if the aircraft is not under its own power (towed or on ground movement equipment and clearances can be assured with the use of alignment lines). The dimensions of stands designed like helicopter stands may need to be revised after input from the manufacturers. Guidance from the Heliport Manual has been included. (a) The objective of VTOL-capable aircraft stand markings is to provide the pilot with a visual indication of: an area that is free of obstacles and in which manoeuvring is permitted, and all necessary ground functions, may take place: identification, mass and D-value limitations, when required; and guidance for manoeuvring and positioning of the VTOL-capable aircraft within the stand. (b) VTOL-capable aircraft stand identification markings may be provided where there is a need to identify individual stands. (c) See PTS VPT-DSN.E.590, PTS VPT-DSN.E.600 and Figure E-13 regarding TLOF perimeter markings, TDPMs and lead-in/lead-out lines. (d) Applicability (1) A VTOL-capable aircraft stand perimeter marking should be provided when the stand is designed according to PTS VPT-DSN.C.320 (e)(1) and (e)(2). (2) A VTOL aircraft stand perimeter marking should be provided when the stand is designed according to PTS VPT-DSN.C.320 (g) and (h), except when the aircraft enters and exits the stand not under its own power and the clearance distances can be assured with the use of alignment and lead-in/lead-out lines. (2) A VTOL-capable aircraft stand should be provided with the appropriate TDPM, see Figure E-13. (3) If appropriate, alignment lines and lead-in/lead-out lines should be provided on a VTOLcapable aircraft stand, see Figure E-13. (4) Where the stand is designed to accommodate VTOL-capable aircraft with a D smaller than the Design-D, a box containing the limiting D-value should be displayed on the lead-in line. See Figure E-12. A box containing the maximum allowable mass may be added if required. Figure E-12. Restricted-size stand (e) Location (1) The TDPM, alignment lines and lead-in/lead-out lines should be located such that every part of the VTOL-capable aircraft can be contained within the VTOL-capable aircraft stand during positioning and permitted manoeuvring. (2) Alignment lines and lead-in/lead-out lines should be located as shown in Figure E-13. (f) Characteristics (1) A VTOL-capable aircraft stand perimeter marking should consist of a continuous yellow line and have a line width of 15 cm. (2) The TDPM should have the characteristics described in PTS VPT-DSN.E.600 above. (3) Alignment lines and lead-in/lead-out lines should be continuous yellow lines and have a width of 15 cm. Where it is intended that VTOL-capable aircraft proceed in one direction only, arrows indicating the direction to be followed may be added as part of the alignment lines, see Figure E-13. (4) Curved portions of alignment lines and lead-in/lead-out lines should have radii appropriate to the most demanding VTOL-capable aircraft type the stand is intended to serve. Note: The most demanding VTOL-capable aircraft in terms of turning radius may be different from the most demanding VTOL-capable aircraft in terms of D-value. (5) Stand identification markings should be marked in a contrasting colour so as to be easily readable. (6) When unpaved, the stand perimeter should be marked with flush in-ground markers. Figure E-13. VTOL-capable aircraft stand markings PTS VPT-DSN.E.660 Apron safety lines Rationale 1. Text has been added from CS ADR-DSN.L.595 to provide markings for parking and handling. 2. Guidance from GM1 ADR-DSN.L.595, Apron safety lines, has been included. (a) The objective of the apron safety lines is to mark the limits of VTOL-capable aircraft clearance lines, parking areas for ground equipment, apron service roads and passengers’ paths. (1) VTOL-capable aircraft clearance lines are used to delineate the safety zone clear of the path of the critical VTOL-capable aircraft. (2) Equipment limit lines are used to indicate the limits of areas which are intended for parking vehicles and aircraft servicing equipment when they are not in use. (3) Passenger path lines are used to keep passengers, when walking on the apron, clear of hazards. (e) Applicability Apron safety lines should be provided on an apron as required by the parking configurations and ground facilities. (f) Location Apron safety lines should be located so as to define the areas intended for use by ground vehicles and other aircraft servicing equipment, passengers and pedestrians, etc., to provide safe separation from VTOL aircraft. (g) Characteristics (1) Apron safety lines should include such elements as VTOL-capable aircraft clearance lines and service road boundary lines as required by the parking configurations and ground facilities. (2) Apron safety lines should be of a conspicuous colour, preferably red, which should contrast with that used for VTOL-capable aircraft stand markings. (3) An apron safety line should be continuous in length and at least 10 cm in width. PTS VPT-DSN.E.670 Flight path alignment guidance marking Rationale ICAO Annex 14, Volume II text has been transposed with no changes. (a) The objective of flight path alignment guidance marking is to provide the pilot with a visual indication of the available approach and/or departure path direction(s). (b) The flight path alignment guidance marking can be combined with a flight path alignment guidance lighting system as described in PTS VPT-DSN.E.730. (c) Applicability Flight path alignment guidance marking(s) should be provided at a vertiport where it is desirable and practicable to indicate available approach and/or departure path direction(s). (d) Location The flight path alignment guidance marking should be located in a straight line along the direction of approach and/or departure path on one or more of the TLOF, FATO, SA or any other suitable surface in the immediate vicinity of the FATO or SA. (e) Characteristics (1) A flight path alignment guidance marking should consist of one or more arrows marked on the TLOF, FATO and/or SA surface as shown in Figure E-14. The stroke of the arrow(s) shall be 50 cm in width and at least 3 m in length. When combined with a flight path alignment guidance lighting system, it should take the form shown in Figure E-14 which includes the scheme for marking ‘heads of the arrows’ which are constant regardless of stroke length. (2) In the case of a flight path limited to a single approach direction or single departure direction, the arrow marking may be unidirectional. In the case of a vertiport with only a single approach/departure path available, one bidirectional arrow is marked. (3) The markings should be in a colour which provides good contrast against the background colour of the surface on which they are marked, preferably white. Figure E-14. Flight path alignment guidance markings and lights PTS VPT-DSN.E.680 Visual aids for denoting restricted-use areas Rationale Text has been added from CS ADR-DSN.R.855 and CS ADR-DSN.R.870, as well as from their associated GM, to provide markings for restricted-use areas. Non-load-bearing surface markings have not been included as they are already in the taxiway markings section. The pre-threshold area has not been included as it is not applicable. (a) The objective of the markings and lights for denoting closed areas is to provide the pilot with an indication of FATOs, TLOFs, stands, taxiways or portion of taxiways that are closed. (b) The objective of the unserviceability markers and lights is to warn the pilots of a hole in a taxiway or apron pavement, or to outline for the pilots a portion of pavement, such as on an apron or a taxiway, that is under repair. They are not suitable for use when a FATO, a TLOF, a stand or a taxiway becomes unserviceable. In such instances, the FATO, TLOF, stand or taxiway is normally closed. (c) Applicability — closed markings (1) A closed marking should be displayed on a FATO, TLOF, stand, taxiway or portion of taxiway which is permanently closed to the use of all aircraft. (2) A closed marking should be displayed on a temporarily closed FATO, TLOF, stand, taxiway or portion of taxiway, except that such marking may be omitted when the closing is of short duration and adequate warning by air traffic services is provided. (d) Location — closed markings (1) On a runway-type FATO, a closed marking should be placed at each end of the FATO. (2) On a FATO other than a runway-type FATO, a closed marking should be placed at the centre of the FATO. (3) On a taxiway, a closed marking should be placed at least at each end of the taxiway or portion thereof closed. (4) On a TLOF, a closed marking should be placed at the centre of the TLOF. (5) On a stand, a closed marking should be placed at the centre of the stand. (e) Characteristics — closed markings (1) The closed marking should be of the form of a letter ‘X’. See Figure E-15. The width of the strokes should be 1,5 m. When displayed on a FATO, the length of the strokes will extend at a distance of 15 cm of the FATO perimeter marking. When displayed on a taxiway, the length of the strokes will extend at a distance of 15 cm of the edge of the taxiway. The marking shall be white when displayed on a FATO and shall be yellow when displayed on a taxiway. (2) When a FATO, TLOF, stand, taxiway or portion of taxiway is permanently closed, all normal FATO, TLOF, stand, taxiway markings should be physically removed. (3) Lighting on a closed FATO, TLOF, stand, taxiway or portion of taxiway should not be operated, except as required for maintenance purposes. (4) In addition to closed markings, when the taxiway or portion thereof that is closed is intercepted by a usable taxiway which is used at night, unserviceability lights should be placed across the entrance to the closed area with a minimum of three lights at intervals not exceeding 3 m. (f) Applicability — unserviceable areas Unserviceability markers should be displayed wherever any portion of a taxiway or apron is unfit for the movement of VTOL-capable aircraft, but it is still possible for VTOL-capable aircraft to bypass the area safely. On a movement area used at night, unserviceability lights shall be used. (g) Location — unserviceable areas Unserviceability markers and lights should be placed at intervals sufficiently close so as to delineate the unserviceable area. (h) Characteristics of unserviceability markers (1) Unserviceability markers should consist of conspicuous upstanding devices such as cones or marker boards. (2) An unserviceability cone should be of a height that does not interfere with parts of the VTOL-capable aircraft and red, orange or yellow in combination with white. (3) An unserviceability marker board should be of a height that does not interfere with parts of the VTOL-capable aircraft and 0.6 m in length, with alternate red and white or orange and white vertical stripes. (i) Characteristics of unserviceability lights An unserviceability light should consist of a red fixed light. The light should have an intensity sufficient to ensure conspicuity considering the intensity of the adjacent lights and the general level of illumination against which it would normally be viewed. In no case should the intensity be less than 10 cd of red light. Figure E-15. Closed FATO, TLOF, stand or taxiway marking PTS VPT-DSN.E.700 Lights — general (a) The technical specifications for the lights address issues for VTOL-capable aircraft operations at night: (1) distinguishing one defined area from another; (2) providing conspicuity for acquiring visual contact with the vertiport; (3) providing guidance in the approach and departure phases of flight; and (4) providing visual cues to allow accurate manoeuvring and placement of the VTOL-capable aircraft when within the bounds of the vertiport. (b) Lights and lighting systems installed at vertiports should be dimmable in order to reduce intensity, if needed. Note 1: See ICAO Annex 14, Volume I, 5.3.1, concerning specifications on screening of nonaeronautical ground lights, and design of elevated and inset lights. Note 2: In the case of vertiports located near navigable waters, consideration needs to be given to ensuring that aeronautical ground lights do not cause confusion to mariners. Note 3: As VTOL-capable aircraft will generally come very close to extraneous light sources, it is particularly important to ensure that, unless such lights are navigation lights exhibited in accordance with international regulations, they are screened or located so as to avoid direct and reflected glare. Note 4: Systems addressed in paragraphs PTS-VPT-DSN E.730, E.750, E760 and E.770 are designed to provide effective lighting cues based on night conditions. Where lights are to be used in conditions other than night (i.e. day or twilight), it may be necessary to increase the intensity of the lighting to maintain effective visual cues by use of a suitable brilliancy control. Note 5: The specifications for marking and lighting of obstacles included in Annex 14, Volume I, Chapter 6, are equally applicable to vertiports. Note 6: In cases where operations into a vertiport are to be conducted at night with night vision imaging systems (NVIS), it is important to establish the compatibility of the NVIS with all vertiport lighting through an assessment by the VTOL-capable aircraft operator prior to use. Further guidance on lights is given in ICAO Doc 9157, Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 4 – Visual aids and Document 9261, Heliport Manual. PTS VPT-DSN.E.710 Vertiport beacon (a) The objective of the vertiport beacon is to provide, when necessary, a long-range visual guidance and when not provided by other visual means, or when identifying the vertiport is difficult due to surrounding lights. (b) Applicability Where provided, a vertiport beacon should be located at a vertiport where: (1) long-range visual guidance is considered necessary and is not provided by other visual means; or (2) identification of the vertiport is difficult due to surrounding lights. (c) Location The vertiport beacon should be located on or adjacent to the vertiport preferably at an elevated position and so that it does not dazzle a pilot at short range. Note: Where a vertiport beacon is likely to dazzle pilots at short range, it may be switched off during the final stages of the approach and landing. (d) Characteristics (1) The vertiport beacon should emit repeated series of equally spaced short-duration white flashes in the format shown in Figure E-16. Figure E-16. Vertiport beacon flash characteristics (2) The light from the beacon should show at all angles of azimuth. To ensure that pilots are not dazzled during the final stages of the approach and landing, especially at night, brilliancy control (with 10 per cent and 3 per cent settings) or shielding should be provided. (3) The effective light intensity distribution of each flash should be as shown in Figure E-19, Illustration 1. PTS VPT-DSN.E.720 Approach lighting system (a) The objective of an approach lighting system is to provide an indication of the preferred approach direction to enhance the closure rate information to pilots at night. (b) Applicability Where provided, an approach lighting system should indicate a preferred approach direction. (c) Location The approach lighting system should be located in a straight line along the preferred approach direction. (d) Characteristics (1) An approach lighting system should consist of a row of three lights spaced uniformly at 30 m intervals and of a crossbar 18 m in length at a distance of 90 m from the perimeter of the FATO as shown in Figure E-17 and Figure E-18. The lights forming the crossbar should be as nearly as practicable in a horizontal straight line at right angles to, and bisected by, the line of the centre line lights and spaced at 4.5 m intervals. Where there is the need to make the final approach course more conspicuous, additional lights spaced uniformly at 30 m intervals should be added beyond the crossbar. The lights beyond the crossbar may be steady or sequenced flashing, depending upon the environment. (2) Sequenced flashing lights may be provided where identification of the approach lighting system is difficult due to surrounding lights. (3) The lights should be omnidirectional steady white lights except that beyond the crossbar either omnidirectional steady or flashing white lights may be used. Figure E-17. Approach lighting system (4) The flashing lights should have a flash frequency of one per second and their light distribution should be as shown in Figure E-19, Illustration 3. The flash sequence should commence from the outermost light and progress towards the crossbar. (5) A suitable brilliancy control should be incorporated to allow for adjustment of light intensity to meet the prevailing conditions. (6) The following intensity settings should be provided: steady lights — 100 per cent, 30 per cent and 10 per cent; and flashing lights — 100 per cent, 10 per cent and 3 per cent. Figure E-18. Two different configurations of an approach lighting system Figure E-19. Isocandela diagrams PTS VPT-DSN.E.730 Flight path alignment guidance lighting system (a) The objective of the flight path alignment guidance lighting system is to provide the pilot with a visual indication, at night, of the available approach and/or departure path directions. (b) Applicability Where provided, flight path alignment guidance lighting system(s) should be installed at a vertiport to indicate available approach and/or departure path direction(s). (c) The flight path alignment guidance lighting system can be combined with the flight path alignment guidance marking described in PTS VPT-DSN.E.670, see Figure E-14 and Figure E-20. (d) Location (1) The flight path alignment guidance lighting system should be in a straight line along the direction(s) of approach and/or departure path on one or more of the TLOF, FATO, SA or any other suitable surface in the immediate vicinity of the FATO, TLOF or SA. (2) When combined with a flight path alignment guidance marking (PTS VPT-DSN.E.670), the lights should be located inside the ‘arrow’ markings. (e) Characteristics (1) A flight path alignment guidance lighting system should consist of a row of three or more lights spaced uniformly with a total minimum distance of 6 m. Intervals between lights should not be less than 1.5 m and should not exceed 3 m. Where space permits, there should be five lights, see Figure E-20. (2) The number of lights and spacing between these lights may be adjusted to reflect the space available. If more than one flight path alignment system is used to indicate available approach and/or departure path direction(s), the characteristics for each system are typically kept the same, see Figure E-20. (3) The lights should be steady omnidirectional inset white lights. (4) The distribution of the lights should be as indicated in Figure E-19, Illustration 5. (5) The system should allow an adjustment of light intensity to meet the prevailing conditions and to balance the flight path alignment guidance lighting system with other vertiport lights and general lighting that may be present around the vertiport. Figure E-20. Flight path alignment guidance markings and lights PTS VPT-DSN.E.740 Visual alignment guidance system (a) The objective of a visual alignment guidance system is to provide conspicuous and discrete cues to assist the pilot in attaining and maintaining a specified approach track to a vertiport and a safe lateral clearance from obstacles when on final approach. (b) Applicability Where provided, a visual alignment guidance system should be installed to serve the approach to a vertiport where one or more of the following conditions exist, especially at night: (1) obstacle clearance, noise abatement or traffic control procedures require a particular direction to be flown; (2) the environment of the vertiport provides few visual surface cues; and (3) it is physically impracticable to install an approach lighting system. (c) Location The visual alignment guidance system should be located such that a VTOL-capable aircraft is guided along the prescribed track towards the FATO and should be placed at its downwind edge and aligned along the preferred approach direction. (d) Characteristics (1) The signal of the system should be such that there is no confusion between the system and any associated visual approach slope indicator or other visual aids. (2) The signal format should be unique and conspicuous in all operational environments for which it is intended to use the visual alignment guidance system. (3) The system provides a minimum of three discrete signal sectors giving ‘offset to the right’, ‘on track’ and ‘offset to the left’ indications. (4) The system should be capable of adjustment in azimuth to within ±5 minutes of arc of the desired approach track. (5) Where the lights of the system need to be seen as discrete sources, light units should be located such that at the extremes of the system coverage the angle subtended between units as seen by the pilot should not be less than 3 minutes of arc. The angle subtended between light units of the system and other lights of comparable or greater intensity should also not be less than 3 minutes of arc. This can be met