(ICAO Annex 14 Volume II Heliports) WORKSHOP #1 Annex 14 Update WS - HeliExpo... · Leverton...

Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014

ICAO ‘ANNEX 14 UPDATE’(ICAO Annex 14 Volume II –Heliports)

WORKSHOP #1

Dr John W. LevertonAdvisor – Heliport Design, IFHA **

HAI Heliport Design Focal Point

Advisor - Infrastructure Development, AHS

http://www.heliexpo.com/2003 brand.zip

http://www.heliexpo.com/best logo.zip

http://www.heliexpo.com/best logo.zip


Note: I stepped down as the IFHARepresentative to the ICAOAerodrome Panel (AP), the Heliport Design Working Group (HDWG), the Visual Aids Working Group (VAWG) and associated Sub-groups on 31 Dec 2013

Comments in this presentation are based on my role as the IFHARepresentative to the ICAO (2003-2013) and Rapporteur of the HDWG Visual Aids Sub-group (VASG) – 2006-2011.


IFHA

International Federation of Helicopter Associations

New (from 1/1/2014) IFHA Representative to ICAO Aerodrome Panel (AP)

and the Heliport Design Working Group (HDWG)

Paul Schaaf, Vice President of Operations, HAI


ANNEX 14 Vol II WORKSHOP

Comments should not be taken as statement of actual ICAO policy or what will appear in any next version of the

ICAO Annex 14 Volume II - Heliport (Design).

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE MY OWN AND MUST NOT BE TAKEN AS BEING REPRESENTATIVE OF THOSE OF THE

ICAO AP, ICAO HDWG, IFHA, HAI OR AHS. ALSO REMEMBER I AM NO LONGER THE

IFHA REPRESENTATIVE TO ICAO!


AIM OF PRESENTATION

•EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY AND CONCEPTS USED IN ICAO

ANNEX 14 Vol II

•DISCUSSION AND OUTLINE OF :-

(i) Changes in Annex 14 ‘Tranche 1’ issued July 2009

(ii) ‘Tranche 2’ changes issued July 2013

(iii) ‘Post-Tranche 2’ changes

(iv) Latest HDWG proposals

(iv) Mention of main differences between US/FAA Heliport Design AC 150/5390-2C

(AC-2C) and ICAO Annex 14 ‘standards and recommended practices’ (SARPS) for

heliports


AIM OF PRESENTATION

•EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY AND CONCEPTS USED IN

ICAO ANNEX 14 Vol II

•DISCUSSION AND OUTLINE OF :-

(i) Changes in Annex 14 ‘Tranche 1’ issued July 2009

(ii) ‘Tranche 2’ changes to be issued July 2013

(iii) Outline of some ‘Post-Tranche 2’ changes.

(iv) Review of main differences between US/FAA Heliport Design AC

150/5390-2B (AC-2B) and new AC 150/5390-2C (AC-2C) and ICAO

Annex 14 ‘standards and recommended practices’ (SARPS) for

heliports


NOTE: MAIN FOCUS OF PRESENTATION

GENERAL AVIATION ‘TYPE’

PERFORMANCE CLASS 2 AND 3 (CAT B)

HELIPORTS …. but I will mention

Performance Class 1 Heliports.

PRESENTATION COVERS

VFR/VMC REQUIREMENTS ONLY ***.

AIM OF PRESENTATION


ICAO DOCUMENTS


ICAO DOCUMENTS

ICAO Heliport Manual, which is out of date and incorrect in some sections folowing the issue of the Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 changes, needs to be updated: HDWG has starting work on the section on helidecks … no specific plans for addressing heliports: aim was to decide by 3rd quarter of 2011 (!!!) but issue date not clear …. even so a replacement will not be available for a number of years!!


ICAO DOCUMENTS

ICAO ANNEX 14: VOLUME II – HELIPORTS

THIRD EDITION – JULY 2009

FORTH EDITION – JULY 2012•-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HELIPORT MANUAL; THIRD EDITION – 1995

(DOC 9261 – AN/903)----------------------------------------------------------------

RELATED DOCUMENTS

ICAO ANNEX 6, PART III INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS –

HELICOPTERS: SIXTH EDITION – JULY 2004

ICAO ANNEX 14, VOLUME I – AERODROME DESIGN AND OPERATIONS

JULY 1990


‘Tranche 2’ Annex 14 :


FORTH EDITION - JULY 2013

[Referenced as Annex 14 ‘Tranche 2’ in this presentation]

-----------------------------------------

‘Tranche 1’ Annex 14 :


THIRD EDITION - JULY 2009

[Referenced as Annex 14 ‘Tranche 1’ in this presentation]

***********************FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5390-2C (2012)

[Referenced as AC-2C in this presentation]

PRESENTATION TERMINOLOGY


ANNEX 14 Vol II WORKSHOP

I am ONLY going to focus on the main ‘Tranche 2’

changes in 4th Edition of Annex 14 (2013) and the

recently proposed HDWG changes related to

Heliports only …… I assume that “everyone is

familiar with the latest version of Annex 14 i.e.

‘Tranche 2’ – 4th Edition issued in July 2013!!

Note that ‘Annex 14 Vol II’ is referenced simply as ‘Annex

14’ or ‘ICAO Annex 14’ on many charts


US (FAA) AC150/5390-2C

FAA AC 150/5390-2C (AC-2C) Heliport Design was issued on 4/24/2012 (April 2012) and is available on a number of FAA and other web sites - the following is one useful web site to obtain the document:-

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Cirular/150_5390_2c.pdf

Hardcopies are NOT available from the FAA – they are available from a number of commercial suppliers at a fee.

