JimL
20th Feb 2016, 07:50
It is noted that in the Heli-Expo 2016 Preliminary Schedule, there is an Annex 14 Update Workshop on the 1 March in the afternoon. For those who intend to take part in the workshop, background information on recent developments are contained in the document referenced at the end.
Quite a lot of work has been done by the Annex 14 Working Group in the last couple of years in an attempt to make heliport design more flexible (and accountable) by adding Objective Standards.
The work on this was preceded by the provision of a Discussion Paper (which itself was in continuous development). The aim of the paper is provided in its introduction:
The helicopter is one of the more versatile of aircraft and can operate to/from a space little larger than its overall length. The smaller the site, and the less known about hazards presented by obstacles and surface conditions, the more risk will be associated with its use. The risk presented by such hazards can be reduced when:
a. the size is at or greater than the minimum required size;
b. sufficient knowledge about the site is available - and this knowledge is provided as information (that contained on templates, and that which is provided as markings on the site); and
c. visual information, cues and positional markings are present for the defined areas.
One of the challenges of the provision of Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) for heliports is that Annex 14 lacks ‘objectives’ for the defined areas. This lack of objectives results (inevitably) in the provision of prescriptive Standards that have been coloured by personal experience, or are driven by the necessity to legitimise practices/regulations that have evolved as a result of operational necessity or commercial considerations. These Standards have not had to meet any test of objectivity.
This paper does not suggest that the definitions of the defined area are revisited (although that might be the natural corollary of it); or that, for each of them, the objectives are included as an initial statement (which might be a better solution). However, unless objectives are set for the defined areas, it will continue to be possible to include Standards for which the (unintended) consequences for safety are subtle, and will remain hidden until an incident or accident occurs.
In an attempt to provide the basic concepts and objectives of the defined areas, the paper relies upon a detailed examination of previous Editions of Annex 14 and Doc 9261- Heliport Manual. Consideration is also given to other helicopter-oriented Annexes (6 and 8) in the integrated set of documents that were first provided by the HeliOps Panel in the latter part of the 1980s. For that reason, the paper might question an existing Standard and/or suggest that an issue should be revisited or reassessed.
The 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 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.
In this paper, each of the defined areas is examined in detail with respect to its objectives and attributes. As each section develops, the objectives and attributes are discussed with respect to challenges presented by real life operations. The principle of encapsulation (the black-box approach) is introduced; each of the defined areas is 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.
It should not be forgotten that the aim of Annex 14 is to provide the world-wide minimum standard for heliport design; for that reason, a Standard might state the objective and leave the means of compliance to the State/designer. If a problem exists within a State’s regulations, it is their responsibility to establish a requirement with equivalent safety and/or, if necessary, file a difference. It is not acceptable that basic tenets of the Annex be moderated in order to provide the lowest common denominator for existing installations. In that sense, the Annex is a document that looks forward, not backwards.
This paper contains a section for each of the defined areas as well as a number of Appendices containing: helideck diagrams (showing the normal as well as a reduced TLOF); a set of axioms (rules-of-thumb) for all defined areas; extracts from the Aerodrome Design Manual; required elements for the Design Helicopter; discussion on positional markings; the basis for certification of Category A procedures; and a discussion on Surface Loading.
The main paper starts with an explanation of the set of common attributes, some (or all) of which apply to a defined area, before addressing how values for those attributes might be assigned.
Only helicopters with a single main rotor are considered.
For anyone with an interest in Heliport Design, the contents might be of interest - particularly with respect to some important issues covered in the Appendices. These contain treaties on: the Design Helicopter; Surface Loading; Establishing the Rejected Take-Off Distance for Performance Class 1; and a Proposal to Reposition Surface Requirements from the FATO to the TLOF.
The paper may be found at:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y41u1sg6akf8v1l/Discussion%20Paper%20-%20Defined%20Areas%20V2.8%20%28Published%20Version%29.pdf?dl =0
Quite a lot of work has been done by the Annex 14 Working Group in the last couple of years in an attempt to make heliport design more flexible (and accountable) by adding Objective Standards.
The work on this was preceded by the provision of a Discussion Paper (which itself was in continuous development). The aim of the paper is provided in its introduction:
The helicopter is one of the more versatile of aircraft and can operate to/from a space little larger than its overall length. The smaller the site, and the less known about hazards presented by obstacles and surface conditions, the more risk will be associated with its use. The risk presented by such hazards can be reduced when:
a. the size is at or greater than the minimum required size;
b. sufficient knowledge about the site is available - and this knowledge is provided as information (that contained on templates, and that which is provided as markings on the site); and
c. visual information, cues and positional markings are present for the defined areas.
One of the challenges of the provision of Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) for heliports is that Annex 14 lacks ‘objectives’ for the defined areas. This lack of objectives results (inevitably) in the provision of prescriptive Standards that have been coloured by personal experience, or are driven by the necessity to legitimise practices/regulations that have evolved as a result of operational necessity or commercial considerations. These Standards have not had to meet any test of objectivity.
This paper does not suggest that the definitions of the defined area are revisited (although that might be the natural corollary of it); or that, for each of them, the objectives are included as an initial statement (which might be a better solution). However, unless objectives are set for the defined areas, it will continue to be possible to include Standards for which the (unintended) consequences for safety are subtle, and will remain hidden until an incident or accident occurs.
In an attempt to provide the basic concepts and objectives of the defined areas, the paper relies upon a detailed examination of previous Editions of Annex 14 and Doc 9261- Heliport Manual. Consideration is also given to other helicopter-oriented Annexes (6 and 8) in the integrated set of documents that were first provided by the HeliOps Panel in the latter part of the 1980s. For that reason, the paper might question an existing Standard and/or suggest that an issue should be revisited or reassessed.
The 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 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.
In this paper, each of the defined areas is examined in detail with respect to its objectives and attributes. As each section develops, the objectives and attributes are discussed with respect to challenges presented by real life operations. The principle of encapsulation (the black-box approach) is introduced; each of the defined areas is 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.
It should not be forgotten that the aim of Annex 14 is to provide the world-wide minimum standard for heliport design; for that reason, a Standard might state the objective and leave the means of compliance to the State/designer. If a problem exists within a State’s regulations, it is their responsibility to establish a requirement with equivalent safety and/or, if necessary, file a difference. It is not acceptable that basic tenets of the Annex be moderated in order to provide the lowest common denominator for existing installations. In that sense, the Annex is a document that looks forward, not backwards.
This paper contains a section for each of the defined areas as well as a number of Appendices containing: helideck diagrams (showing the normal as well as a reduced TLOF); a set of axioms (rules-of-thumb) for all defined areas; extracts from the Aerodrome Design Manual; required elements for the Design Helicopter; discussion on positional markings; the basis for certification of Category A procedures; and a discussion on Surface Loading.
The main paper starts with an explanation of the set of common attributes, some (or all) of which apply to a defined area, before addressing how values for those attributes might be assigned.
Only helicopters with a single main rotor are considered.
For anyone with an interest in Heliport Design, the contents might be of interest - particularly with respect to some important issues covered in the Appendices. These contain treaties on: the Design Helicopter; Surface Loading; Establishing the Rejected Take-Off Distance for Performance Class 1; and a Proposal to Reposition Surface Requirements from the FATO to the TLOF.
The paper may be found at:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y41u1sg6akf8v1l/Discussion%20Paper%20-%20Defined%20Areas%20V2.8%20%28Published%20Version%29.pdf?dl =0