for lights on a line normal to the line of sight if they are separated by 1 m for every kilometre of viewing range. (6) The divergence of the ‘on track’ sector of the system should be 1° on either side of the centre line, see Figure E-21. Figure E-21. Divergence of the ‘on track’ sector (7) A suitable intensity control should be provided so as to allow adjustment to meet the prevailing conditions and to avoid dazzling the pilot during approach and landing. When the system is used in conjunction with a visual approach slope indicator, the intensity settings should be compatible. (8) The angle of azimuthal setting of the system should be such that during an approach, the pilot of a VTOL-capable aircraft at the boundary of the ‘on track’ signal will clear all objects in the approach area by a safe margin. The characteristics of the obstacle protection surface as specified in PTS VPT-DSN.E.750 and Figure E-22 for visual approach indicators should equally apply to the visual alignment guidance system. Figure E-22. Siting of the visual alignment guidance system Note: Further guidance on visual alignment guidance systems is given in ICAO Document 9261, Heliport Manual. PTS VPT-DSN.E.750 Visual approach slope indicator (a) The objective of a visual approach slope indicator is to provide conspicuous and discrete colour cues, within a specified elevation and azimuth, to assist the pilot in attaining and maintaining the approach slope to a desired position within a FATO. Note: Where a two-slope approach is in use, i.e. a shallow initial approach followed by a steep/vertical descent to the FATO, the provision of a visual slope indicator would not be appropriate; however, it may be used from longer approach distance, if a safety assessment indicates that it would not adversely affect the safety of operations of a VTOL-capable aircraft. (b) Applicability Where provided, visual approach slope indicator should be provided to serve the approach to a vertiport, whether or not the vertiport is served by other visual approach aids, where one or more of the following conditions exist, especially at night: (1) obstacle clearance, noise abatement or traffic control procedures require a particular slope to be flown; (2) the environment of the vertiport provides few visual surface cues; and (3) the characteristics of the vertiport require a stabilised approach. (c) Location (1) The HAPI system should be mounted and sited as low as possible so as not to constitute a hazard to VTOL-capable aircraft. (2) The HAPI system should be located such as to avoid dazzling pilots at the final stages of the approach and landing. The minimum setting angle of HAPI is 1°. On a vertiport, the HAPI system should preferably be installed either on the left or on the right side of the FATO. Sometimes it can be desirable to have it on the axis of the preferred approach. In those cases, the HAPI unit should be placed on the centre of the inner edge of the FATO. (d) Characteristics (1) Visual approach slope indicator systems for VTOL-capable aircraft operations include, but are not restricted to: (i) precision approach path indicator (PAPI); (ii) abbreviated precision approach path indicator (APAPI); or (iii) VTOL-capable aircraft approach path indicator (HAPI). Note: HAPI is the acronym for the helicopter approach path indicator and here is also used for the VTOL-capable aircraft approach path indicator. (2) The characteristics of the PAPI and APAPI system should correspond to those specified in ICAO Annex 14, Volume I, except that the angular size of the on-slope sector should be increased to 45 minutes. (3) If required, and when limitations at a vertiport that is elevated preclude the installation of a multi-unit system such as the PAPI or APAPI, a single unit indicator, such as the HAPI, should be installed. (4) The characteristics of the HAPI should be as follows: (i) A HAPI, defined in Annex 14, Vol II Heliports, is designed to give visual indications of the desired approach slope and any vertical deviation from it. (ii) A HAPI should be located such that a VTOL-capable aircraft is guided to the desired position within the FATO and so as to avoid dazzling the pilot during final approach and landing. This will usually entail the HAPI being located adjacent to the nominal aiming point and aligned in azimuth with the preferred approach direction. (iii) The HAPI is a single unit device providing one normal approach path and three discrete deviation indications. Note: The HAPI is closely associated with the safety of VTOL-capable aircraft operations. The system, when installed and used in the prescribed manner, will provide a safe margin, clear of all obstacles when on final approach. The HAPI may be installed on vertiports with different physical characteristics. (5) Type of signal (i) The signal format of the HAPI should include four discrete signal sectors, providing an above slope, an on slope, a slightly below slope and a below slope signal. (ii) The angle of elevation setting of the HAPI should be such that during an approach the pilot of a VTOL-capable aircraft observing the upper boundary of the below slope signal will clear all objects in the approach area by a safe margin. (iii) The light distribution of the HAPI in red and green colours should be as shown in Figure E-19, Illustration 4. Figure E-23. HAPI signal format (6) Setting angles (i) The centre of the plane of transition between the steady-red and green signals should be aligned precisely with the unit’s horizontal axis, see Figure E-23. The unit setting angle and the centre of the on-course sector are not the same. (ii) A HAPI system should be capable of adjustment in elevation to any desired angle between 1° and 12° above the horizontal with an accuracy of ±5 minutes of arc. (iii) The HAPI units should be so designed that in the event of a vertical misalignment exceeding ±0.5°, the system will switch off automatically. If the flashing mechanism fails, no light will be omitted in the failed flashing sectors. (iv) The HAPI system should maintain its setting angle when exposed to downwash and environmental conditions. (7) Brilliancy: a suitable intensity control should be provided so as to allow adjustment to meet the prevailing conditions and to avoid dazzling the pilot during approach and landing. (8) Obstacle considerations (i) The HAPI unit should not penetrate any OLS. (ii) An obstacle protection surface should be established when it is intended to provide a visual approach slope indicator system. The characteristics of this surface, i.e. origin, divergence, length and slope, should correspond to those in the relevant column of Table E-1 and Figure E-24. New objects or extensions of existing objects should not be permitted above an obstacle protection surface except when, after a safety assessment, it is determined the object would not adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of operations of VTOL-capable aircraft. Surface and dimensions FATO Length of inner edge Width of SA Distance from end of FATO 3 m minimum Divergence 10 per cent Total length 2 500m Slope: PAPI Aa-0.57° HAPI Ab-0.65° APAPI Aa-0.9° a. As indicated in EASA CS ADR-DSN.M.645, Figure M-4.b. The angle of the upper boundary of the 'below slope' signal. Table E-1. Dimensions of the obstacle protection surface (9) Existing objects above an obstacle protection surface should be removed except when the object is shielded by an existing immoveable object, and after a safety assessment, it is determined the object would not adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of operations of VTOL-capable aircraft. In cases where an existing object could adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of VTOL-capable aircraft operations, one or more of the following measures should be taken: (i) suitably raise the approach slope of the system; (ii) reduce the azimuth spread of the system so that the object is outside the confines of the beam; (iii) displace the axis of the system and its associated obstacle protection surface by no more than 5 degrees; and/or (iv) suitably displace the FATO and install a visual alignment guidance system. (10) The location and approach angle of the HAPI may be influenced by the presence of obstacles in the approach area. The area to be surveyed is shown in Table E-1 and Figure E-24. Note: the HAPlshould be located with the confines of the dotted lineseither side of theFATOunles the width of the 'obstacle protection surface'is adjusted accordingly. Figure E-24. Obstacle protection surface (11) The azimuth spread of the light beam should be suitably restricted where an object located outside the obstacle protection surface of the HAPI system, but within the lateral limits of its light beam, is found to extend above the plane of the obstacle protection surface and a safety assessment indicates that the object could adversely affect the safety of operations. The extent of the restriction should be such that the object remains outside the confines of the light beam. Note: Other systems meeting the objective of the PAPI, APAPI or HAPI may be used at vertiports. Further guidance on PAPI and APAPI light units are given in the ICAO Annex 14, Volume II, Heliports, ICAO Document 9261, Heliport Manual, and ICAO Document 9157, Part 4, Visual Aids. The characteristics of the lights are specified in ICAO Annex 14, Volume I, Aerodromes. PTS VPT-DSN.E.760 FATO lighting systems (a) The objective of a FATO lighting system on vertiports is to provide the pilot operating at night with an indication of the shape, location and extent of the FATO. (b) Applicability Where a FATO with a solid surface is established at a vertiport intended for use at night, FATO lights should be provided except that they may be omitted where the FATO and the TLOF are nearly coincidental or the extent of the FATO is self-evident. (c) Location FATO lights should be placed along the edges of the FATO. The lights should be uniformly spaced as follows: (1) For an area in the form of a square or rectangle, at intervals of not more than 50 m with a minimum of four lights on each side including a light at each corner; and (2) for any other shaped area, including a circular area, at intervals of not more than 5 m with a minimum of ten lights. (d) Characteristics (1) FATO lights should be fixed omnidirectional lights showing white or green. Where the intensity of the lights is to be varied, the lights should show variable white or green, see Figure E-25. (2) The light distribution of FATO lights should be as shown in Figure E-19, Illustration 4. (3) The lights should not exceed a height of 25 cm and should be inset when a light extending above the surface would endanger VTOL-capable aircraft operations. Where a FATO is not meant for lift-off or touchdown, the lights should not exceed a height of 25 cm above ground or snow level. Figure E-25. Lighting system for FATO at surface level PTS VPT-DSN.E.770 Aiming point lights (a) The objective of aiming point lights is to provide a visual cue indicating to the pilot by night the preferred approach/departure direction and, where the FATO is not intended for touchdown, the point to which the VTOL-capable aircraft approaches to a hover before positioning to a TLOF, where a touchdown can be made. (b) Applicability Where an aiming point marking is provided at a vertiport intended for use at night, aiming point lights should be provided. (c) Location Aiming point lights should be collocated with the aiming point marking. (d) Characteristics (1) Aiming point lights should form a pattern of at least six omnidirectional white lights as shown in Figure E-8. The lights should be inset when a light extending above the surface could endanger VTOL-capable aircraft operations. (2) The light distribution of aiming point lights should be as shown in Figure E-19, Illustration 4. (e) Solid state lights and filament light sources should conform to the chromaticity specifications in ICAO Annex 14, Volume I, Aerodromes, Appendix 1, 2.3.1 e) and 2.1.1 e) respectively. PTS VPT-DSN.E.780 TLOF lighting system (a) The objective of a TLOF lighting system is to provide illumination of the TLOF and required elements within. For a TLOF located within a FATO, the objective is to provide discernibility to the pilot, on a final approach, of the TLOF and required elements within; while for a TLOF located on a vertiport that is elevated, the objective is visual acquisition from a defined range and to provide sufficient shape cues to permit an appropriate approach angle to be established. (b) Applicability A TLOF lighting system should be provided at a vertiport intended for use at night. (c) Location (1) Where a TLOF is located in a stand, ambient lighting or stand floodlighting may be use. (2) TLOF perimeter lights should be placed along the edge of the area designated for use as the TLOF or within a distance of 1.5 m from the edge. Where the TLOF is a circle, the lights should be: (i) located on straight lines in a pattern which will provide information to pilots on drift displacement; and (ii) where (i) is not practicable, evenly spaced around the perimeter of the TLOF at the appropriate interval, except that over a sector of 45 degrees the lights should be spaced at half spacing. (3) TLOF perimeter lights should be uniformly spaced at intervals of not more than 3 m for vertiports that are elevated and not more than 5 m for vertiports at surface level. There should be a minimum number of four lights on each side including a light at each corner. For a circular TLOF where lights are installed in accordance with (ii) above, there should be a minimum of fourteen lights. (4) The TLOF perimeter lights should be installed at a vertiport that is elevated such that the pattern cannot be seen by the pilot from below the elevation of the TLOF. (5) On a vertiport at surface level, arrays of segmented point source lighting (ASPSL) or luminescent panels (LPs), if provided to identify the TLOF, should be placed along the marking designating the edge of the TLOF. Where the TLOF is a circle, they should be located on straight lines circumscribing the area. (6) On a vertiport at surface level, the minimum number of LPs on a TLOF should be nine. The total length of LPs in a pattern should not be less than 50 per cent of the length of the pattern. There should be an odd number with a minimum number of three panels on each side of the TLOF including a panel at each corner. LPs should be uniformly spaced with a distance between adjacent panel ends of not more than 5 m on each side of the TLOF. (7) When LPs are used on vertiports that are elevated to enhance surface texture cues, the LPs should not be placed adjacent to the perimeter lights. They should be placed around a TDPM or coincident with vertiport identification marking. (8) TLOF floodlights should be located so as to avoid glare to pilots in flight or to personnel working on the area. The arrangement and aiming of floodlights should be such that shadows are kept to a minimum. (9) ASPSL and LPs when used to designate the TDPM and/or heliport identification marking, should provide enhanced surface texture cues when compared to low-level floodlights. (d) Characteristics (1) The lighting for the TLOF in a FATO should consist of one or more of the following: (i) perimeter lights; (ii) floodlighting (for vertiports that are elevated, floodlighting should be omitted); (iii) ASPSL or LP lighting to identify the TLOF when (i) and (ii) are not practicable and FATO lights are available. (2) At vertiports that are elevated, surface texture cues within the TLOF are essential for VTOL-capable aircraft positioning during the final approach and landing. Such cues can be provided using various forms of lighting (ASPSL, LP, floodlights or a combination of these lights, etc.) in addition to perimeter lights. Combination of perimeter lights and ASPSL may be used in the form of encapsulated strips of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and inset lights to identify the TDPM and vertiport identification markings. (3) TLOF ASPSL and/or LPs to identify the TDPM and/or floodlighting should be provided at a surface-level vertiport intended for use at night when enhanced surface texture cues are required. (4) The TLOF perimeter lights should be fixed omnidirectional lights showing green. (5) At a surface-level vertiport, ASPSL or LPs should emit green light when used to define the perimeter of the TLOF. (6) The chromaticity and luminance of colours of ASPSL/LPs should conform to CS ADR-DSN.U.935 (d). (7) An LP should have a minimum width of 6 cm. The panel housing should be the same colour as the marking it defines. (8) The TLOF perimeter lights located within a FATO should not exceed a height of 5 cm and should be inset when a light extending above the surface could endanger VTOL-capable aircraft operations. The intensity and beam spread of the perimeter lights should comply with those in Figure E-19, Illustration 5. Solid state lights and filament light sources should conform to the chromaticity of CS ADR-DSN.U.930 (d) (3) and CS ADR-DSN.U.930 (a) (3), respectively. (9) TLOF perimeter light segments: ASPSL/LPs should be evenly spaced and emit green light when they are used to define the boundary of the area. The light distribution should be as shown in Figure E-19, Illustration 6. (10) When the ASPSL/LPs are within the TLOF and to avoid a trip hazard, the height of the lighting segments and any associated cabling should be as low as possible and not exceed 25 mm above the surface of the TLOF. The segments should not present any vertical outside edge greater than 6 mm without chamfering at an angle not exceeding 30° from the horizontal. (11) When located within the SA, the TLOF floodlights should not exceed a height of 25 cm. (12) The LPs should not extend above the surface by more than 2.5 cm. (13) The light distribution of the perimeter lights should be as shown in Figure E-19, Illustration 5. (14) The light distribution of the LPs should be as shown in Figure E-19, Illustration 6. (15) The spectral distribution of TLOF floodlights should be such that the surface and obstacle markings can be correctly identified. (16) The average horizontal illuminance of the floodlighting should be at least 10 lux, with a uniformity ratio (average to minimum) of not more than 8:1 measured on the surface of the TLOF. (17) Lighting used to identify the TDPC should comprise a segmented circle of omnidirectional ASPSL strips showing yellow. The segments should consist of ASPSL strips, and the total length of the ASPSL strips should not be less than 50 per cent of the circumference of the circle. (18) If utilised, the vertiport identification marking lighting should be omnidirectional showing green. (19) For a TLOF in any location, the lighting system should provide sufficient illumination of the surface to enable a pilot, when in close proximity to the TLOF, to identify and use the TDPM to accurately place the VTOL-capable aircraft. This is the basic level of illumination, for example, for the TLOF in a stand, where the objective may be met by the use of ambient lighting or apron or stand floodlighting. In addition, for a TLOF in a FATO, the lighting system should provide sufficient illumination to allow the pilot, when on the final approach, to distinguish the TLOF from other defined areas on the vertiport. (20) In addition to the above, for a TLOF in a FATO on a vertiport that is elevated, the lighting system should allow: (i) visual acquisition from a range that has been established with respect to the requirements of the vertiport; and (ii) provide sufficient shape cues to permit an appropriate approach angle to be established. Further guidance on TLOF lighting system is given in ICAO Document 9261, Heliport Manual. PTS VPT-DSN.E.790 Vertiport identification marking lighting (a) The objective of a vertiport identification marking lighting is to provide the pilot with an indication of the presence of a vertiport; with its form, likely usage; and, the preferred direction(s) of approach. (b) Applicability Where provided, the vertiport identification marking, letter ‘V’, should be outlined with edge lighting. (c) Characteristics (1) The ‘V’ should be outlined with green edge lighting consisting of subsections between 80 mm and 100 mm wide as shown in Figure E-26. The mechanical housing should be coloured white. (2) If a subsection is made up of individual lighting elements (e.g. LEDs), then they should be of nominally identical performance (i.e. within manufacturing tolerances) and be equidistantly spaced within the subsection to aid textural cueing. Minimum spacing between the illuminated areas of the lighting elements should be 3 cm and maximum spacing 10 cm. (3) If the subsection comprises a continuous lighting element (e.g. fibre optic cable, electro luminescent panel), then to achieve textural cueing at short range, the element should be masked at 3.0 cm intervals on a 1:1 mark-space ratio. Figure E-26. ‘V’ lighting (4) The white cross marking at vertiports located at hospitals should be lit using green rightangled lit chevron markings located adjacent to each of the four internal corners of the 9 m x 9 m white cross. Each chevron should be 