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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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!
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
ICAO DOCUMENTS
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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!!
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
‘Tranche 2’ Annex 14 :
ICAO ANNEX 14: VOLUME II – HELIPORTS
FORTH EDITION - JULY 2013
[Referenced as Annex 14 ‘Tranche 2’ in this presentation]
-----------------------------------------
‘Tranche 1’ Annex 14 :
ICAO ANNEX 14: VOLUME II – HELIPORTS
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
ICAO ANNEX 14 AerodromesVol II Heliports
Surface-level Heliports (3.1)Elevated Heliports (3.2)
-------------------------Helidecks 3.3/Shipboard Heliports (3.4)
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
ICAO ANNEX 14 AerodromesVol II Heliports
Surface-level Heliports (3.1)Elevated Heliports (3.2)
-------------------------Helidecks (3.3)-Shipboard Heliports (3.4)
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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’.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
“BACKGROUND INFORMATION”
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
. 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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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.
•
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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!
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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]
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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’
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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’!
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
‘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’!
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
PC1 GROUND SPACE
‘Clearway’: area to be protected – not required to be
load bearing
Free-field/Clear-area Cat A
FATO
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
‘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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
‘Tranche 2’ / 4th Edition (2013) Changes
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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’.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
‘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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
‘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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
“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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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’
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
Safety
Area
FATO
TLOF/Central Zone
HELIPORT TERMINOLOGY
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
Safety
Area
FATO
TLOF/Central Zone
HELIPORT TERMINOLOGY
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
HELIPORT TERMINOLOGY
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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
‘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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
OBJECTIVE STANDARDS / PRESCRIPTIVE STANDARDS
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”??
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
PRESCRIPTIVE STANDARD
Extract from Annex 14 Vol II – Heliports (4th Edition-2013)
Final approach and take-off areas
……….
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 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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
PRESCRIPTIVE STANDARD
Extract from Annex 14 Vol II – Heliports (4th Edition-2013)
Final approach and take-off areas
……….
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 which includes complete containment — this figure will always be
greater than 1 D.
Note: It is proposed by HDWG to change the FATO requirements.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
Extract from A DISCUSSION PAPER HELIPORTS – DEFINED AREAS TOWARD
AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD - HDWG/8 DP/01 (April 2013)
Final approach and take-off areas (FATO) (surface level heliports)
3.1.0 A FATO shall consist of:
a) an obstacle free area of sufficient size and shape to provide containment of every
part of the design helicopter: in the final phase of a normal approach; in the
commencement of a normal take-off; and, for required manoeuvring within the
FATO;
b) a surface which:
1) is resistant to the effects of rotor downwash;
2) has bearing strength sufficient to accommodate a rejected take-off when intended for
use by helicopters operated in performance class 1;
c) an additional safety area to compensate for errors in manoeuvring. .
PROPOSED OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
Note: No specific requirements given!
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
Extract from A DISCUSSION PAPER HELIPORTS – DEFINED AREAS TOWARD AN
OBJECTIVE STANDARD - HDWG/8 DP/01 (April 2013)
Final approach and take-off areas (FATO) (surface level heliports)
3.1.0 A FATO shall consist of:
a) an obstacle free area of sufficient size and shape to provide containment of every
part of the design helicopter: in the final phase of a normal approach; in the
commencement of a normal take-off; and, for required manoeuvring within the
FATO;
b) a surface which:
1) is resistant to the effects of rotor downwash;
2) has bearing strength sufficient to accommodate a rejected take-off when intended for
use by helicopters operated in performance class 1;
c) an additional safety area to compensate for errors in manoeuvring. .
PROPOSED OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
Note: No specific requirements given!
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
. 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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
Silverstone Paris
‘Free Field’ * Performance Class 1*
‘Elongated FATO’* Performance Class 2 & 3
* NOT ICAO terms
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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..
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
ELEVATED HELIPORTS
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
JW
SURFACE LEVEL HELIPORTS
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
HELIDECKS
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
SHIPBOARD HELIPORT
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
‘TRANCHE 2’ APPLICABILITY
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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).
‘TRANCHE 2’ APPLICABILITY
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
‘TRANCHE 2’ APPLICABILITY
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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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!
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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.
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
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.”
Leverton Associates InternationalICAO ‘Annex 14 Update’ Workshop – HAI HeliExpo February 2014
End of this section ….
…… MORE TO COME