Vanguard for the chop by the Feds

[plus expenses]

Just heard a nasty rumour that the CAA are thinking of making Vanguard legal only for aircraft with HUMS fitted. Given that no on-shore helis that I know of are have it fitted, that would effectively be Vanguard closed. (I was also told that it was London City that was pushing to have it closed and this is a way of achieving that aim.)

:= := :=

Any one else heard about this?

It could also be a short end of the stick with all congested sites requiring a HUMS fitted aircraft!

Isn't it interesting that BAA have been referred to the Competition Commission by the CAA over increasing landing fees at Heathrow while there is not a murmur from them over the Von Essen pad?

[sox6]

Vanguard?????

[The Nr Fairy]

Vanguard is an HLS very close to Canary Wharf, i.e. really close to big money.

plus:

Rhetorical question, but if HUMS is fitted does that affect the flying abilities of the pilot therefore increasing the risk of a dink ?

[zalt]

The Nr Fairy
What do you think a HUMS is?

[AlanM]

Not sure why LCY itself would even care to be honest.

It makes absolutely no difference in ATC terms - more often than not the aircraft stays with radar nowadays...... the beauty of Class D VFR v IFR.

There may be other reasons - possibly noise?? It is certainly far busier than ever right now - and a couple of times this week there have been one waiting to get in or squeezing in against the other one on the ground.

As a mere ATCO, can you tell me exactly what HUMS is?

[pohm1]

Health and Usage Monitoring System

Records data on a memory card/chip for downloading after a flight. Gives a diagnostic of vibration, torques, temps and pressures etc so engineering can check trends which may need attention and spot any excedences.

P1

[Heliport]

BAA have been referred to the Competition Commission by the CAA over increasing landing fees at Heathrow Is that the same as the Monopolies Commission?
So the CAA doesn't think BAA should take advantage of their position to impose extortionate charges? :hmm:

[Rushes]

What is it with this country....... It makes you wonder why we bother!!:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

ATC have always been helpful when using Vanguard, but guess LCY just being used as excuse by 'Red Ken!'

Rushes

[sox6]

Still not very obvious how carrying an engineering tool for diagnostics of vibration, torques, temps and pressures etc would increase risk for Nr Fairy or why it would make a flight into Vanguard safer or why Mr Ken is now running the CAA...

sox 6 retires into darkened room to recover.

[The Nr Fairy]

Anyone else hear a "whoosh" as my irony passed safely over top of zalt's and sox6's heads ?

[sox6]

Only if your irony on finals to Vanguard.

Just for the record Nr Fairey - you are in my opinion an excellent and clear communicator and your post has made a really eloquent and convincing intellectual and technical arguement that will of course have a dramatic impact on CAA policy and has helped educate and inform thousands of PPrUNE members.:D

Back to reality, I believe that since the late 90s any UK registered helicopter needs HUMS if it is to carry to carry more than 9 pax, so a S76 or As365 would need HUMS to fly to Vanguard with a full load but I believe there was a FODCOM lasy year that says the CAA are to abandon that rule for onshore operation.

[SASless]

What possible logical connection can there be between a landing site and HUMS?:ugh:

But then I have to remember, it is the CAA we are talking about here.:mad:

Does HUMS operation become unreliable at some select spots on the Earth or something?:uhoh:

[idle stop]

I think the logic goes like this. Vanguard is a Helipad. So is Battersea. If the tide is out, they become Elevated Helipads. JAR-Ops 3 operators currently benefit (if they apply for it and it is noted on their AOC) for a Performance Class 2/Class 3 alleviation to permit operations to Battersea (I'm not so sure about Vanguard actually being a 'standard' Exemption) as an elevated helipad. However, in the not too distant future aircraft doing this will require a UMS. Blame JAR-Ops 3. I think I am correct in saying that, for example, the standard VEMD and associated system in the EC120 would be compliant. It's to do with monitoring of engine parameters and the sums for Probability of Failure. A full IHUMS will not be necessary.

[Francis Frogbound]

Mr Stop;

You are absolutely right about Battersea being an elevated pad with the tide out, I'm not too sure about Vanguard though. The tidal fall at Vanguard is minimal in comparison, The site is full group a for twins because unlike at Batts where a floated aircraft can request a running take off from abeam the tower, and be at VTOSS by the platform edge, Vanguard is a heli-pad in the true sense of the word. It would be an unwise pilot who tried a runner from Vanguard, the fences might ruin his whole day:E

[Kulu]

Hi there

I live very close to the Vanguard site on the Isle of Dogs, and often see helicopters (I think usually Dauphins) coming in and out. It's fantastic to watch and I would love to find out more about who uses the helipad, and what it's like to fly into (it looks like a very tight place to get in).