NOTE: AC-2C is an “Advisory Circular” i.e. Guidelines … but it is a Requirement for heliports which are built using Federal Funds and is a Requirements in a number of the US States.


Annex 14/FAA

MAIN DIFFERENCES

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

• Annex 14 based on “Operational Performance”

Requirements (Helicopter Performance Class) Defined In Annex 6

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

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

*Issued by FAA in April 2012.

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

of the ‘tranche 1’ changes.


ICAO ANNEX 14 AerodromesVol II Heliports

Surface-level Heliports (3.1)Elevated Heliports (3.2)

-------------------------Helidecks 3.3/Shipboard Heliports (3.4)



ICAO ANNEX 14 AerodromesVol II Heliports

Surface-level Heliports (3.1)Elevated Heliports (3.2)

-------------------------Helidecks (3.3)-Shipboard Heliports (3.4)



Annex 14 Changes

Heliports

•Chapter 1: General (Definition) - main changes completed in ‘tranche 1’ - addition changes to be made in tranche 2 to cover ‘floating (pontoon) heliports’ etc., and to ensure requirements for VFM (VFR) heliports cover also heliports where an instrument

(PinS) approach is used.

•Chapter 2: Heliport Data – Minor editorial changes in ‘tranche 2’.

•Chapter 3: Physical Characteristics – main changes completed in ‘tranche 1’: someaddition changes in tranche 2: new Note added for PC1.

•Chapter 4: Obstacle Restriction and Removal (Airspace) : Study completed for VFM (VFR) heliports - issued in ‘Tranche 2’.

•Chapter 5: Visual Aids (Markings & Lighting) - minor changes issued in tranche 1 –changes to ‘markings’ issued as part of tranche 2, “lighting” still being ‘worked’ –changes to ‘lights’ to be made, most likely, in ‘Tranche 4’ ??? [2017]

•Chapter 6: Heliport Services (Fire Fighting) – to be issued in ‘Tranche 3’.


Annex 14 Future Work

ICAO agreed –at AP1 (Dec 2006) - for Annex 14 to be reformatted to

make it easier to use – the existing and ‘new’ text will be grouped in

the following Chapters:-

Chapter 1. General

Chapter 2. Surface-level Heliports

Chapter 3. Elevated Heliports

Chapter 4. Instrument Heliports

Chapter 5. Helidecks

Chapter 6. Shipboard Heliports and Winching Areas

... and each Chapter will consist of the following sections:-1. General

2. Heliport Data

3. Physical Characteristics

4. Obstacle Restriction and Removal

5. Visual Aids

5.1Marking

5.2Lights

6. Heliport Services


Annex 14 Future Work

Annex 14 to be reformatted to make it easier to use – the existing and

‘new’ text will be grouped in the following Chapters:-

Chapter 1. General

Chapter 2. Surface-level Heliports

Chapter 3. Elevated Heliports

Chapter 4. Instrument Heliports

Chapter 5. Helidecks

Chapter 6. Shipboard Heliports and Winching Areas

... and each Chapter will consist of the following sections:-1. General

2. Heliport Data

3. Physical Characteristics

4. Obstacle Restriction and Removal

5. Visual Aids

5.1Marking

5.2Lights

6. Heliport Services


a) Incorporation of Heliport Certification requirements and Safety Management

System (SMS) requirements into Annex 14,Volume II

b) Study of the ‘Applicability’ of Annex 14, Volume II: many nations against change

including US (FAA) – industry mixed views: for safety reasons (my view) it needs to

be changed.

c) Comprehensive revision of Annex 14, Volume II, Section 5.3, Lights

d) Review of ‘Airway Width’ specifications for visual heliports and development of

specifications for heliports with instrument approaches and departures.

e) Revised and updated guidance material for Doc 9261 Heliport Manual **

e) Comprehensive restructure of Annex 14, Volume II [The need for this is being

questioned by some States and no work to date!]

** this is of major importance since Heliport Manual details how to apply ‘Annex 14 Volume II’ and is currently out of date!!

CURRENT ICAO WORK PROGRAM


“BACKGROUND INFORMATION”


. A objective based standard sets out the ‘objective’ to be

achieved without prescribing how it is to be achieved. A

prescriptive based standard provision sets out a specific

specification/requirement for compliance.

A ‘prescriptive standard’ describes exactly what is required

in terms of the design according to the standard. The

designer has to follow exact instructions and not deviate (or

use their own approach).

The alternative to a ‘prescriptive standard’ is a ‘objective

standard’ gives greater flexibility and freedom in designing

heliport. However is could lead to variations and unsafe

heliports/helidecks designs.

OBJECTIVE STANDARDS / PRESCRIPTIVE STANDARDS


ICAO FRAMEWORK

• US PPR (Private Use) Heliports Not Directly Considered In Annex 14 [Only Brief Reference To PPR Heliports Made In This Presentation]

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

• “Europe” considers Hospital Heliports should be designed for Performance Class 1 operations – requirement of JAR OPS 3 ** …

... with a DLB Area (FATO + Safety area) of 2D:

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

• ** Note: EASA EU-OPS Part CAT was issued in 2012 – this is essential the same as JAR-

OPS 3 and Nations are now ‘adopting’ the new EU rules: even so in a number of Nations at

this time JAR-OPS 3 still applies.

•


GENERAL

• PC2 and PC3 Heliports in ICAO Annex 14

corresponds to General Aviation Heliport in FAA AC.