1.5 m to 1.6 m x 1.5 m to 1.6 m in size and be spaced by 4.0 m to 4.5 m as shown in Figure E-27. (5) The cross marking should comprise subsections of between 80 mm and 100 mm width. Where applicable, the gaps between them should not be greater than 10 cm. The mechanical housing should be coloured white. (6) The vertiport identification marking lighting should be flush with the surrounding surface to protect accumulation of small fractions. Figure E-27. Vertiport cross lighting PTS VPT-DSN.E.800 The TLOF in a FATO lighting Lighting of the TLOF in a FATO at a vertiport at a surface level (a) The objective of a TLOF in a FATO lighting is to provide additional information to the pilot with an indication of a TLOF in an FATO. (b) Applicability Where provided, the lighting system should consist of one or more of the following: (1) perimeter lighting; (2) floodlighting (see Figure E-28); or (3) ASPSLs or LPs (on their own only when FATO lights are available, see Figure E-29). (c) Characteristics (1) ASPSL/LPs to identify the TDPM, vertiport identification marking and/or floodlighting (or perimeter lighting, where appropriate) should be provided for vertiport intended for use at night when enhanced surface texture cues are required. Figure E-28. Surface level FATO and TLOF with floodlighting Figure E-29. Surface level FATO with perimeter and TDPC lighting (2) Perimeter lights (i) Perimeter lights should be placed along the boundary of the TLOF or within a distance of 1.5 m from the outer edge and uniformly spaced at intervals of not more than 5 m. Figure E-30. Surface level vertiport perimeter and TDPC lighting (square TLOF) (ii) Where the TLOF is rectangular or square, there should be a minimum of four lights on each side including a light at each corner; this will result in a minimum of twelve lights (Figure E-30 shows a TLOF of 20 m which, because of minimum spacing requirements, has five lights on each side). Figure E-31. Vertiport at surface level perimeter and TDPC lighting (octagonal TLOF) (iii) Where the TLOF has more than four sides, there should be a minimum of three lights on each side including a light at each corner; this will result, for an octagonal TLOF, in sixteen lights as shown in Figure E-31. Figure E-32. Vertiport at surface level and TDPC lighting (circular TLOF) (iv) Where the TLOF is circular, the perimeter lights should be located on straight lines in a pattern which will provide information to pilots on drift displacement. Where it is not practicable to so locate the lights, they should be evenly spaced around the perimeter of the area at the appropriate interval except that over a sector of 45° the lights should be placed at half spacing as in Figure E-32 (where flight path alignment guidance lighting is provided, additional lights should not be necessary). There should be a minimum of fourteen lights. (v) Perimeter lights should be fixed omnidirectional lights showing green. The light distribution of perimeter lights should conform to that specified in Figure E-19, Illustration 5. (3) Perimeter light segments (i) ASPSL/LPs should be placed along the marking designating the edge of the TLOF and be equally spaced with a distance between adjacent panel ends of not more than 5 m. The total length of ASPSL/LPs in a pattern should not be less than 50 per cent of the length of the pattern. (ii) Where the TLOF is a rectangle or square, there should be a minimum of three ASPSL/LPs on each side of the TLOF with one at each corner as in Figure E-33. Figure E-33. Vertiport at surface level ASPSL/LPs (square TLOF) (iii) Where the TLOF is a circle, the panels should be located on straight lines circumscribing the area as in Figure E-34. There should be a minimum of nine ASPSL/LPs. Figure E-34. Vertiport at surface level ASPSL/LPs (circular TLOF) (iv) ASPSL/LPs should emit green light when they are used to define the boundary of the area, and the light distribution should be as shown in Figure E-19, Illustration 6. (4) Enhanced texture cue lighting (i) Floodlights should be located so as to avoid glare to pilots at the final stages of approach and landing and the arrangement and aiming of the lights should be such that shadows are kept to a minimum. (ii) The TDPM and/or the vertiport identification marking should be provided in accordance with PTS VPT-DSN.E.780 (d)(3) and PTS VPT-DSN.E.790, above. Lighting of the TLOF in a FATO at a vertiport that is elevated (d) The objective of the TLOF lighting system at a vertiport that is elevated is to provide visual acquisition from a defined range and to provide sufficient shape cues to permit an appropriate approach angle to be established. (e) Applicability Where provided, the lighting should consist of: (1) perimeter lights; and (2) (i) ASPL/LPs, to identify the TDPM; or (ii) floodlighting, to illuminate the TLOF. Note: Perimeter light segments may not be suitable for vertiports that are elevated because of limited conspicuity compared to perimeter lights. (f) Characteristics (1) Perimeter lights should be as specified in PTS VPT-DSN.E.800 (c) (2) above except that they should be installed at a spacing of not more than 3 m (see Figure E-35). (2) ASPSL/LPs or floodlighting should be provided at vertiports that are elevated to offer surface texture cues within the TLOF. These cues are essential to ensure accuracy of positioning for the VTOL-capable aircraft during the final approach and hover to landing. Figure E-35. Perimeter of a vertiport that is elevated, vertiport identification and TDPC lighting (3) When ASPSL/LPs are used on a vertiport that is elevated to enhance the surface texture cues, they should not be placed adjacent to the perimeter lights. Suitable locations include around a TDPM circle or coincident with the vertiport identification ‘V’ marking or cross marking (see Figure E-35). PTS VPT-DSN.E.810 Vertiport stand floodlighting (a) The objective of vertiport stand floodlighting is to provide illumination of the stand surface and associated markings to assist the manoeuvring and positioning of a VTOL aircraft, and to facilitate essential operations around the VTOL-capable aircraft. (b) Applicability Vertiport stand floodlighting should be provided on a stand intended to be used at night by VTOL-capable aircraft. (c) Location Vertiport stand floodlights should be located so as to provide adequate illumination, with a minimum of glare to the pilot of a VTOL-capable aircraft in flight and on the ground, and to personnel on the stand. The arrangement and aiming of floodlights should be such that a VTOLcapable aircraft stand receives light from two or more directions to minimise shadows. (d) Characteristics (1) The spectral distribution of stand floodlights should be such that the colours used for surface and obstacle marking can be correctly identified. (2) Horizontal and vertical illuminance should be sufficient to ensure that visual cues are discernible for required manoeuvring and positioning, and essential operations around the VTOL aircraft can be performed expeditiously without endangering personnel or equipment. Further guidance on stand floodlighting is given in ICAO Document 9157, Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 4, Visual Aids. PTS VPT-DSN.E.820 VTOL-capable aircraft stand lighting (a) The objective of the VTOL-capable aircraft stand lighting is to provide illumination of the stand surface and associated markings, assist the manoeuvring and positioning of a VTOL-capable aircraft, and allow essential operations around the VTOL-capable aircraft to be conducted safely. (b) Applicability VTOL-capable aircraft stand lighting should be provided with apron floodlighting or ambient lighting. (c) Location VTOL-capable aircraft stand floodlights should provide adequate illumination, with a minimum of glare to the pilot of a VTOL-capable aircraft in flight and on the ground, and to personnel on the stand. Floodlights should be arranged and aimed such that a VTOL-capable aircraft stand receives light from two or more directions to minimise shadows. (d) Characteristics (1) The spectral distribution of stand floodlights should be such that the colours used for surface and obstacle marking can be correctly identified. (2) Horizontal and vertical illuminance should be sufficient to ensure that visual cues are discernible for required manoeuvring and positioning, and essential operations around the VTOL-capable aircraft can be performed expeditiously without endangering personnel or equipment. Further guidance on apron floodlighting is given in ICAO Document 9157, Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 4, Visual Aids. PTS VPT-DSN.E.830 VTOL-capable aircraft taxiway/air taxi-route lighting (a) Applicability: The specifications for taxiway centre line lights and taxiway edge lights, provided in CS-ADR-DSN, are equally applicable to taxiways intended for ground taxiing of VTOL-capable aircraft. (b) Characteristics: (1) The taxiway/air taxi-route lighting provides illumination of the markings or markers. (2) VTOL-capable aircraft taxiways should be lighted in the same manner as a taxiway meant for use by aeroplanes (see CS-ADR-DSN). (3) When not collocated with a taxiway, air taxi-route markings should be lighted as for taxiways; air taxi-route markers should be internally illuminated or rendered retroreflective. PTS VPT-DSN.E.840 Visual aids for denoting obstacles outside and below the obstacle limitation surface Applicability (a) Arrangements for a safety assessment of objects outside the OLSs (obstacle-free volume) and for other objects are addressed in CS-ADR-DSN. (b) Where a safety assessment indicates that obstacles in areas outside and below the boundaries of the OLSs and ‘obstacle-free volume’ characteristics established for a vertiport constitute a hazard to VTOL-capable aircraft, they should be marked and lit, except that the marking may be omitted when the obstacle is lighted with high-intensity obstacle lights by day. (c) Where a safety assessment indicates that overhead wires or cables crossing a river, waterway, valley, or highway constitute a hazard to VTOL-capable aircraft, they should be marked, and their supporting towers marked and lit. PTS VPT-DSN.E.850 Floodlighting of obstacles (a) Applicability (1) At a vertiport intended for use at night, obstacles should be floodlighted if it is not possible to display obstacle lights on them. (2) An obstacle at a vertiport should be lit in the same manner as at an aerodrome; see the certification specifications in CS-ADR-DSN. (3) Where a vertiport is isolated or rarely used and to avoid unnecessary light pollution, obstacle lighting may be activated at the time of use. (b) Characteristics (1) Obstacle floodlights should be arranged to illuminate the entire obstacle and as far as practicable in a manner so as not to dazzle pilots. (2) Obstacle floodlighting should be such as to produce a luminance of at least 10 cd/m2. (3) It is preferable for some structures, such as trees and towers, to be illuminated by floodlights as an alternative to fitting intermediate steady red lights, provided that the lights are arranged such that they adequately illuminate the structure and do not dazzle the pilot. CHAPTER F — EN-ROUTE ALTERNATE VERTIPORT FOR CONTINUED SAFE FLIGHT AND LANDING (CSFL) PTS VPT-DSN.F.900 General Rationale: For a VTOL-capable aircraft certification and operation, an obligation on VTOL-capable aircraft operators is to identify in flight planning en-route alternate vertiports where they could, for example, and after experiencing an abnormal condition or situation while on route, which are as follows: (a） VTOL-capable aircraft that are certified in the enhanced category would have to meet requirements for continued safe flight and landing (CsFL) and be able to continue to the original intended destination or a suitable alternate vertiport after failure.1 (c) The pilot in command shall select and specify in the operational flight plan and, if so required, also in the ATs flight plan one or more en-route alternate aerodromes at which an VTOL- capable aircraft will be able to land if a diversion becomes necessary while en-route.² Rationale point (c): new texts tailored to VTOL-capable aircraft Ref.: CAT.OP.MPA.181 Selection of aerodromes and operating sites – helicopters + This IR covers manned and unmanned operations with passengers and cargo deliveries. The latter is possible also to operating sites. + The en-route alternate aerodrome/operating site is an adequate aerodrome/operating site along the route, which is required at the planning stage for contingency planning purposes. + An 'alternate aerodrome' means an adequate aerodrome to which an aircraft may proceed  The location of the selected en-route alternate aerodrome would depend on the aircraft certified performance*, fuel/energy supply system endurance**, obstacles, C2 link if applicable, winds, etc. (*)VTOL aircraft in the enhanced category must meet requirements for continued safe flight and landing (CSFL) and be able to continue to the original intended destination or a suitable alternate vertiport after a CFP. Emergency landing is excluded from these considerations as it may be carried out at any possible location, not necessarily aerodrome/operating site. (**) fuel/energy supply system endurance (time) is appr. = lift/fuel energy consumption; at any given moment endurance also depends on aircraft size, weight, payload, aerodynamic performance, speed.  The slide below (see Figure 1) depicts the two types of en-route alternate aerodromes that may be selected: o In yellow colour — a normal adequate aerodrome (heliport or vertiport), from where the VTOL can subsequently take off, which meets all D-values and has a full range of facilities and services required for the operation. o In blue colour — an adequate aerodrome (heliport or vertiport), from where the VTOL may not subsequently take off, which meets all D-values but has only a minimum set of facilities and services (to be specified).  ICAO Annex 6, Part IV [sic], para 4.3.4.2 En-route alternate aerodrome, specifies: En-route alternate aerodromes shall be selected and specified in the operational and air traffic services (ATS) flight plans. Recommendation. — When conducting operations beyond 60 minutes from a point on a route to an en-route alternate, operators should ensure that: a) en-route alternates are identified; and b) the (remote) PIC has access to current information on the identified en-route alternates, including operational status and meteorological conditions.1 (d) AMC UAM.OP.VTA.160 (c) (a) The take-off alternate or the destination alternate aerodrome or operating site may be considered as en-route alternates. (b) The operator of a VTOL-capable aircraft should ensure that the (remote) PIC has access to current information on the identified en-route alternates, including operational status and meteorological conditions. (e) GM UAM.OP.VTA.160 (c) The location of the selected en-route alternate aerodrome/operating site should be established on the basis of aircraft certified performance, fuel/energy supply system endurance, C2 link quality, obstacles, prevailing winds. The location should be acceptable to the competent authority. (a) Objective (1) When en-route alternate vertiport for CSFL is required by OPS rules, the objective is to provide a vertiport to which a VTOL-capable aircraft would be able to land after experiencing an abnormal condition or situation while on route. (2) VPT-PTS-DSN provides a minimum set of criteria that a vertiport would need to meet to achieve the standards required to be considered by a VTOL-capable aircraft operator as a suitable en-route alternate for CSFL. (3) VPT-PTS-DSN provides a set of design guidelines against which vertiport could be judged to be suitable or not by a VTOL-capable aircraft operator for operations when planning flights. (c) Applicability Relevant information about en-route alternate vertiport for CSFL should be made available to enable a VTOL-capable aircraft operator to identify suitable en-route alternate vertiports for CSFL when planning flights. (d) Location Different. (e) Characteristics For a vertiport to be considered to be a suitable en-route alternate vertiport for CSFL, the following characteristics should be provided: (1) Physical characteristics (i) Final-approach and take-off areas (FATOs) (see PTS VPT-DSN.C.210) (ii) Safety areas (see PTS VPT-DSN.C.220) (iii) Touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) (see PTS VPT-DSN.C.260) (2) Obstacle environment (i) Approach surface (see PTS VPT-DSN.D.410) (ii) Obstacle-free volume (see Chapter D, Subpart 2). (3) Visual aids (i) Wind direction indicator (see PTS VPT-DSN.E.510) and a means of providing in real time meteorological information at the vertiport to the VTOL-capable aircraft operator (ii) Vertiport identification marking (see PTS VPT-DNS.E.520) (iii) FATO perimeter marking or markers (see PTS VPT-DSN.E.560) (iv) Aiming point marking (see PTS VPT-DSN.E.580) (v) TLOF perimeter marking (see PTS VPT-DSN.E.590) If night VFR operations are intended: (vi) Lights — general (see PTS VPT-DSN.E.700) (vii) FATO lighting systems (see PTS VPT-DSN.E.760) (viii) Aiming point lights (see PTS VPT-DSN.E.770) (ix) TLOF lighting system (see PTS VPT-DSN.E.780) (x) Floodlighting of obstacles (see PTS VPT-DSN.E.850) (4) Means of Escape: (refer to ICAO, Annex 14, Volume II, and Document 9261, Heliport Manual). (5) Emergency procedures and RFFS: (refer to ICAO, Annex 14, Volume II, and Document 9261, Heliport Manual). Figure F-1. En-route alternate vertiport for CSFL CHAPTER G — EMERGENCY PROCEDURES AND RFFS PTS VPT-DSN.G.1000 General Rationale The establishment of emergency procedure and rescue and firefighting (RFF) services at heliports is provided in ICAO Annex 14, Volume II, Heliports and ICAO Document 9261, Heliport Manual, in accordance with a risk assessment, which is based on the construction of the heliport and helicopter, which is expected to be similar to VTOL-capable aircraft. However, VTOL-capable aircraft are powered by lithium-ion batteries, hydrogen fuel, or similar and the issue is whether the current RFF specifications for the heliports and aerodromes are adequate for the RFF solutions dealing with VTOL-capable aircraft fires. Currently, for heliports, this is geared towards fighting kerosene fires and would be rather ineffective at putting out battery fires. As VTOL-capable aircraft will mostly be powered by lithium-ion batteries, hydrogen or similar fuel, it would make sense that the current RFF recommendations are updated for vertiports and VTOL-capable aircraft. PTS VPT-DSN.G.1010 Hazard area Note: Hazard area: some VTOL-capable aircraft, for example, those equipped with lithium-ion batteries, may not have the capability to extinguish an onboard fire and may thus need to land while venting the fire overboard. There may be other areas around the aircraft where a hazard to persons or equipment may exist; for example, due to moving surfaces or engine exhaust. These hazard areas are identified and depicted in the aircraft flight manual (AFM) (see example below) and should be considered when designing the vertiport; in particular the elements of Chapter C ‘Physical characteristics’, Chapter D ‘Obstacle environment’ and this Chapter G ‘Emergency procedures and RFFS’. Significant mean winds or other local characteristics may also warrant an extension of certain hazard areas. Figure G-1. Example of VTOL-capable aircraft hazard area Vertiport emergency response Disclaimer As regards vertiport emergency response, EASA has not yet developed provisions. Below, for reference, the current ICAO material applicable for heliports and helicopters in its original version is provided. The ICAO material along with other available documents will be reviewed by EASA during the dedicated rulemaking task (RMT.0230 Drones) to ensure appropriate detailed provisions for vertiport emergency procedures. ICAO Annex 14, Volume II, Heliports, (5 edition, July 2020) CHAPTER 6. HELIPORT EMERGENCY RESPONSE 6.1 Heliport emergency planning Introductory Note.— Heliport emergency planning is the process of preparing a heliport to cope with an emergency that takes place at the heliport or in its vicinity. Examples of emergencies include crashes on or off the heliport, medical emergencies, dangerous goods occurrences, fires and natural disasters. The purpose of heliport emergency planning is to minimize the impact of an emergency by saving lives and maintaining helicopter operations. The heliport emergency plan sets out the procedures for coordinating the response of heliport agencies or services (air traffic services unit, firefighting services, heliport administration, medical and ambulance services, aircraft operators, security services and police) and the response of agencies in the surrounding community (fire departments, police, medical and ambulance services, hospitals, military, and harbour patrol or coast guard) that could be of assistance in responding to the emergency. 6.1.1 A heliport emergency plan shall be established commensurate with the helicopter operations and other activities conducted at the heliport. 6.1.2 The plan shall identify agencies which could be of assistance in responding to an emergency at the heliport or in its vicinity. 