| 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
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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’.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Applicability matrix of the PTSs
| 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:
| 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 | 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:
| 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
1. New text on the objective of the wind direction indicator has been included from the Heliport Manual.
2. 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.
3. A new location for wind direction indicator for vertiport that is elevated or an obstacle-free volume FATO has been included.
4. Guidance on the wind sleeve location has been taken from the Heliport Manual.
5. 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.
6. 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:
| 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
1. Only metric units are employed for maximum allowable mass marking and D-value marking. Imperial units are not used in the EU.
2. The reference to shipboard vertiports (offshore) has been eliminated.
3. 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.
4. 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
| 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:
1) accidents;
i) helicopter on-heliport; and
ii) helicopter off-heliport (in the vicinity):
– land; and
– water;
2) incidents;
i) helicopter on ground;
ii) sabotage including bomb threat; and
iii) unlawful seizure;
## b) not involving helicopter:
1) fire on the building and/or nearby buildings;
2) sabotage including bomb threat;
3) natural disaster;
4) dangerous goods occurrences; and
5) medical emergencies;
c) compound emergencies:
1) helicopter/structures;
2) helicopter/fuelling facilities;
3) helicopter/helicopter; and
4) 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
| 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