• PC1 Heliport in ICAO Annex 14 is approximately the

same as Transport Heliport in FAA AC … but is

Annex 14 based on PC1/Cat A performance rather

than dimensions related to size of helicopter as in FAA

AC-2C: in this respect Annex 14 is generally less

demanding and more logical than FAA AC-2C!


ICAO ANNEX 14 - HELIPORTS

• PERFORMANCE CLASS 1 (PC1)

• PERFORMANCE CLASS 2 & 3 (PC2/PC3)

Performance Requirements defined in ICAO Annex 6

US/FAA USES AIRWORTHINESS CATEGORGIES – CAT A and

CAT B. THERE ARE NO FAA ‘PERFORMANCE CLASS / CAT

A’ REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO OPERATIONS AT

HELIPORTS – SOME ‘TRANSPORT/CAT A REQUIREMENTS’

APPLIED IN CASE OF SCHEDULE OPERATIONS.


PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

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

PERFORMANCE CLASS 1 CAT A

PERFORMANCE CLASS 2 CAT B***

PERFORMANCE CLASS 3 CAT B

*ANNEX 6: UPDATED/REVISED BY THE ICAO HELICOPTER TILTROTOR STUDY GROUP

(HTSG) – New version issued in 2007.

** CAT A (CATEGORY A) AND CAT B (CATEGORY B) ARE AIRWORTHINESS

CERTIFICATION DESIGNATIONS. –

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

US/FAA CAT A/OEI EN-ROUTE REQUIREMENTS.


TDP

AEO

OEI200 ft

Reject T/O DistanceFATO

Safe forced landing – outside heliport

AEO OE

I200 ft

Safe forced landing – outside heliportFATO

FATO

AEO

PERFORMANCE CLASSIFICATIONS

PERFORMANCE CLASS 1

PERFORMANCE CLASS 2

PERFORMANCE CLASS 3

[Chart Based on Figures supplied by Jim Lyons]


TDP

AEO

OEI200 ft

Reject T/O DistanceFATO

Safe forced landing – outside heliport

AEO OE

I200 ft

Safe forced landing – outside heliportFATO

FATO

AEO

PERFORMANCE CLASSIFICATIONS

PERFORMANCE CLASS 1

PERFORMANCE CLASS 2

PERFORMANCE CLASS 3

[Chart Based on Figures supplied by Jim Lyons]

‘Cat A’

‘Cat A’ Enroute - Cat B T/O + Land

‘Cat B’


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

ICAO Annex 14 FATO

Basic FATO

RTOD(A) is given in Flight Manual for all takeoff procedure except

‘vertical takeoff procedures’!


‘RESTRICTED FIELD LENGTH’ CAT. A.

Size of RTOD(A) – according to Part 29 certification requirements it should

be in the Flight Manual – but it is not for ‘vertical type takeoff procedures’!


PC1 GROUND SPACE

‘Clearway’: area to be protected – not required to be

load bearing

Free-field/Clear-area Cat A

FATO


PC1 – Lack of RTOD(A)

3.1.3 The dimensions of a FATO shall be:

a) where intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 1, as prescribed in the

helicopter flight manual (HFM) except that, in the absence of width specifications, the width shall be not less than the greatest

overall dimension (D) of the largest helicopter the FATO is intended to serve;

b) where intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 2 or 3, of sufficient size and

shape to contain an area within which can be drawn a circle of diameter not less than:

1) 1 D of the largest helicopter when the maximum take-off mass (MTOM) of helicopters the FATO is intended to

serve is more than 3 175 kg;

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

Note.— The term FATO is not used in the HFM. The minimum landing/take-off area

specified in the HFM for the appropriate performance class 1 flight profile is necessary to

determine the size of the FATO. However, for vertical take-off procedures in performance class 1,

the required rejected take-off area is not normally quoted in the HFM, and it will be necessary to

obtain information (from the manufactures) which includes complete containment — this figure

will always be greater than 1 D.


‘Clearway’: area to be

protected – not required to

be load bearing

Area should be defined in

the Helicopter or

Rotorcraft Flight Manual

(H/RFM) …. But not??

PC1 GROUND SPACE

Restricted Area/Short-field Cat A


Annex 14/FAA

MAIN DIFFERENCES

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

• Annex 14 based on “Operational Performance”

Requirements (Helicopter Performance Class) Defined In Annex 6

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

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

*Issued by FAA in April 2012.

** Differences between ‘Annex 14 Vol II’ and FAA AC-2C are, in practice, considerably less as a

result of the ‘tranche 1’ changes.


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


Annex 14 ‘TRANCHE 2’/4th Edition

A large number of changes have been made since ‘State

Letter’ version was issued in July 2010: some were made as

a result of ‘ICAO member (State)’ comments. More

recently (from about July 2012) ICAO HDWG members

agreed that some of the previously agreed ‘Tranche 2’

changes added confusion and should be removed. This is

related to the way the FATO is defined, the use of the term

FATO/TLOF in connection with elevated heliports and

helidecks, and a number of minor issues. As a result, with

inputs from the HDWG, a number of (editorial) corrections

and changes have been made by the ICAO Secretariat in

consort with the Air Navigation Bureau in ‘Tranche 2’.


Term FATO/TLOF has been removed from throughout the Annex 14 Volume II.

Based on discussions at HDWG-7, with reference to IP02, there was consensus

that for a 0.83D arrangement it is a reduction in the TLOF only that is

permitted. For a sub-1D TLOF, the FATO is required to be at 1D in all cases.