Any help gratefully received!

[docstone]

Quite tight, with a wall far from ideally placed.

Ken keen to close it down sadly

[Kulu]

That would be a real shame - it's a fantastic thing to live near to.

[on21]

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=272747

[thecontroller]

it makes you wonder how any helicopter flying is done is this country given the amount of (over) regulation.

[sox6]

Care to comment JimL?

[plus expenses]

So maybe not just rumours then?

My point was of course that the CAA, instead of showing leadership or concern over recent changes at Battersea, are spending their time potentially ruining any slight competition for another site.

Surely a better way forward would be to develop a genuine competitor to Battersea and allow the markets to work their magic?

As an aside - Isn't funny how everything is now down to JAR OPS 3? What did we blame for our failure before we had that?

[Helinut]

Received a copy recently via the BHAB of the appendix to the CAA letter which bans CAT into Vanguard unless the hele can maintain a OEI HOGE! So the rumour is true, it would appear.

[zalt]

Has the CAA actually stated WHY?

[FloaterNorthWest]

Think the reason is fairly clear........SAFETY.

Here's the letter..............

Vanguard Helipad, Isle of Dogs, London – Commercial Air Transport Operations


Vanguard Helipad is an unlicensed privately owned helipad on the North bank of the River Thames on the Isle of Dogs. It is generally made available to operators on a prior permission required basis. The Touch Down and Lift Off Area (TLOF) however, is defined by non-frangible obstacles on all four sides, making it non-compliant with the design requirements of Annex 14 Volume 2 (chapter 3).

Having regard to the tidal flow of the River Thames, the helipad is elevated for the majority of the time i.e. the water level is greater than 3m below the helipad level. At low water for instance, the drop is of the order of 10m. The pad itself is rectangular, being 34.3m wide and 31.4m deep. High walls define the two sides at right angles to the river and the Vanguard building defines the inboard edge parallel to the river. The only practical entry/exit path therefore is via the river and the forward edge of the helipad has a wall 0.9m high. NB: In accordance with the airspace design requirements specified in chapter 4 of Annex 14 Volume 2, an elevated heliport shall have at-least two take-off climb and approach surfaces separated by not less than 150 degrees. As the site itself is non- compliant with Annex 14 Volume 2 it may only be suitable to conduct Commercial Air Transport (CAT) operations on the basis of performance rules governing the helicopter operation.

The principle of that part of a Performance Class 1 take-off landing before Take-off Decision Point or after Landing Decision Point, is that the helicopter will at all times be able to carry out a Category A single engine landing i.e. with no damage to helicopter or occupants. This is not a ‘forced landing’ as referred to in Performance Class 2 and 3 operating rules but the end result of an approved Category A procedure which will have been practiced during recurrent checking of the pilot. Whereas the basic dimensions of the helipad itself will be able to accommodate most ‘minimum helipad size’ requirements promulgated in Flight Manuals e.g. 25m for the AS355, the obstacle environment at Vanguard make it unsuitable for Category A Helipad procedures directly to the pad (because of the obstacle environment). The alternative of using the Helipad procedure to an aiming point adjacent to the pad but over the river, is also not acceptable under Performance Class 1 operating rules. The reason being that an engine failure would require a ‘forced landing’ onto the river. Even when fitted with flotation equipment, this is not acceptable under Performance Class 1.

The only way the intent of Performance Class 1 rules can be achieved at Vanguard is for the take-off or landing to be performed at a weight that would allow the helicopter to Hover Outside Ground Effect (HOGE) with One Engine Inoperative (OEI). During a landing, the Helipad procedure could be used when aiming for a point in space over the river. Following an engine failure at any point, it should still be possible to position over the riverside perimeter wall and land safely on the pad. During take-off, the HOGE OEI capability would once again give zero exposure to risk during the transition to the river. Emergency Flotation Equipment would not therefore be required.