6.1.3 Recommendation.— The heliport emergency plan should provide for the coordination of the actions to be taken in the event of an emergency occurring at a heliport or in its vicinity. 6.1.4 Recommendation.— Where an approach/departure path at a heliport is located over water, the plan should identify which agency is responsible for coordinating rescue in the event of a helicopter ditching and indicate how to contact that agency. 6.1.5 Recommendation.— The plan should include, as a minimum, the following information: a) the types of emergencies planned for; b) how to initiate the plan for each emergency specified; c) the name of agencies on and off the heliport to contact for each type of emergency with telephone numbers or other contact information; d) the role of each agency for each type of emergency; e) a list of pertinent on-heliport services available with telephone numbers or other contact information; f) copies of any written agreements with other agencies for mutual aid and the provision of emergency services; and g) a grid map of the heliport and its immediate vicinity. 6.1.6 Recommendation.— All agencies identified in the plan should be consulted about their role in the plan. 6.1.7 Recommendation.— The plan should be reviewed and the information in it updated at least yearly or, if deemed necessary, after an actual emergency, so as to correct any deficiency found during an actual emergency. 6.1.8 Recommendation.— A test of the emergency plan should be carried out at least once every three years. ICAO Doc, 9261, Heliport Manual, Fifth edition, 2021 HELIPORT EMERGENCY RESPONSE 6.1 HELIPORT EMERGENCY PLANNING 6.1.1 General 6.1.1 Heliport emergency planning is the process of preparing a heliport to cope with an emergency that takes place at the heliport or in its vicinity. This process minimizes the impact of an emergency by saving lives and restoring the heliport to normal operations as soon as practical. 6.1.2 Every heliport should establish an emergency plan commensurate with the complexity of helicopter operations and of other activities conducted at, or in the vicinity of, the heliport to deal with helicopter emergency situations. 6.1.3 The plan should include a set of instructions dealing with the arrangements designed to meet emergency conditions and steps that should be taken to see that the provisions of the instructions are periodically tested. 6.1.2 Plan contents 6.1.2.1 Type of emergencies 6.1.2.1.1 The heliport emergency plan should include possible emergencies to plan for and how to initiate the plan for each emergency. 6.1.2.1.2 Possible emergencies: a) may involve aircraft: accidents; i) helicopter on-heliport; and ii) helicopter off-heliport (in the vicinity): – land; and – water; incidents; i) helicopter on ground; ii) sabotage including bomb threat; and iii) unlawful seizure; b) not involving helicopter: fire on the building and/or nearby buildings; sabotage including bomb threat; natural disaster; dangerous goods occurrences; and medical emergencies; c) compound emergencies: helicopter/structures; helicopter/fuelling facilities; helicopter/helicopter; and helicopter/aeroplane 6.1.2.1.3 The aircraft emergencies for which services may be required are generally classified as: a) local standby: when a helicopter approaching the heliport is known, or is suspected, to have developed some defect, but the problem is not such as would normally involve any serious difficulty in effecting a safe landing; b) full emergency: when it is known that a helicopter approaching the heliport is, or is suspected to be, in such trouble that there is danger of an accident; and c) helicopter accident: a helicopter accident which has occurred on or in the vicinity of the heliport. 6.1.2.2 Cooperating agencies 6.1.2.2.1 The heliport emergency plan should identify agencies that could assist or respond to an emergency at the heliport or in its vicinity. Names of agencies on and off the heliport, for each type of emergency, with telephone numbers or other contact information, should be included. The plan should also identify the role of each agency for each type of emergency, and a list of pertinent onheliport services available with telephone numbers or other contact information. 6.1.2.2.2 The heliport emergency plan should set out the procedures for coordinating the response of heliport agencies or services (air traffic services unit, firefighting services, heliport administration, medical and ambulance services, aircraft operators, security services and police) and the response of agencies in the surrounding community (fire departments, police, medical and ambulance services, hospitals, military and harbour patrol and/or coastguard agencies). Copies of any written agreements with other agencies for mutual aid and the provision of emergency services should be contained within the emergency plan. 6.1.2.3 Specified locations 6.1.2.3.1 The emergency organization should specify rendezvous point(s) and staging area(s) for the assisting services involved. A rendezvous point is a prearranged reference point, i.e. road junction, crossroads or other specified place, to which personnel or vehicles responding to an emergency situation initially proceed to receive directions to staging areas and/or the accident or incident site. 6.1.2.3.2 It is recommended that two grid maps (or equivalent) be provided: one map depicting the confines of heliport access roads, location of water supplies, rendezvous points, staging areas, railways, highways, difficult terrain, places with dangerous goods or harmful fluids, etc., and the other map of surrounding communities depicting appropriate medical facilities, access roads, rendezvous points, etc., within a distance of approximately 4 km from the heliport reference point. Where more than one grid map (or equivalent) is used, the scaling lines should not conflict and should be immediately identifiable to all participating agencies. 6.1.2.3.3 Copies of the map(s) should be kept at the emergency operations centre, the heliport operations office, heliport and local fire stations in the vicinity, all local hospitals, police stations, local telephone exchanges, and other similar emergency and information centres in the area. 6.1.2.4 Emergencies in difficult environments 6.1.2.4.1 The heliport emergency plan should include the availability of, and coordination with, appropriate specialist rescue services to respond to emergencies where a heliport is located close to water or swampy areas and/or where a significant portion of approach or departure operations takes place over these areas. 6.1.2.4.2 At those heliports located close to water, swampy areas or difficult terrain, the heliport emergency plan should include the establishment, testing and assessment at regular intervals of a predetermined response for the specialist rescue services. 6.1.2.5 Review and testing of the heliport emergency plan 6.1.2.5.1 The heliport emergency plan should be reviewed and its information updated at least yearly. After an actual emergency, a review of the heliport emergency plan should be conducted to identify any deficiencies arising as a result of the actual emergency. 6.1.2.5.2 The emergency plan should be regularly tested and should include the agencies identified in 6.1.2.2. Rescue and firefighting services (RFFS) Disclaimer: As regards vertiport emergency response, EASA has not yet developed provisions. Below, for reference, are provided the current ICAO material applicable for heliports and helicopters in its original version. The ICAO material along with other available documents will be reviewed by EASA during the dedicated rulemaking task (RMT.0230 Drones) to ensure appropriate detailed provisions for vertiport emergency procedures. ICAO Annex 14, Volume II, Heliports, (5th edition, July 2020) CHAPTER 6. HELIPORT EMERGENCY RESPONSE 6.2 Rescue and firefighting Introductory Note.— It is important this section be read in conjunction with the appropriate detailed guidance on rescue and firefighting options given in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261). Provisions described in this section are intended to address incidents or accidents within the heliport response area only. No dedicated firefighting provisions are included for helicopter accidents or incidents that may occur outside the response area, such as on an adjacent roof near an elevated heliport. Complementary agents are ideally dispensed from one or two extinguishers (although more extinguishers may be permitted where high volumes of an agent are specified, e.g. H3 operations). The discharge rate of complementary agents needs to be selected for optimum effectiveness of the agent used. When selecting dry chemical powders for use with foam, care needs to be exercised to ensure compatibility. Complementary agents need to comply with the appropriate specifications of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Where a fixed monitor system (FMS) is installed, trained monitor operators, where provided, are positioned on at least the upwind location to ensure primary media is directed to the seat of the fire. For a ring-main system (RMS) practical testing has indicated that these solutions are only guaranteed to be fully effective for TLOFs up to 20 m diameter. If the TLOF is greater than 20 m, an RMS should not be considered unless supplemented by other means to distribute primary media (e.g. additional popup nozzles installed in the centre of the TLOF). The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) sets forth provisions on rescue and firefighting (RFF) arrangements for purpose-built and non-purpose-built shipboard heliports in SOLAS regulations II 2/18, II-2-Helicopter Facilities, and the SOLAS Fire Safety Systems Code. It may therefore be assumed that this chapter does not include RFF arrangements for purpose built or non-purpose-built shipboard heliports or for winching areas. 6.2.1 Applicability 6.2.1.1 The following specifications shall apply to new builds or replacement of existing systems or part thereof from 1 January 2023: 6.2.2.1, 6.2.3.3, 6.2.3.4, 6.2.3.6, 6.2.3.7, 6.2.3.9, 6.2.3.10, 6.2.3.12, 6.2.3.13 and 6.2.4.2. Note.— For areas for the exclusive use of helicopters at aerodromes primarily for the use of aeroplanes, distribution of extinguishing agents, response time, rescue equipment and personnel have not been considered in this section. See Annex 14, Volume I, Chapter 9. 6.2.1.2 Rescue and firefighting equipment and services shall be provided at helidecks and at elevated heliports located above occupied structures. 6.2.1.3 Recommendation.— A safety risk assessment should be performed to determine the need for RFF equipment and services at surface-level heliports and elevated heliports located above unoccupied structures. Note.— Further guidance on factors to inform the safety risk assessment, including staffing models for heliports with only occasional movements and examples of unoccupied areas that may be located beneath elevated heliports, is given in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261). 6.2.2 Level of protection provided 6.2.2.1 For the application of primary media, the discharge rate (in litres/minute) applied over the assumed practical critical area (in m2) shall be predicated on a requirement to bring any fire which may occur on the heliport under control within one minute, measured from activation of the system at the appropriate discharge rate. Practical critical area calculation where primary media is applied as a solid stream Note.— This section is not applicable to helidecks regardless of how primary media is being delivered. 6.2.2.2 Recommendation.— The practical critical area should be calculated by multiplying the helicopter fuselage length (m) by the helicopter fuselage width (m) plus an additional width factor (W1) of 4 m. Categorization from H0 to H3 should be determined on the basis of the fuselage dimensions in Table 6-1. Note 1.— For helicopters which exceed one or both of the dimensions for a category H3 heliport, it will be necessary to recalculate the level of protection using practical critical area assumptions based on the actual fuselage length and the actual fuselage width of the helicopter plus an additional width factor (W1) of 6 m. Note 2.— The practical critical area may be considered on a helicopter type-specific basis by using the formula in 6.2.2.2. Guidance on practical critical area in relation to the heliport firefighting category is given in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261) where a discretionary 10 per cent tolerance on fuselage dimension “upper limits” is applied. Table 6-1. Heliport firefighting category Category (d) Maximum fuselage length (2) Maximum fuselage width (3) H0 up to but not including 8 m 1.5 H1 from 8 m up to but not including 12 m 2 H2 from 12 m up to but not including 16 m 2.5 H3 from 16 m up to 20 m 3 Practical critical area calculation where primary media is applied in a dispersed pattern 6.2.2.3 Recommendation.— For heliports, except helidecks, the practical critical area should be based on an area contained within the heliport perimeter, which always includes the TLOF, and to the extent that it is load-bearing, the FATO. 6.2.2.4 Recommendation.— For helidecks, the practical critical area should be based on the largest circle capable of being accommodated within the TLOF perimeter. Note.— Paragraph 6.2.2.4 is applied for the practical critical area calculation for helidecks regardless of how primary media is being delivered. 6.2.3 Extinguishing agents Note 1.— Throughout section 6.2.3, the discharge rate of a performance level B foam is assumed to be based on an application rate of 5.5 L/min/m2, and for a performance level C foam and for water, is assumed to be based on an application rate of 3.75 L/min/m2. These rates may be reduced if, through practical testing, a State demonstrates that the objectives of 6.2.2.1 can be achieved for a specific foam use at a lower discharge rate (L/min). Note 2.— Information on the required physical properties and fire extinguishing performance criteria needed for a foam to achieve an acceptable performance level B or C rating is given in the Airport Services Manual (Doc 9137), Part 1. Surface level heliports with primary media applied as a solid stream using a portable foam application system (PFAS) Note.— Except for a limited-sized surface-level heliport, the assumption is made that foam dispensing equipment will be transported to the incident or accident location on an appropriate vehicle (a PFAS). 6.2.3.1 Recommendation.— Where a rescue and firefighting service (RFFS) is provided at a surfacelevel heliport, the amount of primary media and complementary agents should be in accordance with Table 6 2. Note.— The minimum discharge duration in Table 6-2 is assumed to be two minutes. However, if the availability of back-up specialist fire services is remote from the heliport, consideration may need to be given to increasing the discharge duration from two minutes to three minutes. Table 6-2. Minimum usable amounts of extinguishing agents for surface-level heliports Foam meeting performance level B Foam meeting performance level C Complementary agents Category (1) Water (L) Discharge rate foam solution/minute (L) Water (L) Discharge rate foam solution/minute (L) Dry chemical powder (kg) Gaseous media (kg) (2) 500 (3) 250 (4) 330 (5) 165 (6) 23 (7) 9 HO H1 800 400 540 270 23 9 H2 1200 600 800 400 45 18 1600 800 1100 550 90 36 H3 Elevated heliports with primary media applied as a solid stream using a fixed foam application system (FFAS) Note.— The assumption is made that primary media (foam) will be delivered through a fixed foam application system such as an FMS. 6.2.3.2 Recommendation.— Where an RFFS is provided at an elevated heliport, the amount of foam media and complementary agents should be in accordance with Table 6-3. Note 1.— The minimum discharge duration in Table 6-3 is assumed to be five minutes. Note 2.— For guidance on the provision of additional hand-controlled foam branches for the application of aspirated foam, see the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261). Table 6-3. Minimum usable amounts of extinguishing agents for elevated heliports Foam meeting performance level B Foam meeting performance level C Complementary agents Discharge rate foam solution/minute (L) Water (L) Discharge rate foam solution/minute (L) Dry chemical powder (kg) Gaseous media (kg) Category (1) Water (L) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) HO 1250 250 825 1350 165 270 23 9 H1 2000 400 2000 400 45 45 18 H2 3000 600 18 H3 4000 800 2750 550 90 36 Elevated heliports/limited-sized surface-level heliports with primary media applied in a dispersed pattern through an FFAS — a solid-plate heliport 6.2.3.3 Recommendation.— The amount of water required for foam production should be predicated on the practical critical area (m2) multiplied by the appropriate application rate (L/min/m2), giving a discharge rate for foam solution (in L/min). The discharge rate should be multiplied by the discharge duration to calculate the amount of water needed for foam production. 6.2.3.4 Recommendation.— The discharge duration should be at least three minutes. 6.2.3.5 Recommendation.— Complementary media should be in accordance with Table 6-3, for H2 operations. Note.— For helicopters with a fuselage length greater than 16 m and/or a fuselage width greater than 2.5 m, complementary media in Table 6-3 for H3 operations may be considered. Purpose-built elevated heliports/limited-sized surface-level heliports with primary media applied in a dispersed pattern through a fixed application system (FAS) — a passive fire retarding surface with water-only deck integrated firefighting system (DIFFS) 6.2.3.6 Recommendation.— The amount of water required should be predicated on the practical critical area (m2) multiplied by the appropriate application rate (3.75 L/min/m2) giving a discharge rate for water (in L/min). The discharge rate should be multiplied by the discharge duration to determine the total amount of water needed. 6.2.3.7 Recommendation.— The discharge duration should be at least two minutes. 6.2.3.8 Recommendation.— Complementary media should be in accordance with Table 6-3 for H2 operations. Note.— For helicopters with a fuselage length greater than 16 m and/or a fuselage width greater than 2.5 m, complementary media for H3 operations may be considered. Purpose-built helidecks with primary media applied in a solid stream or a dispersed pattern through a fixed foam application system (FFAS) — a solid-plate heliport 6.2.3.9 Recommendation.— The amount of water required for foam media production should be predicated on the practical critical area (m2) multiplied by the application rate (L/min/m2) giving a discharge rate for foam solution (in L/min). The discharge rate should be multiplied by the discharge duration to calculate the amount of water needed for foam production. 6.2.3.10 Recommendation.— The discharge duration should be at least five minutes. 6.2.3.11 Recommendation.— Complementary media should be in accordance with Table 6-3 to H0 levels for helidecks up to and including 16.0 m and to H1/H2 levels for helidecks greater than 16.0 m. Helidecks greater than 24 m should adopt H3 levels. Note.— For guidance on the provision of additional hand-controlled foam branches for the application of aspirated foam, see the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261). Purpose-built helidecks with primary media applied in a dispersed pattern through an FAS — a passive fire-retarding surface with water-only DIFFS 6.2.3.12 Recommendation.— The amount of water required should be predicated on the practical critical area (m2) multiplied by the application rate (3.75 L/min/m2) giving a discharge rate for water (in L/min). The discharge rate should be multiplied by the discharge duration to calculate the amount of water needed. Note.— Sea-water may be used. 6.2.3.13 Recommendation.— The discharge duration should be at least three minutes. 6.2.3.14 Recommendation.— Complementary media should be in accordance with Table 6-3 to H0 levels for helidecks up to and including 16.0 m and to H1/H2 levels for helidecks greater than 16.0 m. Helidecks greater than 24 m should adopt H3 levels. 6.2.4 Response time 6.2.4.1 Recommendation.— At surface-level heliports, the operational objective of the RFF response should be to achieve response times not exceeding two minutes in optimum conditions of visibility and surface conditions. Note.— Response time is considered to be the time between the initial call to the RFFS and the time when the first responding vehicle(s) (the service) is (are) in position to apply foam at a rate of at least 50 per cent of the discharge rate specified in Table 6-2. 6.2.4.2 Recommendation.— At elevated heliports, limited-sized surface-level heliports and helidecks, the response time for the discharge of primary media at the required application rate should be 15 seconds measured from system activation. If RFF personnel are needed, they should be immediately available on or in the vicinity of the heliport while helicopter movements are taking place. 