Therefore where the TLOF is 1D or greater it is always the case that the FATO

and the TLOF “occupy the same space” and so are (fully) “coincidental”.

However, where the TLOF is permitted to reduce below 1D (but never below

0.83D) there is no corresponding reduction in the size of the FATO permitted

and so in this case the FATO and the TLOF cannot be said to “occupy the same

space.” Accepting that the TLOF is always located within the boundary of the

larger FATO it is correct to describe the FATO and TLOF as being “collocated”

in this case. Unless otherwise indicated within a specific section, the changes

herein described in detail address the relationship between the FATO and

TLOF for helidecks and for shipboard heliports. As the FATO and TLOF

cannot be regarded as coincidental in all cases it is necessary for text formally

relating to “FATO/TLOF” to now reflect one or other design element; either

SARPs refer to “the FATO” or to “the TLOF”.

‘Tranche 2’ Changes – ICAO Statement


Annex 14 UPDATE -PROGRESS

Changes made for Helidecks in section 3.3: the same issues

related to a minimum FATO size of 1D applies in case of

elevated heliports – however due to time limitations to make the

necessary changes to ‘section 3.2 Elevated Heliports’, the ICAO

Secretariat (with inputs from the HDWG Rapporteur and some

HDWG members), decided to withdraw the revised (new)

proposed/revised ‘Tranche 2 section 3.2’ and simply include in

‘Tranche 2 document’ [issued in July 2013] the earlier ‘Tranche

1 Text’ for section 3.2 - this does NOT include the term

FATO/TLOF but still refers to a 0.83D FATOs!!

IFHA did NOT support the ICAO solution and proposed that the

‘Tranche 2’ version should NOT BE ISSUED until all the text

changes had been competed, say by the end of 2013 – the State

members of HDWG did not support IFHA and the ‘Tranche 2’ [4th

Edition ]was issued in July 2013.


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

2D

FATO/TLOF – DLB – 0.83D

Touchdown/Position Marking – 0.5D

FATO/TLOF – DLB – 1D

DLB = Dynamic Load Bearing

Helideck – ‘Tranche 1’

Airspace/Obstacle requirements NOT shown


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

TLOF – DLB – 0.83D

Touchdown/Position Marking – 0.5D

FATO/TLOF – DLB – 1D

DLB = Dynamic Load Bearing

HELIDECKS - ‘Tranche 2’

FATO – 1D “need not be load bearing for helicopters”

[Recommendation added that TLOF is 1D and DLB]

Airspace/Obstacle requirements NOT shown


‘Tranche 3’ changes being addresses at 3rd

Aerodrome Panel (AP/3) – 7-11 April 2014

(i) Frangibility of essential objects around helidecks

(ii) Frangibility of essential objects around shipboard heliports

(iii) Reduction of line size and/or thickness of touchdown markings for

smaller helidecks and shipboard heliports (<16m)

(iv) Amendment of Chapter 6. Heliport Services – 6.1 Rescue and fire

fighting. [Joint paper of HDWG and RFFWG]

Tranche 3 – AP3


“BIG CHANGES” IN FORMAT AND SOME

REQUIREMENTS ARE BEING PROPOSED BY

ICAO HDWG

for

CHAPTER 3 - Physical Characteristics

and

Associated sections in CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5. Visual Aids (5.2 Markings and markers)

HDWG LATEST PROPOSALS


1 RD

1 D **

(1 D – 1 RD) = (approx.) 0.2 RD

D = Overall Length **

RD = (Main) Rotor Diameter

“Arc of Tail Rotor”

1 D = (approx.) 1.2 RD

HELICOPTER DIMENSIONS

** US/FAA Uses ‘Overall Length’ 1 OL = 1 D – AC-2C will use ‘D’


HELIPORT TERMINOLOGY• ICAO ANNEX 14:

R = ROTOR DIAMETER –2004 Annex 14 and Annex6:

‘R’ not used in ‘Tranche 1 or Tranche 2 Annex 14’

D = ‘D Factor’ = OVERALL LENGTH

UNDERCARRIAGE WIDTH AND/OR LENGTH [UC]- 2004 Annex 14

UNDERCARRIAGE WIDTH [UCW] – ‘Tranche 1 & 2’ Annex 14

• FAA AC-2C:

RD = ROTOR DIAMETER

D = OVERALL LENGTH [‘OL’ in AC-2B]

MAX. UNDERCARRIAGE WIDTH/LENGTH = UC


Length of Undercarriage

Maximum width

or length of the

undercarriage (UC): used

for defining size of TLOF

in 2004 Annex 14

changed in Tranche 1

Annex 14 to TLOF

defined in terms of ‘D’.

Undercarriage width

(UCW): used for defining

taxiway width

Width of Undercarriage (UCW)

UNDERCARRIAGE DIMENSIONS


APPROXIMATE

RELATIONSHIPS

•FATO = 1.5 D [1.5 X OVERALL LENGTH (OL)]

• TAIL ROTOR SIZE: 1/6 TO 1/5 RD

• D = 1.16 RD TO 1.2 RD

• ASSUME ‘D’ = 1.2 RD

THAN 1.5 D = 1.8 RD and 1 RD = 0.83 D **

Approx 1/3 RD = 0.25 D – Approx 2 x 1/3 RD = 0.5 D

** Used in ‘Tranche 1’ (and ‘Tranche 2’) for TLOF size etc.


Safety

Area

FATO

TLOF

HELIPORT TERMINOLOGY

FATO: Final Approach and Takeoff Area

TLOF: Touchdown and Liftoff Area

FATO and TLOF can be any shape – usually square or round

TLOF located

in a FATO


Safety

Area

FATO

TLOF/Central Zone


FATO: Final Approach and Takeoff Area

TLOF: Touchdown and Liftoff Area

TLOF can be outside of FATO located in a helicopter stand

Protection Area

Helicopter Stand



In some of the diagrams/charts for PC2/3 Heliports, the

FATO is illustrated as being 1.5D and not 1D (or 0.83D) as

defined in the current Annex 14 4th Edition (2013). This is

because ‘1.5D’ is often used in practice, it corresponds to the

US/FAA requirements and is now being proposed by HDWG

as the future Annex 14 requirement. Also it is now accepted

that since the FATO provides “containment for the

helicopter rotor system” it can not ever be less than 1D.