Operations at Vanguard other than as described above would involve ‘Operations Without an Assured Safe Forced Landing Capability’ as defined by JAR-OPS 3 at Amendment 5. JAR-OPS now permits such operations under Performance Class 2 or 3 operating rules but requires an approval in accordance with Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.517(a). No UK onshore operator currently has such an approval.

[Two's in]

So being a total pedant, they are not saying you have to have HUMS at all, they (CAA) are saying that there are currently no On-Shore operators with an approval to use Vanguard. It is simply an assumption that as all Off-Shore operators have HUMS, and Off-Shore Operators can use the facility, ergo, you must need HUMS. Surely the the correct assumption is that you need an Off-Shore Operating certification to go in there, somewhat negating the utility of the site?

[thwock]

of course this only matters if its "public transport" , 90% are private/aerial work/ at the behest of the owner/for a mate/corporate , or whatever you want to call it.
will it stop any of these NO
whats the point of trying to play by the rules when the rules get tougher ,yet nobody tries to stop the cowboys

[JimL]

I was invited into this debate some time ago but declined to comment because I had no knowledge of the Vanguard site; I still haven’t seen the site (can’t even find it with Google Earth) but we now have a description provided (allegedly) by the CAA.


It might be best at the start to remove some of the erroneous assumptions that have been expressed on this thread:1. HUMS is Vibration Health Monitoring (VHM) system - such as that required offshore; this is not currently a requirement in JAR-OPS but is an ANO and contractual requirement for helicopters conducting Offshore Operations in the North Sea.2. A Usage Monitoring System (UMS) is a much simpler device which records exceedences in engine/torque - such as the Monitair, Altair etc..3. Operations with Exposure have always required compliance with Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.517(a).4. Compliance with Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.517(a) requires the fitting of a UMS (for Offshore Operations the HUMS satisfies the requirement for the UMS).5. In AL5, compliance text for the UMS was moved from rule material to guidance material - depending on the implementation of the FADEC systems, the UMS functionality might be considered to be satisfied by that unit (it would depend upon the parameters and download facilities).6. It is not a specific requirement to operate in PC1 when conducting CAT.7. PC1 will be required if operating to a congested-hostile-environment.Whether the Vanguard site is elevated is made irrelevant by AL5 to JAR-OPS 3; the alleviation (Exposure) formerly permitted for elevated heliports/helidecks is now available for ground level heliports.

The following statement by Helinut is not implied by the letter:"which bans CAT into Vanguard unless the hele can maintain a OEI HOGE"In my view the letter is seeking to clarify the operating conditions for the Vanguard Site; it would have been helpful if the letter had indicated whether the Inspectorate considered the site to be in a congested-hostile-environment (although it appears to imply that it is not by referring to the use of PC2 and 3). From the description provided it is difficult to judge. The letter also points out that now that AL5 has been incorporated, additional alleviation is available to the operator.

I might take a slightly different view (from the letter) on the applicability of any Category A procedure; for example, one manufacturer provides a procedure with an elevated TDP/LDP to one side and up to 120ft above the FATO. Thus flight from the LDP to the FATO and to the TDP from the FATO would permit a reject; and from the TDP and up to the LDP would permit a ‘continued take-off’/’balked landing’ along the Thames meeting the appropriate requirements of JAR-OPS. Similarly, a PC2/3 procedure could be flown using exactly the same manoeuvre using Exposure between the FATO and that point – you might recall that any use of exposure is predicated upon AEO HOGE power availability. (Obviously this is conjecture using only the description contained in the letter.)

Annex 14 is in the process of being amended to permit PC1 procedures similar to that described above.

Jim

[VeeAny]

Jim

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=51.490843~-0.024853&style=h&lvl=18&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=12462822&encType=1

Might help you find vanguard.

Gary

[JimL]

Thanks Gary - having seen that picture it reinforces my view and the statements made above.

Jim

[helimutt]

excuse me JimL but I never said a word. I think you'll find it was 'Helinut'!
I don't get the chance to fly to London anymore so have no interest in this topic. :hmm::ok:

[Nat O'Thee]

Wow bet the flats either side get some good views of arrivals and departures.

Dont suppose they would enjoy a visit from some of our larger types???

[Helinut]

Tha basis of my statement was to try and summarise the net effect of what the CAA letter seemed to say. The last 2 paras are the important bits. Since no UK onshore operator seems to have the necessary approvals or equipment (at present) the only way that a CAT can get in there is with OEI HOGE.......