6.2.5 Rescue arrangements Recommendation.— Rescue arrangements commensurate with the overall risk of the helicopter operation should be provided at the heliport. Note.— Guidance on rescue arrangements, e.g. options for rescue and for personal protective equipment to be provided at a heliport, is given in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261). 6.2.6 Communication and alerting system Recommendation.— A suitable alerting and/or communication system should be provided in accordance with the emergency response plan. 6.2.7 Personnel Note.— The provision of RFF personnel may be determined by use of a task/resource analysis. Guidance is given in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261). 6.2.7.1 Where provided, the number of RFF personnel shall be sufficient for the required task. 6.2.7.2 Where provided, RFF personnel shall be trained to perform their duties, and maintain their competence. 6.2.7.3 Rescue and firefighting personnel shall be provided with protective equipment. 6.2.8 Means of escape 6.2.8.1 Elevated heliports and helidecks shall be provided with a main access and at least one additional means of escape. 6.2.8.2 Recommendation.— Access points should be located as far apart from each other as is practicable. Note.— The provision of an alternative means of escape is necessary for evacuation and for access by RFF personnel. The size of an emergency access/egress route may require consideration of the number of passengers and of special operations such as helicopter emergency medical services that require passengers to be carried on stretchers or trolleys. ICAO Doc, 9261, Heliport Manual, Fifth edition, 2021 HELIPORT EMERGENCY RESPONSE 6.2 RESCUE AND FIREFIGHTING SERVICE (RFFS) Note 1.— The specifications addressed in this section need not be applied to new builds, or replacement of existing systems, or part thereof, until 1 January 2023. Note 2.— In the following text, the term ‘limited-sized heliport’ is used to describe a heliport where the firefighting capacity is concentrated at the FATO/TLOF and there is no requirement to move foam and/or water dispensing equipment. 6.2.1 Introduction 6.2.1.1 The principal objective of a rescue and firefighting response is to save lives. For this reason, the provision of a means of dealing with a helicopter accident or incident, occurring within the immediate vicinity (i.e. within the designated response area) of a heliport, assumes primary importance because it is within the response area that there are the greatest opportunities for saving lives by a dedicated heliport rescue and firefighting response. This will have to assume, at all times the possibility of, and need for, extinguishing a fire which may occur either immediately following a helicopter accident or incident, or at any time during a subsequent rescue phase. 6.2.1.2 The most important factors bearing on effective escape in a survivable helicopter accident are the speed of initiating a response and the effectiveness of that response. Where a heliport is located on top of a building that is occupied, it is also paramount, for the protection of inhabitants in the building beneath that any fire situation occurring at the heliport be rapidly brought under control. On a purpose-built heliport constructed of aluminium or steel, any effect the fire may have on the structural integrity of the helideck and/or its supporting structure has to be considered. In the event of a fire at a purpose-built heliport, a full structural analysis should be undertaken post-accident, and before helicopter operations are permitted to resume. 6.2.1.3 For a surface-level heliport, especially where it contains a remote FATO, a suitable vehicle may need to be provided to meet the response time objective stated in Annex 14, Volume II, Chapter 6. Where a heliport is located close to water, swampy areas or in difficult terrain and where a significant portion of the approach and departure operation takes place over these areas, an assessment will need to be carried out to determine if specialist RFFS equipment appropriate to specific hazards and risks should be made available. This may include, for example, a rescue boat. 6.2.1.4 Prior to selection of a dedicated heliport rescue and firefighting response (RFFR), the following should be considered: concept and definitions for the characteristics of helicopters; types of heliport facility they may be expected to operate to; and effective distribution of primary extinguishing agent to address a worst case crash and burn. 6.2.1.5 A heliport operator should also have a good understanding of emerging technologies that demonstrate effective methods for delivering primary extinguishing agents. To provide a speedy and effective response, a heliport operator should be able to determine the practical critical area, the response area and response time objectives for their facility. 6.2.2 Determining the required level of RFFS at a heliport 6.2.2.1 A risk assessment should be performed to first determine whether there is a need for rescue and firefighting equipment and services at surface level heliports and at elevated heliports located above unoccupied structures. This assessment should include staffing models for heliports without a dedicated RFFS and with only occasional movements, and for initiating the heliport emergency response. 6.2.2.4 The following factors need to be considered in any risk assessment, but it is the responsibility of the State of Operation to determine appropriate threshold limits, including: a) number of movements planned/ unplanned; b) frequency of movements; c) total number of helicopters in use at the site during peak periods; d) type of movements, i.e. whether conducting commercial air transport (CAT) and/or general aviation (GA); e) number of passengers; f) types of helicopters in use, their certification status with respect to crashworthiness (see Appendix B to Chapter 6) and their performance characteristics; g) size and complexity of the response area, e.g. other helicopters are present in apron area; h) nature of the terrain, e.g. located near water or swampy areas; i) whether the heliport is elevated or at surface level; j) whether the heliport is in a congested or non-congested environment; k) availability of the local fire and rescue services, i.e. how rapidly can services respond to an incident on the heliport; l) types of helicopters and specific hazards, e.g. construction materials are used in airframes such as composites, i.e. man-made mineral fibres (MMMF); and m) whether or not an emergency response plan has been established. 6.2.3 Heliport staffing levels 6.2.3.1 The degree of complexity of the heliport and the emergency planning arrangements in place will help to inform heliport staff to execute the heliport emergency plan effectively. The number of personnel used and their given training, are decisions for heliport management and should be fully documented. In order to establish staffing levels, a task/resource analysis should be carried out. 6.2.3.2 The heliport emergency plan exists to identify agencies that could be of assistance in responding to an emergency at the heliport, or in its vicinity. This could include, but may not be limited to, a helicopter crash, whether or not resulting in a post-crash fire, or a medical emergency or a dangerous goods occurrence. If, due in particular to a low number of movements, a dedicated RFFS is not provided, whether at a surface level heliport or elevated heliport located above an unoccupied structure, there should be a specified method for invoking the heliport emergency plan. 6.2.3.3 Where present, designated personnel should invoke the heliport emergency plan. If the heliport is unattended, the heliport emergency plan should be activated remotely. 6.2.4 Level and method of protection 6.2.4.1 Helicopter characteristics and parameters to be considered 6.2.4.1.1 For the defined areas of a heliport, overall length and maximum take-off mass of the design helicopter are the critical parameters for a designer. For a dedicated firefighting service (FFS) at a heliport, the critical parameters are fuselage length and fuselage width. These dimensions are usually available in the helicopter’s Type Certificate and in the helicopter flight manual. 6.2.4.1.2 The fuselage consists of the central portion of the helicopter designed to accommodate the aircrew and the passengers and/or cargo. Fuselage length is often presented (conservatively) in flight manuals as the distance between the nose of the helicopter and the end of the tail boom, and fuselage width as the overall width of the occupied portion of the helicopter excluding the undercarriage. 6.2.4.2 Practical critical area 6.2.4.2.1 To determine the amount of water required for foam production it is first necessary to calculate a practical critical area (in m2) which is multiplied by the application rate (in L/min/m2) of the respective foam performance level to determine the discharge rate for foam solution (in L/min). By multiplying the discharge rate by the discharge duration, this determines the amount of water needed for foam production. 6.2.4.2.2 The assumptions used to determine practical critical area (helicopters) depend on whether primary extinguishing agent (usually foam) is initially applied in a solid stream (jet) application or in a dispersed (spray) pattern. 6.2.4.2.3 A solid stream is used for firefighting when range of application is essential. In this case the practical critical area is limited to the fuselage dimensions of the helicopter plus an additional width factor. Delivering foam solution for initial attack from a fixed monitor system (FMS) located on the periphery of the heliport, or from a hose-line, in a jet configuration, are examples of typical solid stream applications. In each case, once the fire has been brought under control during the initial attack, there is usually a facility to adjust the nozzle, changing the throughput of equipment from a solid stream application to a dispersed pattern, i.e. the nozzle is adjusted from a jet to a spray (fog) pattern. Where applicable, this provides a safer environment for rescue crews to approach the accident/ incident location. 6.2.4.2.4 The practical critical area (helicopters), where primary extinguishing agent is applied as a solid stream-jet, is determined by multiplying the maximum fuselage length for a given firefighting category (H0 to H3) by the maximum fuselage width of the same category, then applying an additional width factor (W1) of 4 m. Alternatively, by knowing the fuselage length and width dimensions, a practical critical area calculation can be applied to any specific type of helicopter; this has an application, in practice, when only one type of helicopter is being operated at a heliport. 6.2.4.2.5 A dispersed pattern is used at heliports when it is necessary to deliver foam and/or water at shorter ranges, combining greater coverage with a more effective surface application of the primary extinguishing agent. Here, due to the greater coverage of primary extinguishing agent applied in a dispersed spray pattern, the assumed practical critical area has to be much larger than in a case where primary extinguishing agent is applied in a solid stream (jet). A particularly effective way of delivering primary extinguishing agent in a dispersed pattern is through a Deck Integrated Fire Fighting System (DIFFS) typically consisting of a series of flush-mounted nozzles positioned over the surface of the practical critical area which, upon activation, are capable of delivering primary extinguishing agent to the entire loadbearing area of the heliport. 6.2.4.2.6 The practical critical area (helicopters) where primary extinguishing agent is applied in a dispersed (spray) pattern, is predicated on the dimensions of the operating area that needs to be protected. For an onshore purpose built, or limited-sized heliport (e.g. an elevated heliport at rooftop level), the practical critical area is assumed to accommodate the whole load-bearing area which always includes the TLOF, and to the extent that it is a load-bearing surface, the FATO also. In this case, the area to be considered is based on the specific shape of the TLOF, and where applicable, the shape of the FATO. 6.2.4.2.7 Another form of foam dispensing equipment, capable of delivering primary extinguishing agent in a dispersed pattern, is a ring-main system (RMS). In this case, equally spaced nozzles are located around the perimeter of the practical critical area, just above the surface, capable of directing extinguishing agent from the perimeter towards the centre of the landing area. Given the relative ranges at which nozzles are expected to perform, especially in windy conditions, it has been established through practical testing that sole use of an RMS has proven ineffective for TLOFs which are greater than 20 m diameter. In this case, an RMS could only be utilised effectively if supplemented by DIFF nozzles in the centre of the TLOF (a combination solution of RMS plus DIFFS). However, in the case of a large new-build heliport, it is probably more cost-effective and efficient, to provide a full DIFFS. 6.2.4.3 Fixed foam application systems (FFAS) 6.2.4.3.1 When installed at a heliport, a fixed foam application system (FFAS) should deliver a primary foam extinguishing agent at the required application rate and over the assumed practical critical area. An FFAS may include, but not necessarily be limited to, an FMS), a DIFFS or a RMS. A variation on an FFAS is a fixed application system (FAS) capable of applying water-only in a dispersed pattern. An FAS is only permitted when it is used in tandem with a passive fire-retarding surface. Note 1.— Where an FMS is installed, trained monitor operators, where provided, should be positioned on at-least the upwind location to ensure the primary extinguishing agent is directed efficiently to the seat of the fire. Note 2.— Compressed air foam systems (CAFS) may be considered, with foam distributed through a DIFFS using Performance Level B foam (BCAFS). Fire suppression capabilities are enhanced by injecting compressed air into the foam to generate an effective solution to control a fire on the heliport. This type of foam has a tighter, denser bubble structure than standard foams, which allows it to penetrate deeper into the fire before the bubbles are broken down. BCAFS rapidly controls a fire by smothering it (starving it of oxygen), by diminishing heat, using trapped air within the bubble structure, and by disrupting the chemical reaction needed for a fire to continue. Consequently, the opportunity presents to deliver BCAFS at a lower application rate than would otherwise be required for a Standard Level B foam. 6.2.4.3.2 An FFAS may be used at a limited-sized heliport where there is no requirement to physically move foam dispensing equipment towards the fire (hence the equipment is fixed in location). Where foam dispensing equipment is required to be moved towards the accident/ incident location, this is classed as a portable foam application system (PFAS). 6.2.4.4 Additional hand-controlled foam branches for the application of aspirated foam 6.2.4.4.1 Not all fires are capable of being accessed by fixed foam application systems (FFAS) delivering foam as a solid stream. Further, in certain scenarios, their use may endanger helicopter occupants who are seeking to escape from the fire. Therefore, in addition to solid stream FFAS, there should be the ability to deploy at least two deliveries with handcontrolled foam branch pipes for the application of aspirated foam at a minimum rate of 225-250 litres/minute through each hose line. 6.2.4.4.2 A single hose line, capable of delivering aspirated foam at a minimum application rate of 225- 250 litres/minute, may be acceptable where the hose line is a sufficient length, and the hydrant system of sufficient operating pressure for the effective distribution of foam to any part of the practical critical area, regardless of wind strength or direction. 6.2.4.4.3 Taking account of the open-air environment in which equipment is expected to perform, a low expansion foam should be used. An inline foam inductor is provided to induct the foam concentrate into the water stream to supply a proportioned solution of concentrate and water to foam producing equipment. The inline inductor should be set to the appropriate rate corresponding to the strength of the foam concentrate used e.g. 3 per cent or 6 per cent. 6.2.4.4.4 The hose line(s) provided should be capable of being fitted with a branch pipe able to apply water in the form of a jet or spray pattern for cooling, or for specific firefighting tactics. 6.2.4.5 Portable foam application systems (PFAS) 6.2.4.5.1 For some heliports, it becomes necessary to move primary extinguishing agent-dispensing equipment towards the accident or incident location, for example at a surface level heliport operating a remote FATO (analogous to a fixed wing runway operation at an airport, where the fire vehicle has to be positioned from a location remote to the runway). 6.2.4.5.2 The ability to transport the equipment to the accident location means it is classed as a PFAS which, having been moved to the fire location is then capable of distributing primary extinguishing agent at the required application rate over the assumed practical critical area. A PFAS may include, but not necessarily be limited to, hand-controlled portable foam branch pipes capable of being pulled across the heliport surface by trained personnel (see 6.2.4.4), and monitors or foam cannons that are mounted on an appropriate rescue and firefighting vehicle and then transported to the scene of an accident as part of the rescue and firefighting response for the heliport. 6.2.4.6 Solid plate heliports and passive fire-retarding surfaces 6.2.4.6.1 Most new-build purpose-built heliports are either constructed of aluminium or steel with aluminium or steel support structures. A solid plate surface is set to an appropriate fall or camber (typically 1:100) which allows burning fuel to drain across the solid surface of the heliport into a suitable drainage collection system, whether the fall or camber emanates from the centre of the TLOF or at the perimeter edge. 6.2.4.6.2 As an alternative to the solid-plate surface, many manufacturers now give an option to install a passive fireretarding surface which, at a purpose-built heliport is constructed in the form of a perforated surface or grating, containing numerous holes that allow burning fuel to rapidly drain through the surface of the heliport, in some cases to an intermediate safety screen and that functions to extinguish the fire (by starving it of oxygen) permitting, now un-ignited, fuel to drain away to a safe collection area. Other systems have no safety screen inside the deck chambers but function by removing the heat from a fire via novel hole sizes and patterns. 6.2.4.6.3 The good thermal conductivity of aluminium, coupled with the fuel flow profile, facilitates a rapid cooling effect on the burning fuel, extinguishing any fire that flows into the decking. These systems, when used in combination with a water-only DIFFS, have been demonstrated to show that any residual fire burning over the surface of the heliport remains insignificant given that the fuel source is constantly draining away to a safe area. 6.2.4.6.4 Where a passive fire-retarding surface is selected in lieu of a solid plate surface, the requirement to provide foam for primary extinguishing agent is removed since most of the fuel is directed immediately away from the surface restricting the intensity of the subsequent fire and what residual fire does remain above the surface is insignificant and can be extinguished with the use of water. 6.2.4.6.5 One of the issues with most passive systems is the year-round tendency to collect debris or contaminants which could result in a reduction of efficacy. The heliport maintenance program should include the regular inspection and clearing of such debris and contaminants. 6.2.4.7 Complementary agents 6.2.4.7.1 Complementary agents should ideally be dispensed from one or two extinguishers, although more containers may be permitted when high volumes of the agent are specified, e.g. for H3 operations. 