PRESENTATION TERMINOLOGY

RD = ROTOR DIAMETER

D = ‘D-value’ = OVERALL LENGTH (OL)

UCw = UNDERCARRIAGE WIDTH/LENGTH

PC1, PC2 & PC 3 is used to refer to heliports designed on

the assumption that they are “intended to be used by

helicopters operated in performance class 1” or

“performance class 2 and 3” respectively.

The ‘diagrams’, although illustrating the approximate relative sizes are

NOT to scale - this is not stated on all diagrams.


NEW Terminology

Defined Area(s) - “Defined areas are the basic building blocks of heliports

(helidecks) and each of them has a set of attributes. The set of attributes for

any defined area remain even when collocated, or is coincidental with, another

defined area; although, logically, the more stringent Standard will always

apply. The best example of this is the TLOF which is never established in

isolation - its attributes must always be satisfied.”

The recent changes being considered by HDWG, as result of each of the

defined areas – such as FATO, TLOF, - have been examined in detail with

respect to their objectives and attributes. As each section develops, the

objectives and attributes are discussed with respect to challenges presented

by real life operations. In a paper prepared by Jim Lyons for the HDWG

Onshore Heliport Sub-group “each of the ‘defined areas’ have been described

complete with (all of) its attributes, so that it can be positioned in isolation, or

in combination with others, without having to resort to complicated tables

specifying separation between defined areas, and defined areas and objects”.

Extracts from “ HELIPORTS – DEFINED AREAS TOWARD AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD - HDWG/8- DP/01


NEW Terminology

Containment; an attribute which affords protection to the

helicopter and/or its undercarriage and permits clearance

from obstacles to be established – containment is of two types:

• undercarriage containment; and

• helicopter containment **

Note: where a defined area (such as a TLOF or taxiway) provides only

undercarriage containment, it should be situated within, or collocated with,

another defined area (a FATO, Stand or taxi-route) to ensure that helicopter

containment is provided.

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


‘Undercarriage containment’ means that under normal

operating circumstances, all parts of the undercarriage will

be within the boundary of the defined area – i.e. the TLOF

or the Taxiway.

‘Helicopter containment’ means that under normal

operating circumstances, all parts of the helicopter will be

within the boundary of the defined area – i.e. the FATO or

the Stand; this always includes the main rotor and

rearmost part (which might be the tail rotor, fenestron or

another part of the tail section).

NEW Terminology


NEW Terminology

Undercarriage Containment: as a

function of D (and RD) the value

varies considerably from one

helicopter to another

Helicopter Containment: this

is 1D and is the minimum

size for the FATO

TLOF

FATO

It as been shown that 0.83D (1RD) covers

all helicopters examined, with an adequate

safety margin, and this has been agreed to

be the minimum size for the TLOF.


NEW Terminology

Helicopter Containment: this

is 1D and is the minimum

size for the FATO

TLOF – 0.83D

FATO

It is “suggested” within HDWG

that to account for maneuvering

etc. the minimum PC1 and

PC2/3 FATO should be 1.5D



Major Changes Proposed with HDWG:-

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

“Objective Standards” or

“Objective Standards and Prescriptive Standards”

After much discussion it was agreed that Annex 14 should be changed to

include “Objective Standards and Prescriptive Standards”

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


MAJOR FORMAT CHANGE PROPOSED

During the later part of 2012 and 2013, Jim Lyons on behalf of

HDWG Onshore Heliport Sub-group (Rapporteur Dale South,

Australia) made a detailed review of the ‘Chapter 3 requirements’

- this result in April 2013 the issue of a 116 page “DISCUSSION

PAPER - HELIPORTS – DEFINED AREAS - TOWARD AN

OBJECTIVE STANDARD.”

This resulted in major debates with in the Sub-group and

HDWG and initially it was essentially proposed that, much

like the ‘fixed-wing/Aerodrome SARPs’ in that the Annex 14

Vol 1, the helicopter SARPs in Annex14 Vol II should be

defined only in terms of ‘objective standards’ and that

guidance on the way to apply these standards should be given

in a new/updated heliport Manual.


IFHA still raised concern on focusing on making major changes to Chapter

3 (and associate section of Chapter 5) and introducing Objective Standards, as well as

Perceptive Standards, at this time. Unfortunately this has been taken by some to

imply that IFHA are fundamentally against making changes. This is not the case.

The concern that IFHA expressed, along with those of OGP and ICCAIA, is

that after spending 6 to 8-years to develop Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 SARPs which are

now being used to design many heliports, HDWG are proposing to make major

changes to the FATO sizes in Chapter 3 etc. when there are many other aspects,

including lighting requirements (Section 5.3) and, more importantly,

rewriting/updating the Heliport Manual (HM) which have not been addressed.

The best estimate based on the ICAO ‘track record’ is that to make the changes

to Chapter 3 to include Objective standards and Prescriptive Standards – and get them

fully accepted by through all the ICAO procedures – will take in order of 6-years!!

Hence it will be like starting again!! Even so IFHA said it would work towards a

satisfactory and timely solution which would hopefully to some of the changes being

made in ‘Tranche 3’.

MAJOR FORMAT CHANGE PROPOSED


A objective based standard sets out the ‘objective’ to be

achieved without prescribing how it is to be achieved. A

prescriptive based standard provision sets out a specific

specification/requirement for compliance.

A ‘prescriptive standard’ describes exactly what is required

in terms of the design according to the standard. The

designer has to follow exact instructions and not deviate (or

use their own approach).

The alternative to a ‘prescriptive standard’ is a ‘objective

standard’ gives greater flexibility and freedom in designing

heliport. However is could lead to variations and unsafe

heliports/helidecks designs.



OBJECTIVE STANDARDS

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

3.1.7 Primary runway

Recommendation.— Except as provided in 3.1.9, the actual runway length to be provided for a

primary runway should be adequate to meet the operational requirements of the aeroplanes for

which the runway is intended and should be

not less than the longest length determined by applying the corrections for local conditions to the

operations and performance characteristics of the relevant aeroplanes.

Note 1.— This specification does not necessarily mean providing for operations by the critical

aeroplane at its maximum mass.

Note 2.— Both take-off and landing requirements need to be considered when determining the

length of runway to be provided and the need for operations to be conducted in both directions

of the runway.

Note 3.— Local conditions that may need to be considered include elevation, temperature,

runway slope, humidity and the runway surface characteristics.

Note 4.— When performance data on aeroplanes for which not known, guidance on the

determination of the actual length of a primary runway by application of general correction

factors is given in the Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 1.


OBJECTIVE STANDARDS

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

3.1.7 Primary runway

Recommendation.— Except as provided in 3.1.9, the actual runway length to be provided for a

primary runway should be adequate to meet the operational requirements of the aeroplanes for which

the runway is intended and should be

not less than the longest length determined by applying the corrections for local conditions to the

operations and performance characteristics of the relevant aeroplanes.

Note 1.— This specification does not necessarily mean providing for operations by the critical

aeroplane at its maximum mass.

Note 2.— Both take-off and landing requirements need to be considered when determining the length

of runway to be provided and the need for operations to be conducted in both directions of the

runway.

Note 3.— Local conditions that may need to be considered include elevation, temperature, runway

slope, humidity and the runway surface characteristics.

Note 4.— When performance data on aeroplanes for which not known, guidance on the determination

of the actual length of a primary runway by application of general correction factors is given in the

Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 1.


PRESCRIPTIVE STANDARD

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

Final approach and take-off areas

……….



helicopter flight manual (HFM) except that, in the absence of width specifications, the width shall be not less than

the greatest overall dimension (D) of the largest helicopter the FATO is intended to serve;

b) where intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 2 or 3, of sufficient size

and shape to contain an area within which can be drawn a circle of diameter not less than:

1) 1 D of the largest helicopter when the maximum take-off mass (MTOM) of helicopters the FATO

is intended to serve is more than 3 175 kg;

2)0.83 D of the largest helicopter when the MTOM of helicopters the FATO is intended to serve is 3

175 kg or less.

Note.— The term FATO is not used in the HFM. The minimum landing/take-off area specified in the

HFM for the appropriate performance class 1 flight profile is necessary to determine the size of the FATO.

However, for vertical take-off procedures in performance class 1, the required rejected take-off area is not

normally quoted in the HFM, and it will be necessary to obtain information which includes complete containment

— this figure will always be greater than 1 D.

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


PRESCRIPTIVE STANDARD

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

Final approach and take-off areas

……….



helicopter flight manual (HFM) except that, in the absence of width specifications, the width shall be not less than the

greatest overall dimension (D) of the largest helicopter the FATO is intended to serve;

b) where intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 2 or 3, of sufficient size and

shape to contain an area within which can be drawn a circle of diameter not less than:

1) 1 D of the largest helicopter when the maximum take-off mass (MTOM) of helicopters the FATO is

intended to serve is more than 3 175 kg;

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

kg or less.

Note.— The term FATO is not used in the HFM. The minimum landing/take-off area specified in the

HFM for the appropriate performance class 1 flight profile is necessary to determine the size of the FATO. However, for

vertical take-off procedures in performance class 1, the required rejected take-off area is not normally quoted in the

HFM, and it will be necessary to obtain information which includes complete containment — this figure will always be

greater than 1 D.

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


Extract from A DISCUSSION PAPER HELIPORTS – DEFINED AREAS TOWARD AN

OBJECTIVE STANDARD - HDWG/8 DP/01 (April 2013)

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

3.1.0 A FATO shall consist of:

a) an obstacle free area of sufficient size and shape to provide containment of every part

of the design helicopter: in the final phase of a normal approach; in the commencement

of a normal take-off; and, for required manoeuvring within the FATO;

b) a surface which:

1) is resistant to the effects of rotor downwash;

2) has bearing strength sufficient to accommodate a rejected take-off when intended for use

by helicopters operated in performance class 1;

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

PROPOSED OBJECTIVE STANDARDS


Extract from A DISCUSSION PAPER HELIPORTS – DEFINED AREAS TOWARD

AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD - HDWG/8 DP/01 (April 2013)



a) an obstacle free area of sufficient size and shape to provide containment of every

part of the design helicopter: in the final phase of a normal approach; in the

commencement of a normal take-off; and, for required manoeuvring within the

FATO;

b) a surface which:


2) has bearing strength sufficient to accommodate a rejected take-off when intended for

use by helicopters operated in performance class 1;



Note: No specific requirements given!