6.2.4.7.2 The discharge rate of complementary agents should be selected for the optimum effectiveness of the agent used. When selecting dry chemical powder for use with foam, compatibility should be ensured. Complimentary agents should comply with the appropriate specifications of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 6.2.4.8 Fire control time 6.2.4.8.1 A fire is deemed to be under control at the point when the initial intensity of the fire is reduced by 90 per cent. The helicopter operation, consistent also with a fixed wing operation, should achieve a 1-minute control time in the practical critical area using a quantity of primary extinguishing agent for initial attack, over an appropriate discharge duration, which is required for the continued control of the fire thereafter, and/or for possible complete extinguishment of the fire and which may have spread across the heliport operating area. 6.2.4.8.2 Speed of response has an important bearing on the effectiveness of escape in a survivable helicopter accident. Intuitively, a prompt intervention will likely bring the fire under control more quickly if firefighting p 6.2.4.9 Summary of potential solutions Table II-6-2 contains a summary of the firefighting solutions presented in Annex 14, Volume II, Chapter 6; a quick guide/key summary is provided in Table II-6-3. Table II-6-2. Summary of firefighting options presented in Annex 14, Volume II Heliport type Application method Criticalarea assumptions Dischargeduration Primaryextinguishingagent Responsetime objective Surface level Solid streamPFAS FuselagedimensionsHO-H3 2 minutes Level B/C foam 2 minutes Elevated Solid streamFFAS/solid plate FuselagedimensionsHO-H3 5 minutes Level B/C foam 15 seconds Elevated/surface level Dispersed patternsolid plate TLOF +load-bearingFATO 3 minutes Level B/C foam 15 seconds Elevated/surface level Dispersed patternpassive surface TLOF +load-bearingFATO 2 minutes Water-only 15 seconds Table II-6-3. Quick guide/key PFAS Portable foam application system, e.g. hose-line, foam cannon on a rescuevehicle. FFAS Fixed foam application system, e.g. FMS, DIFFS, RMS. Solid stream application Foam delivered to a concentrated area in the form of a jet, e.g. foam monitors. Dispersed pattern application Foam delivered over a wider area from nozzles mounted in the deck surface,e.g. DIFFS. Solid plate surface Impervious to liquids. Passive fire-retarding surface Incorporates numerous drain holes to allow fuel (and other liquids) to drainthrough the surface. Fire control time The assumed fire control time in all cases is 1 minute from discharge ofprimary media at full application rate. The application rate for a Performance Level B foam is 5.5 L/min/m². The application rate for a Performance Level C foam and for water, is 3.75 L/min/m². 6.2.5 Meeting the response time objective 6.2.5.1 The most important factors bearing on effective escape in a survivable helicopter accident at a heliport are the speed of initiating a response and the effectiveness of that response. The response time for heliports can be defined as the period that lapses between the occurrence of the incident or accident and the first application of primary extinguishing agent to the fire, except for a surface-level heliport where primary extinguishing agent is applied as a solid stream from an appropriately equipped rescue and firefighting vehicle. In this case, response time is measured from the initial call to the RFFS to the time when the first responding vehicles are in place to apply foam at a rate of at least 50 per cent of the required discharge rate. 6.2.5.2 For an FFAS located at an elevated heliport, the initial response should be comparatively quick because primary extinguishing agent-dispensing equipment will already be located adjacent to the scene of the incident (or accident) and 100 per cent discharge capability can be achieved in a relatively short space of time (up to 15 seconds after activation of the system). However, where it is necessary to move primary extinguishing agent-dispensing equipment to the scene of the incident or accident (i.e. a PFAS located on a vehicle), the response time is likely to be more protracted (up to 2 minutes in optimum conditions of visibility and surface conditions). 6.2.5.3 Applying a common timeline to a similar scale incident or accident, which occurs either on a confined-area heliport, using a FFAS, or at a remote surface level FATO, where intervention is via an appropriately equipped rescue vehicle (PFAS), it is reasonable to assume that the fire situation occurring in the first case will be brought under control, or even extinguished, before a PFAS is even on-scene at a remote FATO on a surface-level heliport (where a 2 minute response time objective in optimum conditions is permitted). This means that the confined-area heliport is very favourably positioned when considering the most important factors bearing on effective escape in a survivable helicopter accident: the speed of initiating the response and the effectiveness of that response. 6.2.5.4 In considering the response area at a heliport, all areas used for the manoeuvring, landing, take-off, rejected take-off, ground taxiing, air-taxiing and parking of helicopters that are in the direct control of the heliport operator should be considered. At a limited-sized heliport, including surface level, the response area will usually be the TLOF, and when load bearing, the FATO. However, if a heliport is served by one or more taxiways linking to stands, the heliport operator will have to consider rescue and firefighting arrangements for each additional element of the response area that is under their control. 6.2.5.5 At a surface-level heliport laid out in a similar way to a fixed wing airport, with a remote FATO serviced by a taxiway system linking to an apron with one or more stands, the rescue and firefighting response will normally be provided by a PFAS, i.e. a specialist vehicle, and in this case, following an alarm, firefighting and rescue equipment will be moved directly to the scene of the incident or accident. 6.2.6 Rescue arrangements Rescue arrangements may include, but are not limited to, an assisted-rescue or self-rescue model predicated on the results of a risk assessment. Where a self-rescue model is promoted, it is especially important to establish the respective roles and interfaces between agencies on and off the heliport. This should form part of the heliport emergency plan and be periodically tested. 6.2.7 Communication and alerting system 6.2.7.1 A discrete communication system should be provided linking the rescue and firefighting service with central control and RFF vehicles (when provided). The mobilization of all parties and agencies required to respond to an aircraft emergency on a large heliport will require the provision and management of a complex communications system. The requirement is examined in the Airport Services Manual, Part 7 – Airport Emergency Planning, Chapter 12 (Doc 9137). 6.2.7.2 An alerting system for RFF personnel should be provided at their base facility and be capable of being operated from that location, at any other areas where RFF personnel congregate, and in the control tower (when provided). Examples include: a) direct telephone line to the rescue control center or service room of the rescue personnel; b) alarm button for direct alarm of the fire brigade; c) heat sensor for alarm and/or automatic switching of the extinguishing system; or d) monitored video surveillance. 6.2.7.3 Further detailed guidance on communication and alarm requirements is detailed in the Airport Services Manual, Part 1 – Rescue and Fire Fighting, Chapter 4 (Doc 9137). 6.2.8 RFFS personnel The provision of rescue and firefighting personnel should be determined using a task and resource analysis. Depending on the rescue model employed (whether an assisted or self-rescue model), sufficient dedicated heliport rescue and firefighting personnel should be provided with appropriate training and with personal protective equipment (PPE) to enable them to perform their duties effectively. 6.2.8.2 Rescue equipment 6.2.8.2.1 Guidance on minimum equipment inventory required to ensure effective rescue arrangements are in place at the heliport are listed in Table II-6-4. 6.2.8.2.2 Equipment should only be used by personnel who have received adequate information, instruction and training. Table II-6-4. Rescue equipment Adjustable wrench 1 Rescue axe, large (non-wedge or aircraft type) 1 Cutters, bolt 1 Crowbar, large 1 Hook, grab or salving 1 Hacksaw (heavy duty) and six spare blades 1 Blanket, fire resistant 1 Ladder (two-piece) * 1 Lifeline (5 mm circumference x 15 m in length) plus rescue harness 1 Pliers, side cutting (tin snips) 1 Set of assorted screwdrivers 1 Harness knife and sheath or harness cutters ** Man-Made Mineral Fibre (MMMF) Filter masks ** Gloves, fire resistant ** Power cutting tool*** 1 * For access to casualties in an aircraft that may be on its side, the ladder should be of an appropriate length. ** This equipment is required for each heliport crew member. *** Requires additional approved training by competent personnel. Equipment only specified for helicopters with a D-value above 24m. 6.2.8.3 Personal protective equipment (PPE) 6.2.8.3.1 Depending on the rescue model employed (whether an assisted or self-rescue model), sufficient dedicated heliport rescue and firefighting personnel should be provided with appropriate training and with PPE to enable them to perform their duties effectively. 6.2.8.3.2 Specific outcomes from a task-resource analysis would determine whether there is a requirement for RFF personnel to be provided with PPE, or whether given the specific rescue model in use (e.g. self-rescue, fixed automatic system), PPE is not required. 6.2.8.3.3 All responding RFF personnel should be provided with appropriate PPE and respiratory protective equipment (RPE) to allow them to carry out their duties in an effective manner. 6.2.8.3.4 Personnel qualified to operate the RFF equipment effectively should be dressed in protective clothing prior to helicopter movements taking place. In addition, equipment should only be used by personnel who have received adequate information, instruction and training. PPE should be accompanied by suitable safety measures, e.g. protective devices, markings and warnings. The specifications for PPE should meet one of the international standards shown in Table II-6-5. Table Il-6-5. Standards for PPE Item NFPA EN BS Helmet with visor NFPA 1971 EN443 BS EN 443 Gloves NFPA 1971 EN659 BS EN 659 Boots (footwear) NFPA 1971 ENISO 20345 EN ISO 20345 Tunic and trousers NFPA 1971 EN469 BS EN ISO 14116 Flash-hood NFPA 1971 EN 13911 BS EN 13911 6.2.8.3.5 Appropriate personnel should be appointed to ensure that all PPE is installed, stored, used, checked and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Facilities should be provided for the cleaning, drying and storage of PPE when crews are off duty. Facilities should be wellventilated and secure. 6.2.9 Means of escape A minimum of two access/egress points should be provided to give occupants of a helicopter the option to escape upwind of a helicopter fire. The provision of an alternative means of escape is necessary for evacuation and for access by rescue and firefighting personnel. The size of an emergency access/egress route may require consideration of the number of passengers and of special operations like helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) that require passengers to be carried on stretchers or trolleys. APPENDIX 1 — REFERENCE VALUE FOR VTOL-CAPABLE AIRCRAFT OBSTACLE PROTECTION For helicopter obstacle protection, the largest overall dimension of the aircraft is used when designing heliports. A key parameter for obstacle protection is however the diameter of the smallest enclosing circle as, by definition, it is the smallest circle in which the aircraft can fit, without hitting obstacles located outside the circle. This appendix will examine the relationship between these two parameters to determine which one is appropriate for VTOL obstacle protection. Notations: d = largest overall dimension D = diameter of the smallest enclosing circle x = longitudinal axis y = lateral axis (+ left) Assumptions: - the aircraft is symmetrical in y - the projection on a horizontal plane is considered Case 1: smallest enclosing circle defined by 2 points For some aircraft, it can be that the smallest enclosing circle is defined by 2 points (A and B on Figure 1). This is the case for helicopters where one point is the forward tip of the main rotor disk and the other one is the aft tip of the tail rotor disk or tail cone or tail rotor guard. Figure 1. Smallest enclosing circle defined by 2 points (A and B) In such case, the largest overall dimension is AB as well, thus: For helicopters, it does therefore not matter if referring to the largest overall dimension or the diameter of the smallest circle for obstacle protection, as they are equal. It is thus proposed to keep the existing definition for helicopters. Case 2: smallest enclosing circle defined by 3 points For some VTOL aircraft, the smallest enclosing circle may be defined by 3 points. An example is presented on Figure 2 with the 3 points A, B and B’. Figure 2. Smallest enclosing circle defined by 3 points (A, B and B’). We will consider a case where A is on the longitudinal axis, with the dimensions normalized on y so that the coordinates of the defining points are A (x,0), B (1,0) and B’ (-1,0) as can be seen on Figure 3. The largest overall dimension is assumed to be located within ABB’ (all points are within the dark blue arcs on Figure 2). Determining d: Let x0 be the value of x below which the largest overall dimension is BB’. ABB’ then define an equilateral triangle and we have: $$ \mathsf { B B ^ { \prime } } \mathsf { \bar { \Psi } } \mathrm { = } \mathsf { A B ^ { 2 } } \mathsf { = } \mathsf { X 0 } ^ { 2 } \mathsf { + } \mathsf { Y B } ^ { 2 } $$ $$ 2 ^ { 2 } = x _ { 0 } { } ^ { 2 } + 1 ^ { 2 } $$ $$ \times \infty = \sqrt { 3 } $$ If x ≤ x0 then AB ≤ BB’ thus d=2 • If x > x0 then d=AB $$ { \mathsf { d } } ^ { 2 } { \mathsf { = } } { \mathsf { x } } ^ { 2 } { \mathsf { + } } 1 ^ { 2 } $$ $$ { \mathsf { d } } { = } \sqrt { \mathbf { X } ^ { 2 } + 1 } $$ Figure 3. Coordinates of A, B and B’ and largest overall dimension limit value x0. Determining D: If x ≤ 1 then D=2, this is equivalent to case 1 • If x > 1 then Let R=D/2 and C be the center of the smallest enclosing circle As can be seen on Figure 4, we have R2=xC2+ yB2 and Figure 4. Center and radius of the smallest enclosing circle. thus $$ R ^ { 2 } = ( x - R ) ^ { 2 } + y _ { B } ^ { 2 } $$ $$ \scriptstyle \mathsf { R } = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left( x + \frac { y _ { B } ^ { 2 } } { x } \right) $$ $$ \mathsf { D } \boldsymbol { = } \boldsymbol { x } + \frac { \boldsymbol { 1 } } { \boldsymbol { x } } $$ Thus, for x ≤ x0 $$ \begin{array} { r } { \frac { D } { d } = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \Big ( x + \frac { 1 } { x } \Big ) } \end{array} $$ and for x > x0 $$ { \frac { D } { d } } = { \frac { x + { \frac { 1 } { x } } } { \sqrt { x ^ { 2 } + 1 } } } $$ $$ \boxed { \begin{array} { l } { \boxed { D } = \frac { \sqrt { x ^ { 2 } + 1 } } { x } } } \end{array} $$ D/d is plotted as a function of x on Figure 5. Figure 5. Ratio of the diameter of the smallest enclosing circle to the largest overall dimension as a function of x. (D/d)(x) is monotonically increasing before x0 and decreasing after, thus the maximum for D/d is reached for $\mathsf { x } = \mathsf { x } _ { 0 } = \sqrt { 3 }$ , and we obtain: $$ \left( { \frac { D } { d } } \right) _ { m a x } = { \frac { 2 } { \sqrt { 3 } } } $$ Case 3: smallest enclosing circle defined by 4 points In this case we are considering an aircraft geometry where the smallest enclosing circle is defined by 4 points A, A’, B and $\mathsf { B } ^ { \prime }$ as depicted on Figure 6. The dimensions are normalized on y, so that the coordinates of the defining points are A (x,y), A’ (x,-y), B (1,0), B’ (-1,0) The largest overall dimension is assumed to be located within AA’B’B (all points are within the dark blue arcs on Figure 6). Figure 6. Smallest enclosing circle defined by 4 points (A, A’, B and B’). Determining d: Figure 7. Largest overall dimension with y ≤ 1. $$ { \mathsf { d } } { = } \sqrt { x ^ { 2 } + ( \mathbf { y } + 1 ) ^ { 2 } } $$ If A’B ≤ BB’ then d=BB’ thus $$ { \mathsf { d } } { = } m a x ( \sqrt { x ^ { 2 } + ( \mathsf { y } + 1 ) ^ { 2 } } ; 2 ) $$ if y > 1 Figure 8: Largest overall dimension with y > 1. $$ \mathsf { d } = \sqrt { x ^ { 2 } + ( \mathsf { y } + 1 ) ^ { 2 } } $$ If $\mathsf { A } ^ { \prime } \mathsf { B } \leq \mathsf { A } \mathsf { A } ^ { \prime }$ then d=AA’ thus d=??????(√??2 + (y + 1)2; 2??) Hence $$ \boxed { \mathsf { d } \overline { { = m } } a x ( \sqrt { x ^ { 2 } + ( \mathbf { y } + 1 ) ^ { 2 } } ; 2 y ; 2 ) } $$ Determining D: Let R=D/2 and C be the center of the smallest enclosing circle. We will first determine the limit cases where the smallest enclosing circle would transition from being defined by 4 points (A. A’, B and B’) to being defined by 2 points (A and A’) or (B and B’), depending on the value of y: $$ \mathfrak { i f } \ \pmb { \mu } \leq \pmb { 1 } $$ Figure 9. Limit value for smallest enclosing circle with y ≤ 1. $| { \boldsymbol { \mathsf { f } } } { \sqrt { x ^ { 2 } + y ^ { 2 } } } \leq 1$ then D=2 and we are back to case 1 $\mathbf { \ i f } \ \pmb { \mu } > \mathbf { 1 }$ Figure 10. Limit value for smallest enclosing circle with y > 1. If $\sqrt { x ^ { 2 } + 1 } \leq y$ then D=2y and we are also back to case 1. For the other values of x and y: Figure 11. Center and radius of the smallest enclosing circle. $$ B C ^ { 2 } = R ^ { 2 } = ( C ^ { 2 } + y _ { B } ) ^ { 2 }\tag{1} $$ and $$ A C ^ { 2 } = \mathsf { R } ^ { 2 } = ( \mathsf { x } - \mathsf { x c } ) ^ { 2 } + \mathsf { y } ^ { 2 } $$ thus $$ x \circled { 2 } + y \circled { 8 } ^ { 2 } = ( 1 - x \circled { 2 } + y ^ { 2 } $$ $$ y _ { 8 } ^ { 2 } = x ^ { 2 } - 2 x x c + y ^ { 2 } $$ $$ 2 \times \times c = x ^ { 2 } + y ^ { 2 } - y _ { 8 } ^ { 2 } $$ $$ x _ { C } = { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \left( x + { \frac { y ^ { 2 } } { x } } - { \frac { y _ { B } ^ { 2 } } { x } } \right) $$ Substituting back in (1) $$ R = \sqrt { \frac { 1 } { 4 } \biggl ( x + \frac { y ^ { 2 } } { x } - \frac { y _ { B } ^ { 2 } } { x } \biggr ) ^ { 2 } + y _ { B } ^ { 2 } } $$ $$ R = { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \sqrt { \left( x + { \frac { y ^ { 2 } } { x } } - { \frac { y _ { B } ^ { 2 } } { x } } \right) ^ { 2 } + 4 y _ { B } ^ { 2 } } $$ $$ D = { \sqrt { \left( x + { \frac { y ^ { 2 } } { x } } - { \frac { 1 } { x } } \right) ^ { 2 } + 4 \ } } $$ Thus $$ \boxed { \begin{array} { r c l } { \displaystyle { \frac { D } { d } = \sqrt { \frac { \left( x + \frac { y ^ { 2 } } { x } - \frac { 1 } { x } \right) ^ { 2 } + 4 } { x ^ { 2 } + ( y + 1 ) ^ { 2 } } } } } \end{array} } $$ D/d is plotted as a function of x and y on Figure 12. Figure 12. Ratio of the diameter of the smallest enclosing circle to the largest overall dimension as a function of (x,y). The maximum is reached on the line y=0 corresponding to case 2 and providing the same value $\begin{array} { r } { \left( \frac { D } { d } \right) _ { m a x } = \frac { 2 } { \sqrt { 3 } } . } \end{array}$ Conclusion: In a more general manner, Jung’s theorem [1] states that the following relationship exists between the largest overall dimension and the diameter of the smallest enclosing circle: $$ d \leq D \leq { \frac { 2 } { \sqrt { 3 } } } d $$ $$ \boxed { 1 \leq \frac { D } { d } \leq \frac { 2 } { \sqrt { 3 } } } $$ $$ 1 \leq { \frac { D } { d } } \leq \sim 1 . 1 5 4 7 $$ This relationship was verified for 3 particular cases in this appendix. An example of difference between the largest overall dimension and the diameter of the smallest enclosing circle is provided on Figure 13. The equation above provides clarification if the largest overall dimension for obstacle protection is used, there could be a 15 % error in the unsafe direction. For VTOL aircraft, the dimension D used for obstacle protection and vertiport design is thus defined as: ‘D’ means the diameter of the smallest circle enclosing the VTOL aircraft projection on a horizontal plane, while the aircraft is in the take-off or landing configuration, with rotor(s) turning, if applicable. Figure 13. Example of unsafe difference between the largest overall dimension and the diameter of the smallest enclosing circle. FAA CASA 配套资料 CASA Advanced Air Mobility Considerations Innovation Hub Considerations for Aerodromes and Vertiports planning to operate Vertical Take-off and Landing Aircraft (VTOL) Acronyms and definitions for the purpose of this document Introduction As part of our Advanced Air Mobility Challenge, the CAA is in the process of determining the required technical and operational requirements to: • enable current licensed aerodromes to accommodate VTOL aircraft, and • enable bespoke ‘vertiports’ to operate VTOL aircraft We have conducted a gap analysis between existing UK regulations for licensed aerodromes and heliports, and vertiport guidance published by other bodies such as EASA, the FAA, and ICAO Annex 14 Volume II. Along with other considerations and industry feedback, this gap analysis will be used to determine the most appropriate standards to safely accommodate VTOL aircraft in the UK. These detailed specifications will be drafted and consulted on using our standard rulemaking process. This document is intended to serve as interim guidance to various stakeholders on what aspects they should begin to consider, and the other organisations they should initiate discussions with, to operate VTOL aircraft from existing aerodromes or bespoke vertiport facilities. It does not contain detailed specifications for infrastructure or operational requirements, but will hopefully allow industry, government, landowners, aerodromes, and the CAA to lay the groundwork in advance of the technical requirements being published in late 2024. Section A of this document provides a general overview of the initial stages of the aerodrome licensing process. Section B of this document contains other considerations for aerodrome licensing for VTOL operations. It is divided into roles and responsibilities that the CAA, Local Government, VTOL Operators and OEMs or Aerodromes/ Vertiports need to consider. Acronyms : AAM Advanced Air Mobility (the emergence of a novel transportation system) ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider ATM Air Traffic Management CAA Civil Aviation Authority EASA European Union Aviation Safety Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation MRO Maintenance, repair and overhaul OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer SMS Safety Management System Vertiport A type of aerodrome intended to be used for the arrival, departure, and ground movement of VTOL aircraft VTOL Vertical take-off and landing aircraft Considerations for Aerodromes and Vertiports planning to operate Vertical Take-off and Landing Aircraft (VTOL) Section A: Process for Licensing of Aerodromes Certain VTOL operations will need to take place from licensed aerodromes. A ‘vertiport’ will be defined as a subset of an ‘aerodrome’. The Air Navigation Order 2016 requires that in the United Kingdom most flights for the public transport of passengers take place at a licensed aerodrome or at a Government aerodrome. Vertiports intending to serve VTOL aircraft operations for the public transport of passengers may need a CAA licence. CAP 168: Licensing of Aerodromes (caa.co.uk) gives guidance to both applicants and licence holders and sets out the standards required at UK National licensed aerodromes relating to management systems, operational procedures, physical characteristics, assessment and treatment of obstacles, visual aids, rescue and fire-fighting services (RFFS) and medical services. The general processes outlined in CAP168 will apply to current aerodromes accommodating public transport, but specifics, relevant to VTOL operations may differ, for example firefighting and physical characteristics. These will be clarified in the development of specific vertiport standards as outlined in the introduction of this document. This section provides a general overview of the initial stages of the aerodrome licensing process. It is highly recommended that once discussions with landowners and Local Authorities have commenced, guidance is sought from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) at the earliest possible point. Application for an aerodrome licence: Aerodromes with existing licences may not need an additional aerodrome licence, however, should consult with their Inspector as to the additional activities they wish to undertake. Application forms can be obtained from the CAA and are in electronic format at Apply for an aerodrome licence | Civil Aviation Authority (caa.co.uk) The applicant should either be the owner of the land or have obtained the landowner’s permission for the use of the site as an aerodrome. A proposal to use land as an aerodrome (vertiport) may be subject to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act and applicants are advised to consult the Local Planning Authority before embarking on any such project. An application for the variation of a licence must be made in writing by the licence holder, and be accompanied by the appropriate fee, and by the relevant survey and other information whether there are any changes in the characteristics of the aerodrome. A licence will normally remain in force until suspended or revoked but may also be issued for a limited period. Considerations for Aerodromes and Vertiports planning to operate Vertical Take-off and Landing Aircraft (VTOL) Requirements Site Requirements Before a licence is granted, we will need to be satisfied that the physical conditions on the manoeuvring area, apron and in the environs of the aerodrome are acceptable, and that the scale of equipment and facilities provided are adequate for the flying activities which are expected to take place. In addition to the aerodrome characteristics these requirements will include the demonstration of competence by the applicant to secure that the aerodrome and its airspace are safe for use by aircraft. Following the initial grant of a licence, our Inspectors may visit each aerodrome periodically as part of their audit/inspection programme. The Inspectors will assess compliance with requirements, audit the management of safety, and assess the competence of those responsible for safety. Aerodrome Manual An application for an aerodrome licence shall be accompanied by an aerodrome manual produced in accordance with CAP 168. The CAA uses the manual to assess the suitability of aerodrome licence holders and their organisations against the safety-related requirements. The licence holder is required to maintain the manual and ensure it fully reflects the operations and is kept up to date. The manual should contain all the relevant information to describe this structure satisfactorily. It is how all aerodrome operating staff are fully informed as to their duties and safety responsibilities. Aerodrome Safety Management System (SMS) Organisations must have a SMS in place. An effective SMS is an organised approach to managing safety, including the necessary organisational structures, accountabilities, policies and procedures, and forms the primary safety oversight covering how an aerodrome manages safety. It also provides an identifiable and easily audited systematic control of the management of safety at an aerodrome. It is expected that a SMS will evolve and be updated to incorporate any lessons learnt from operations over time. An aerodrome SMS should be commensurate with the size of the aerodrome and the level of complexity of the services provided. Guidance on SMS can be found on the CAA website: www.caa.co.uk/sms. Considerations for Aerodromes and Vertiports planning to operate Vertical Take-off and Landing Aircraft (VTOL) Section B: Other considerations for potential applicants for an aerodrome (vertiport) licence In Sectiiefci i responsitis thattheCAAcalanNatinalGverentsVOOerarMserrome Vertiporelper onsie anf technical requirements for vertiports being published. CAA/National Government Remit Set standards for bespoke vertiport design / Set requirements for adapting current infrastructure > To allow for greenfield vertiport development, but also current aerodromes/heliports to adapt their operations to cater forVTOL movements. This willassist aerodromes/heliports in understanding the required infrastructure and facilities for operation and allow for required investment/planning. ATM and Airspace > Consider lessons learnt from projects such as Future Flight Challenge, for incorporation into guidance material. > Engagement with key AAM industry stakeholders, which include vertiport developers, operators, and OEMs. > Review and decide on airspace change requests as required, in conjunction with ANSPs. > Oversight of integration into current ATM system and ensuring future integration aligns with the Airspace Modernisation Strategy. Licensing/certification programme and undertake ongoing oversight as per CAP168 and the ANO 2016. > We wil continue to work with various Government departments to clarifyresponsibilities around noise and > Undertake licensing/certification activities as required in conjunction with the aerodrome audit/certification Noise develop a framework for emerging technologies. Further information will be provided in due course. Aviation Security/Cyber Security > Set requirements and issue guidance for physical and cyber security at vertiports. > ldentify the necessary Regulatory changes and undergo the CAAs rulemaking process to enact the changes Rulemaking required to make vertiports safe and efficient. Considerations for Aerodromes and Vertiports planning to operate Vertical Take-off and Landing Aircraft (VTOL) Local Government Remit Local Spatial Planning > Local Authorities are encouraged to engage in productive dialogue with key AAM industry stakeholders, to understand the context,the economic viability and the wider contribution to their communities, this new industry will make. > Local Authorities are welcome to engage with the Department forTransport on this. Please contact futureoffight@dft.gov.uk with any questions. Local Transport Planning > Local transport authorities should seek to understand the likely trip generation using VTOL aircraft, taking into consideration flight estimates from operators. Sustainable connectivity, including walking, cycling and publi transport should be prioritised to these sites. Please follow this link for more information on enablers, opportunities, barriers and risks associated with using a Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS). Community Considerations > The public may have varying opinions towards what VTOL services may look like in their communities and relate them to conventional aircraft operations.This could lead to additional concerns over noise, privacy, safety, visual pollution and potentially other considerations. These areas are continuously being investigated through social science research by the Future Flight Challenge. Early public dialogue highlights the importance of these areas lpsos report lpsos report (ukri.org). > Local Authorities, together with Vertiport developers wil need to consult affected communities for any new site proposal. > Work with aerodromes to agree approach and departure routes in a considered location, in ways to minimise disruptions for residents, schools, hospitals etc. Considerations for Aerodromes and Vertiports planning to operate Vertical Take-off and Landing Aircraft (VTOL) VTOL Operator and OEM Remit Operational and Technological Considerations > VTOL manufacturers and operators should make aerodromes aware of their aircraft performance capabilities and limitations. Flight characteristics are important when designing the vertiport. How an aircraft handles in turbulence, inclement weather, rosswinds, willlhave a bearing on this. G-loading and passenger comfort is another area that will need to be considered as part of the take-off and landing performance. > Make aerodromes aware of the equipment and infrastructure required to safely operate from the location, for example the types of batteries used for the aircraft. Advise on items such as, but not limited to, the recharging facilities required, battery recharging methods (i.e. battery swaps vs. on-aircraft charging), storage handling and emergency response. > Consider the required facilities for scheduled or unscheduled maintenance ofVTOL aircraft, for example will maintenance, repair and overhaul facilities be located on the vertiport or offsite? > Aerodromes should be made aware of the size and dimensions of the aircraft for universal design of the infrastructure. This information needs to be provided by the OEM. > Engage with aerodrome to ensure there is a sufficient number of qualified staff to deal with the operations. Personnel Considerations > Develop competency requirements for the ground handling, maintenance and RFSS staf in relation to their roles and responsibilities when dealing with VTOL aircraft. Emergency Considerations Environmental Considerations > Agree emergency procedures in case of on or off-aerodrome incident, in line with CAP 168 > Share and demonstrate noise and emissions data to understand the impacts of noise, light and vibration on a local area. Understanding this will be key to inform discussions on local spatial planning, local transport planning and with local communities. Security Considerations > Consideration of relevant physical and cyber security regulations and guidance of operating both airside and landside. Consumer Considerations > Consider and apply the CAA's Consumer Principles to your operation.They help identify key subjects and questions to provide a consistent framework for approaching consumer issues. Considerations for Aerodromes and Vertiports planning to operate Vertical Take-off and Landing Aircraft (VTOL) Aerodrome/Vertiport Remit Aerodrome Licence > If the aerodrome is not currentlylicensed, with permission of the land-owner, apply for an aerodromelicence from the CAA in accordance with CAP 168: Licensing of Aerodromes (caa.co.uk). Maintain any licence conditions as required. > If the aerodrome is already licensed, contact your Aerodromes Inspector to discuss requirements for amending your licence to include VTOL operations. Operational considerations > Vertiports should be designed to be operationally diverse. This includes the consideration of passenger, cargo, flight training and other various use-cases. > The importance of the vertiport's infrastructure being aircraft agnostic should be considered to allow consumer flexibility and choice, multiple revenue streams and future proofing. Environmental health > Engage environmental health specialists to understand the impacts of noise, light and vibration on a local area.This should be informed byVTOL flight count estimates. Understanding this wil be key to inform discussions on local spatial planning, local transport planning and with local communities. Environmental lmpact Assessments and Habitats Regulations > Development schemes may be required to undertake an Environmental lmpact Assessment (ElA)- Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the '2017 Regulations'. VTOL Operators should ensure early engagement with the local planning authority to understand whether an ElA is necessary and what the scope of the assessment should entail. This can include assessing the impact of the development on biodiversity, water quality, flood risk and wildlife including protected species etc. Where an ElA is required, it must be prepared in advance of the submission and must accompany the planning application. > It may also be necessary to undertake an appropriate assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 if the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on a site. Considerations for Aerodromes and Vertiports planning to operate Vertical Take-off and Landing Aircraft (VTOL) Aerodrome/Vertiport Remit (continued) Spatial planning processes > Aerodromes and vertiport developers need to consider spatial planning processes as follows: > Planning submissions: vertiport developers and aerodromes should familirise themselves with the planning process to identify how they can become involved and engaged or make representation should they wish. The success of many development proposals relies on thorough and positive collaboration between developers and local planning authorities. Key AAM industry stakeholders should engage with local planning authorities early to identify site constraints. > Plan-making policy processes: Planning consent is granted based on the proposed development's compliance with national planning policies developed by central government, and local planning policies, developed by Local Planning Authorities. Local transport planning > Set a vision of connectivity to and from the site which includes desired modal splits prioritising active and sustainable transport modes. This will require collaboration between local transport planning and key AAM industry stakeholders. > Early engagement with the local transport authority should ensure that surface access prioritises and integrates well with surrounding walking and cycling networks as wellas public transport services. This should include sharing provisional counts of forecast VTOL flights to understand consumer demand between all MaaS providers. > Developing a local transport plan with local transport authorities will et out connectivity priorities for areas. Key AAM industry stakeholders should share evidence with plan-makers and respond to consultations to ensure that these are formulated with adequate evidence on the potential for VTOL and vice-versa. Risk Management Considerations > Develop or update Safety Management System (SMS) to show accountabilities, roles and responsibilities, management structure, safety governance, identification of hazards, analysis, assessment and mitigations of safety risks, safety training programme and emergency response plan. > Develop a clear internal oversight programme including accountable individuals, procedures, audits, inspections, non-compliance, corrective actions, and incident reporting. Considerations for Aerodromes and Vertiports planning to operate Vertical Take-off and Landing Aircraft (VTOL) Aerodrome/Vertiport Remit (continued) Community Considerations > Work with the key AAM industry stakeholders, local government and planning authorities to minimise noise and visual pollution, especially considering the low-fling nature of the aircraft. Noise, air quality and emissions are considered in airspace change process but need to consider privacy and other issues. This includes designing approach and departure routes away from residential areas and considering the impact of night operations for example. > Key AAM industry stakeholders and Local Governments and their business community should collaborate and engage to develop a strategy and timeline for engaging with their direct residents. > Aerodromes and vertiports should have sufficient staffing for the required operations, including, but not limited to, ground handling, maintenance and RFFS staff. > Engage with VTOL operators and OEMs to develop Training Needs Analysis and train staff working with VTOL aircraft. Electric and Alternative Fuel Source Infrastructure Considerations > Develop understanding with OEMs and VTOL operators as to the requirements for electric charging infrastructure.This includes accessing the existing electric power grid and supplying charging points for aircraft. Considerations on power requirements as this needs to involve conversations with power companies where additional power and/or outlets are required. > Battery charging must be carried out safely and securely. Batteries stored on-site should be stored safely away from safety critical reas. The personnel who will handle/replace the batteries vs charging the aircraft needs to be considered. > As some VTOLs are being developed to be fuelled alternatively by hydrogen, conventional aviation fuels (JetA1/SAFs or Avgas), or in a hybrid capacity, considerations need to be extended to cater for the diversity of aircraft operating at aerodromes and vertiports. > Adapt requirements to facilitate RFFS depending on the fuel types utilised on site. Airspace Change Considerations > Collaborate with ATM providers to determine if an airspace change is necessary or if airspace procedures need to be adapted Considerations for Aerodromes and Vertiports planning to operate Vertical Take-off and Landing Aircraft (VTOL) Aerodrome/Vertiport Remit (continued) Technical Considerations > Creation ofVTOL specific operational facilities. It is encouraged that vertiport facilities are aircraft agnostic. > VTOL aircraft designs vary for example Multicopter, if-and-cruise and vectored-thrust and come in various styles. Wing-tip clearance, main landing gear width, ground taxi vs hover taxi and blade configuration all need to be considered. > The aerodrome should be aware of aircraf performance capabilities (for example batterylife, holding time, crosswinds, turbulence, downwash, approach and departure profiles, G-forces for passenger comfort) from the VTOL operator/OEM. Security Considerations > Consideration of relevant physical and cyber security regulations and guidance of operating both airside and landside. Facility Considerations > Appropriate parking areas, including stands and remote parking, should be sized and suitable for the ground handling operations and necessary equipment. They should be an appropriate size for easy manoeuvring of allVTOL aircraft including both ground and hover taxi movements. > Location and dimensions of electric charging facilities or alternative fuelling capabilities should be taken into consideration. > If the operation willservice interconnecting passenger traffic and transiting services, there should be considerations for easy and secure access between terminals and other airport facilities for passenger flow and efficiency. > Adapt requirements to facilitate RFFS depending on the fuel types utilised on site. Considerations for Aerodromes and Vertiports planning to operate Vertical Take-off and Landing Aircraft (VTOL) Aerodrome/Vertiport Remit (continued) Emergency Considerations > Develop or update emergency response plan to include events that may occur with this novel type of aircraft. This should be done in conjunction with emergency response departments, such as fire, police, ambulance etc. > It must also be reviewed and tested on a regular basis. > ldentify and create agreements with external agencies who wil respond in the event of an emergency- for example external fire companies, rescue services and the police. > There must be appropriate equipment, PPE and training for initial emergency responders who have been given adequate information, instruction, and training. > A risk assessment should be carried out on the basis of: • Number of movements