Extract from A DISCUSSION PAPER HELIPORTS – DEFINED AREAS TOWARD AN

OBJECTIVE STANDARD - HDWG/8 DP/01 (April 2013)



a) an obstacle free area of sufficient size and shape to provide containment of every


commencement of a normal take-off; and, for required manoeuvring within the

FATO;

b) a surface which:


2) has bearing strength sufficient to accommodate a rejected take-off when intended for

use by helicopters operated in performance class 1;



Note: No specific requirements given!


INDUSTRY VIEW - OBJECTIVE STANDARDS

INDUSTRY VIEW.

IFHA – with OGP and ICCAIA – expressed concern on the

proposal to base Annex 14 Vol II on ‘Objective Standards’ only since this

could lead to difference States (nations) defining their national standards

differently …… it has been the industry view, since we are dealing with

safety, that common minimum standards should be the same

worldwide.

Some States (Nations) agreed with IFHA and after much debate it

was accepted by HDWG that instead of the annex containing only

‘Objective Standards’ it should contain both ‘Objective Standards’ and

‘Prescriptive Standards’: IFHA supported this approach.


3.1.0 A FATO shall:

a) consist of:

1) an obstacle free area of sufficient size and shape to provide containment of every part of the design

helicopter: in the final phase of a normal approach; in the commencement of a normal take-off; and, for

required manoeuvring within the FATO;

2) a surface which:

i) is resistant to the effects of rotor downwash;

ii) has bearing strength sufficient to accommodate a rejected take-off when intended for use by

helicopters operated in performance class 1;

b) be associated with an area to compensate for errors in manoeuvring.

3.1.2 The minimum dimensions of a FATO shall be:

a) where intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 1:

1) the length of the Rejected Take-Off Distance prescribed in the helicopter flight manual (HFM) for the

required procedure, or 1.5 Design D - whichever is the greater; and

2) the width prescribed in the HFM for the required procedure or 1.5 Design D – whichever is the greater.

Note: where a manufacturer, using flight test data, substantiates that a FATO of a size less than 1.5D meets the Part 29 requirement for a ‘minimum elevated

heliport size demonstrated’ and during that demonstration provides containment of all parts of the helicopter within the FATO – regardless of direction of

approach; a State may accept such a design dimension. However, it should be clearly understood that this design dimension is one which might preclude other

helicopters of a similar size from operating in Performance Class 1 from the same heliport.

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

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

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

OBJECTIVE + PRESCRIPTIVE STANDARDS

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

Objective Standard

Prescriptive Standard


3.1.0 A FATO shall:

a) consist of:

1) an obstacle free area of sufficient size and shape to provide containment of every


commencement of a normal take-off; and, for required manoeuvring within the FATO;

2) a surface which:

i) is resistant to the effects of rotor downwash;

ii) has bearing strength sufficient to accommodate a rejected take-off when intended for use by

helicopters operated in performance class 1;

b) be associated with an area to compensate for errors in manoeuvring.

3.1.2 The minimum dimensions of a FATO shall be:

a) where intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 1:

1) the length of the Rejected Take-Off Distance prescribed in the helicopter flight manual (HFM) for the

required procedure, or 1.5 Design D - whichever is the greater; and

2) the width prescribed in the HFM for the required procedure or 1.5 Design D – whichever is the greater.

Note: where a manufacturer, using flight test data, substantiates that a FATO of a size less than 1.5D meets the Part 29 requirement for a ‘minimum elevated

heliport size demonstrated’ and during that demonstration provides containment of all parts of the helicopter within the FATO – regardless of direction of

approach; a State may accept such a design dimension. However, it should be clearly understood that this design dimension is one which might preclude other

helicopters of a similar size from operating in Performance Class 1 from the same heliport.

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

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

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

OBJECTIVE + PRESCRIPTIVE STANDARDS

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

Objective Standard

Prescriptive Standard

. IFHA/OGP/ICCAIA suggested that most reading 3.1.0 a) 1) would

not understand the implications of the text. In addition, as worded, it

currently changes the definition of a FATO! Industry see no reason

for this!

IFHA/OGP/ICCAIA: 3.1.2 b) 2) could lead to different States having

different (larger) FATO requirements for PC2/3 – this is not supported

on safety considerations.


PROPOSED REQUIREMENT CHANGES

In addition to adding ‘Objective Requirements’, The latest HDWG

Onshore Sub-group proposals includes the following major changes:

(i) adding a minimum PC1 FATO size of 1.5 D [Currently value in Flight

Manual has to be used – 1D is allowed for width when this not given],

(ii) changing the PC2/3 FATO minimum size from 1D to 1.5D,

(iii) applying a ‘clearway’ to PC2/3 heliports for “accelerating in

level flight, close to the ground, to achieve its safe climbing

speed”

(iv) added a requirement that in effect means that a TLOF is always

required in a Stand which is used for air/hover-taxi. [In developing

Tranche 1 (not changed in Tranche 2) it was agreed after major discussions within HDWG that for the

purposes of Annex 14 that a ‘flight’ could be terminated in a hover at the FATO and a) if the FATO

contained a TLOF, no other TLOFs were required or (b) if the FATO did not contain TLOF, only one

‘TLOF in a Stand’ was required.]

These issues are discussed later in presentation.


Silverstone Paris

‘Free Field’ * Performance Class 1*

‘Elongated FATO’* Performance Class 2 & 3

* NOT ICAO terms


Silverstone Paris

‘Free Field’ * Performance Class 1*

‘Elongated FATO’* Performance Class 2 & 3

* NOT ICAO terms

Tranche 2 – to be called “Runway-type FATOs.”

Runway-type FATO. A FATO having characteristics similar in shape to a runway..


ELEVATED HELIPORTS


JW

SURFACE LEVEL HELIPORTS


HELIDECKS


SHIPBOARD HELIPORT


Floating (Pontoon) Heliport Heliport on ‘structure’ over water

Surface-level heliport. A heliport located on the ground or on

the water.

Tranche 2 Proposal:

Surface-level heliport. A heliport located on the ground or on

a structure on the surface of the water.

Elevated heliport. A heliport located on a raised structure on land

Tranche 2 Proposal:

Elevated heliport. A heliport located on a raised structure on land.

Proposed ‘Tranche 2’ Definition Changes

Melbourne, Australia


‘TRANCHE 2’ APPLICABILITY


1.2 Applicability

Note.— The dimensions discussed in this Annex are based on

consideration of single-main-rotor helicopters. For tandem-rotor

helicopters the heliport design will be based on a case-by-case

review of the specific models using the basic requirement for a

safety area and protection areas specified in this Annex. The

specifications of the main chapters of this Annex are applicable

for visual heliports that may or may not incorporate the use of

a Point-in-space approach or departure. Additional

specifications for instrument heliports with non-precision

and/or precision approaches and instrument departures are

detailed in Appendix 2. The specifications of this Annex are not

applicable for water heliports (touchdown or lift-off on the

surface of the water).




1.2.1 The interpretation of some of the specifications in the Annex

expressly 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 its inclusion is implied. In both cases, the responsibility

for whatever determination or action is necessary shall rest with the State

having jurisdiction over the heliport.

1.2.2 The specifications in Annex 14, Volume II, shall apply to all

heliports intended to be used by helicopters in international civil

aviation. They shall apply equally to areas for the exclusive use of

helicopters at an aerodrome primarily meant for the use of

aeroplanes. Where relevant, the provisions of Annex 14, Volume I,

shall apply to the helicopter operations being conducted at such an

aerodrome.


APPLICABILITY

Currently the Annex only relates to “international civil aviation”: the

HDWG members interpret this to mean that the SARPs are only applicable

if the heliport is being used for the arrival and departure of helicopters

involve in “international civil aviation” and not the domestic internal State

operations involving both on-shore and off-shore operations. This would

mean that the SARPS are only applicable to a small handful of heliports.

During a number of HDWG meetings various members have provided

options to better understand and reflect the risk associated with helicopter

operations in certain areas not covered under the “umbrella” applicability

of “international”. The two primary areas not adequately addressed in the

applicability are offshore operations at helidecks and heliport operations

within congested hostile environments: some members – based on safety

considerations - want the Annex 14 to apply to all heliports and helidecks.

Generally industry (IFHA, OGP and ICCAIA) supports Annex 14 applying to

all heliports/helidecks!


Rationale (Helidecks):-

Many helidecks are undersized with obstacles too close to the

facility, and new helidecks are still being built to the older

standards which offer no improvement. There have been a

number of accidents/incidents in the offshore helicopter

community over the past 5 years. Of the recorded events, 97%

of the events have occurred during landing, approach, or

hover on the facility. Of these events 32 % were main rotor

strikes, 16% tail rotor strikes and 6% loss of control (some

due to helideck being undersized, and others due to gas

ingestion.) [Statistics provided by OGP]

APPLICABILITY

Corresponding Heliport NOT available.


APPLICABILITY

1.2.2 The specifications in Annex 14, Volume II, shall apply to all heliports intended to be

used by helicopters in international civil aviation. They shall apply equally to areas for the

exclusive use of helicopters at an aerodrome primarily meant for the use of aeroplanes. Where

relevant, the provisions of Annex 14, Volume I, shall apply to the helicopter operations being

conducted at such an aerodrome.

The specifications in Annex 14, Volume II, shall apply to helidecks on fixed offshore facilities.

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

helidecks on floating facilities and shipboard heliports unless the results of an aeronautical

study show that the risks to helicopter operations associated to the environment and specific

conditions of the heliport, helideck or shipboard heliport are mitigated.

Note: The aeronautical study may include a risk assessment considering factors such as:

a) the type of operation and the circumstances of the flight from/to the heliport;

b) the area/terrain at which the heliport is located;

c) the probability of a critical engine failure and the consequences of such an event; and

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

HDWG initially suggested text.


APPLICABILITY

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

1.2 Applicability

1.2.2 The specifications in Annex 14, Volume II, shall apply to all heliports

intended to be used by helicopters in international civil aviation. They shall

apply equally to areas for the exclusive use of helicopters at an aerodrome

primarily meant for the use of aeroplanes. Where relevant, the provisions of

Annex 14, Volume I, shall apply to the helicopter operations being conducted

at such an aerodrome.

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

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

heliports.


APPLICABILITY APWG/2 (December 2013)

Feedback from ACWG/2 Meeting:-

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

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


End of this section ….

…… MORE TO COME

(ICAO Annex 14 Volume II Heliports) WORKSHOP #1 Annex 14 Update WS - HeliExpo... · Leverton...

Documents

Transcript of (ICAO Annex 14 Volume II Heliports) WORKSHOP #1 Annex 14 Update WS - HeliExpo... · Leverton...