planned/unplanned · Frequency of movements • Number of aircraft in use during peak periods • Type of movements • Number of passengers • Size and complexity of the response area · Nature of terrain · Whether its elevated or surface-level • Congested or non-congested environment • Availability of local fire and rescue services- how rapidly they can respond > Consideration for the storage and handling of hazardous materials such as lithium-ion batteries, hydrogen fuel etc. > Consideration of safety with adverse weather conditions- for example appropriate de-icing facilities for the Consider and apply the CAA’s Consumer Principles to the establishment of the vertiport. They help identify key subjects and questions to provide a consistent framework for approaching issues. CASA AAM & RPAS Roadmap The RPAS and AAM Strategic Regulatory Roadmap ISBN: 978-1-921475-98-6 (PDF) © Commonwealth of Australia 2022 With the exception of the Coat of Arms and all photos and graphics, this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. The Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided that you attribute the work. The full licence terms are available from: www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority asserts the right to be recognised as the author of the original material in the following manner: The document must be attributed as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority RPAS and AAM Strategic Regulatory Roadmap. Table of contents Foreword 2 Introduction 3 What is RPAS? 3 What is AAM? 4 Challenges and principles 5 Developing the roadmap 6 Reporting 6 The roadmap 7 Roadmap activities 8 Immediate term (2022 to 2023) 8 Supporting Activities 9 Near term (2023 to 2026) 10 Medium term (2026 to 2031) 11 Long term (2031 to 2036) 12 Glossary 13 Foreword The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) was among the first regulators to recognise that the development of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) would have a significant impact on aviation. We brought in RPAS legislation ahead of many other countries and we continued to sharpen our focus on emerging technology over the years. The RPAS and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) Strategic Regulatory Roadmap (the roadmap) is a logical extension of that approach. We are committed to advancing these pioneering technologies and see this roadmap as a priority as we frame the future of Australian aviation. The roadmap outlines our expectation that RPAS will have expansive access to lower-level airspace by 2026 and acknowledges the emergence of advanced technologies such as electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft. We know that the pace of change means no one organisation can solve all the complex issues that need to be addressed. However, we wanted to provide a plan that outlined the long-term vision for the Australian RPAS and AAM regulatory regime as well as the integration of these technologies into the civil aviation system. The document that was developed and strongly informed by industry feedback is intended to provide clarity about CASA’s regulatory and safety approach in the next 5 to 15 years. It aims to demystify regulations and ensure they are appropriate while promoting streamlined digital processes and stimulating innovation and research. From operations to infrastructure and training, our aim is to support the industry as it undergoes a technological renaissance. We are facing a fascinating journey that we know will not be without its challenges. This roadmap marks an important milestone in that journey and I commend it not just to RPAS and AAM operators, but to everyone who uses our skies. It is important to recognise that the roadmap is a live document that will be updated to reflect the needs of industry and technology developments as they mature. Pip Spence PSM Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety Introduction The roadmap provides clarity about Australia’s future approach to aviation safety regulation and oversight for RPAS and AAM. It provides a plan for the long-term vision for these sectors supported by acceptable levels of safety. The roadmap is complementary to the National Emerging Aviation Technologies (NEAT) Policy Statement and other whole-of-government initiatives, such as the Australian Future Airspace Framework (AFAF) and Uncrewed aircraft systems Traffic Management (UTM) development. CASA is responsible for the regulation of aviation safety which is the focus of the activities in the roadmap. Where necessary CASA will work with other government agencies to support the regulation of other aspects of RPAS and AAM operations. The RPAS and AAM landscape is also only one of several significant, and often interrelated, emerging technology areas in aviation. CASA will continue to work on safety aspects across all these areas. What is RPAS? Commonly referred to as drones, RPAS are different from other aircraft because they have no pilot or crew onboard. The term ‘RPAS’ is commonly used to refer to the aircraft itself, but the term also includes all components of the system required for an operation. This includes: ground control stations telemetry and communications sensors other hardware and software used to operate the aircraft. While there isn’t a globally agreed definitional difference between RPAS and AAM, for the purpose of this roadmap RPAS refers to operations that use smaller aircraft with no passengers onboard. What is AAM? AAM describes a range of aircraft types (both crewed and uncrewed) which will transport passengers and larger freight. The ongoing advancement in this sector are a flow on from the progress being made in: hybrid and electrification of propulsion systems energy storage lightweight materials digitalisation automation. These innovations have made possible an array of new vehicle types spanning multi-rotor, tilt wing, tilt-rotor, powered wing, offering short take-off and landing (STOL) through to vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) capabilities. The performance and level of automation of these types varies a lot, with different AAM concepts largely falling into 2 operational sub-categories: Urban air mobility (UAM) – short to medium range and endurance designed for low altitude point-to-point passenger or cargo carrying tasks in, and between, urban areas. Regional air mobility (RAM) – short to medium range and endurance designed for low altitude point-to-point passenger or cargo carrying tasks between regional areas. Challenges and principles The RPAS and AAM sectors are rapidly evolving. While the roadmap charts a long-term vision for the safety regulation of these sectors, there remains significant uncertainty about the longer-term needs of these sectors. The defining challenges of the RPAS and AAM sectors are: Diversity – the sector spans aircraft of unique types, of all sizes, and with varying degrees of complexity. Pace of innovation – these sectors are rapidly evolving, and there is a high pace of innovation across technology and concepts of operation. Scale – the number of RPAS operating in Australia is greater than the number of existing airspace users combined. The size of the AAM sector is expected to follow a similar trend to RPAS. Disruptive – these technologies differ from traditional approaches to aviation. The aviation ecosystem will need to adapt to accommodate these technologies and ensure their safe integration. Autonomy – automation and human machine interactions are expected to be important in supporting sector growth, however these technologies also pose great regulatory challenges that need to be monitored and addressed. To address the challenges posed by these sectors, the activities in the roadmap are guided by the following principles: Safety first – safety must be placed first. The roadmap has been designed to deliver acceptable levels of safety performance for all aviation operations. Risk and outcome-based – greater flexibility is achieved through a legislative structure that is outcome-based. Regulations should not prescribe solutions. Regulation and oversight should also be proportionate to the safety hazards and associated risks being managed. Adaptive and scalable – the legislative structure needs to be able to respond to changing risk profiles and the dynamic needs of evolving sectors. It should also account for the size of the sector and pragmatic constraints, such as available regulatory resources. Progressive and internationally aligned – the regulatory framework will be phased in its development and implementation, while remaining consistent with a longerterm vision. It should seek to align with, adopt or adapt international standards and regulations where beneficial in the Australian context. It should also consider appropriate alignment with Australia’s defence aviation safety regulations. Balanced and socially responsible – the framework should achieve the required safety outcomes with consideration for the cost burden imposed on industry, while also accounting for broader community interests and expectations. Developing the roadmap The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications (DITRDC) released the NEAT Policy Statement on 6 May 2021. This statement tasked CASA with producing a safety regulatory roadmap on RPAS and AAM. The purpose of this roadmap is to set CASA’s policy direction for RPAS and AAM regulations. CASA developed the initial roadmap with industry experts between July 2021 and January 2022 through the establishment of a technical working group under the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel. We then invited public comment on the draft roadmap. The consultation was open from 8 March to 19 April 2022. The roadmap has been developed through this collaborative process to make sure the activities outlined will best support the ambitions of industry while ensuring a safe environment for aviation in Australia. Reporting As the RPAS and AAM industries evolve, the priorities of industry are expected to change in response to new and developing technologies and new operational use cases. For example, the expected timelines shown in the roadmap may not keep pace with industry and technology developments. So it is important that it is reviewed regularly to make sure it continues to reflect the needs of industry. CASA is committed to undertaking a review of the roadmap every 18 months in consultation with industry. This will include reporting on the activities already begun or completed along with proposed changes to the roadmap. In addition, CASA will continue to consult with industry on specific roadmap activities. We will also use coordinated approaches like ‘regulatory sandboxes’ to facilitate innovative thinking and regulatory arrangements. The roadmap The roadmap has been developed using 6 regulatory areas across 4 time horizons. Details on each of the regulatory areas discussed in the roadmap can be found in the interactive version available at www.casa.gov.au/rpas-aam-roadmap Roadmap activities Immediate term (2022 to 2023) Aircraft and aircraft systems Publish acceptable industry consensus standards for piloted AAM. Review applicable maintenance policies for AAM. Review international frameworks, standards and methods for certification and assurance of RPAS. This includes consideration of adoption of FAA durability and reliability method for low risk RPAS. Review applicable maintenance policies for RPAS. Publish guidance on the evidence requirements from the OEM versus the operator for RPAS operational approvals. Airspace and traffic management Through the AFAF, develop a transparent, consistent, and scalable method to manage Australian airspace that supports RPAS and AAM integration. Research how existing separation standards may apply to RPAS and AAM. Identify future changes required including conspicuity and equipage considerations. Review existing flight rules against the future needs for RPAS and AAM. Work with DITRDC and Airservices Australia to develop a regulatory oversight framework for UTM. Operations Develop and publish further guidance material for RPAS operations already enabled in existing regulation including acceptable means of compliance. Develop and publish guidance material for approval of research and development operations. Review and publish guidance on the carriage of dangerous goods by RPAS. Implement regulatory changes from the post implementation review of CASR Part 101. Conduct a gap analysis of CASR parts to identify regulatory changes required to support RPAS and AAM operations. Publish more standard scenarios and SORA guidance for low risk RPAS operations and emergency services. Talk with model aircraft, drone sport and recreation flyers to find opportunities for improved collaboration and consultation. Infrastructure Develop guidance material, design requirements and regulations for vertiports and other infrastructure required to support AAM operations. Develop guidance for infrastructure required to support research and development activities. Work collaboratively across government to understand and establish spectrum requirements for RPAS and AAM. Work with DITRDC to set up the National drone detection network and support all safety aspects of the infrastructure planning framework. People Review current RePL requirements and consider renewal or currency requirements, class and type ratings, and endorsements. Engage with international aviation safety regulators to identify options for aligning RPAS training and licensing requirements. Review the competency and training requirements of operationally critical people involved in RPAS and AAM operations to identify future regulatory change needs. Consider medical standards for RPAS and AAM operators. Review and implement an alternative training and examination pathway for remote pilots conducting beyond visual line of sight operations. Implement accreditation requirements for model aircraft users. Safety and security Publish SMS guidance materials for RPAS operations. Set up RPAS focused safety education activities to promote CASA’s ‘just culture’ philosophy. Engage with law enforcement and other agencies to build understanding of their role in the enforcement of RPAS regulations. Consider data collection and uses to improve safety results. Engage with other government agencies to understand and find RPAS and AAM cybersecurity risks. Publish acceptable cybersecurity standards for RPAS and AAM. Supporting Activities Regulatory sandboxes CASA will use regulatory sandboxes to work with industry to test and understand novel products, services and concepts, and identify and assess new risks, in a safe, controlled and time-limited environment to inform development of RPAS and AAM regulations. Digital enablement Digital tools and technologies will be used across all regulatory areas to reduce application and assessment effort and improve processing times. Digital infrastructure and data reliability and capabilities will be developed to support RPAS and AAM technologies. Community Alongside industry and other government agencies, CASA will continue to play a role in building community understanding and promoting engagement between operators and the communities in which they operate. Near term (2023 to 2026) Aircraft and aircraft systems Publish acceptable industry consensus standards for single aircraft single operator, and multiple aircraft single operator for AAM. Publish acceptable industry consensus standards for remotely piloted AAM. Publish acceptable industry consensus standards for multiple aircraft, single operator for RPAS. Airspace and traffic management Develop an implementation plan for airspace modernisation that is flexible, scalable and supports all airspace users. Begin initial implementation to ease identified risks and support RPAS and AAM airspace integration. Carry out an analysis to understand the crossover point from self-separation to a ‘managed’ environment. Consider new separation standards, that use new technologies, for RPAS-to-RPAS and RPAS-to-AAM. Consider standardised requirements for RPAS in controlled airspace. Consult with all airspace users on the appropriateness of proposed rules for RPAS and AAM. Develop standards and capabilities to support the implementation of low level traffic management systems for RPAS. Consider regulatory requirements for integrating air traffic management systems. Develop airspace requirements for vertiport operations. Operations Develop guidance on the operational approval requirements for AAM operations, including operations which are remotely piloted and pilot-on-board. Develop standards for international RPAS and AAM operations. Review existing approval and oversight processes to make sure they are proportionate to the risk and complexity of operational activities. Infrastructure Implement a regulatory framework to support RPAS and AAM infrastructure (for example vertiports, vertipads). Develop certification requirements for infrastructure and infrastructure related equipment. Develop a regulatory framework for the operation of research and development infrastructure. People Implement regulatory and system changes following the review of RePL requirements. Align RPAS training and licensing requirements with international standards. Update regulations to support new licensing requirements. Implement standard training and licensing requirements for personnel involved in piloted passenger carrying AAM. Review radio operator competency requirements for remote pilots. Safety and security Develop SMS and human factor policies that are proportionate to risk and complexity. Consider and implement a tiered requirement for SMS for RPAS and AAM operators. Coordinate with enforcement agencies and revise CASA’s enforcement manual. Work with DITRDC to provide transparent, reporting on RPAS enforcement actions to promote corrective actions and lessons learned. Continue to work with industry associations to promote key safety lessons from available data. Medium term (2026 to 2031) Aircraft and aircraft systems Make sure certification standards are internationally harmonised for AAM. Publish acceptable industry consensus standards for highly automated RPAS. Airspace and traffic management Continue airspace modernisation to support RPAS and AAM integration into all airspace environments. Develop new separation requirements to support and use improving technologies such as autonomy. Review and update rulesets with respect to integration, global approaches, and requirements for increasing levels of autonomy. Develop an integrated traffic management framework to support all airspace users. Operations Integrate RPAS operational requirements into relevant CASR parts for operations outside the scope of Part 101. Apply changes required to support operational requirements for AAM. Mature risk calculation methods used for determining operational categories using data, artificial intelligence and/ or quantitative methods. Infrastructure Regulate operator training and requirements for infrastructure operators. Regulate equipage requirements for infrastructure operators. People Develop a specific set of outcome-based standards for RePL training on large type RPAS. Implement standard training and licensing requirements for personnel involved in remotely piloted and optionally piloted passenger carrying AAM. Introduce updated licensing requirements needed for RPAS and AAM operations factoring in the increasing levels of automation and autonomy. Safety and security Apply streamlined processes for the approval of SMS for RPAS and AAM operators. Continue to promote an understanding of ‘just culture’ across the RPAS and AAM sectors. Coordinate the approach to enforcement between enforcement authorities. Civil Aviation Safety Authority The RPAS and AAM Strategic Regulatory Roadmap   11 Long term (2031 to 2036) Aircraft and aircraft systems Publish acceptable industry consensus standards for highly automated AAM. Airspace and traffic management Develop and implement airspace structures to support all airspace users in a seamless airspace environment. Develop standards and capabilities to support cooperative participation and levels of self-separation between all airspace users. Infrastructure Mature regulations and approval processes to support RPAS and AAM related infrastructure. People Implement standard licensing and training requirements for AAM dispatchers. Safety and security Continue to carry out safety education and promotion activities to embed a positive safety culture. Glossary AAM Advanced air mobility AFAF Australian future airspace framework CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority CASR Civil Aviation Safety Regulations DITRDC Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications NEAT National Emerging Aviation Technologies OEM Original equipment manufacturer RAM Regional air mobility RePL Remote pilot licence RPAS Remotely piloted aircraft systems SMS Safety management system SORA Specific operations risk assessment TWG Technical working group UAM Urban air mobility UTM Uncrewed aircraft systems traffic management CASA National Headquarters Aviation House 16 Furzer Street Phillip ACT 2606 GPO Box 2005 Canberra ACT 2601