Procedure
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2022
Location: Kerala
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Procedure
Hi Could anyone throw some light on the approach procedure to an elevated helipad/ offshore helipad with respect to CAT A approaches and landing, to be more specific whether the approach has to be made is the direction on to the FATO, or is it to a point short of FATO and slide in? or, Is it aircraft specific and depends upon the procedure as given in the CAT A operational supplement.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
prem999. I would start with the flight manuals performance supplement for the type in consideration. It should provide all the information you need. It may be CAT A or PC2 (of some flavour as there are several now). If the type has the required CAT A Supplement it will details the limitations, profiles, procedures and performance data you need. Hope this helps.
You definitely need to look at aircraft individually but in broad brush terms, an onshore approach to a helipad (elevated or otherwise) is made direct to the landing point. The angle of approach varies a bit, and sometimes you got pure vertical or sideways but the general intention is to go straight to a point in the low hover above the pad.
Offshore you could also use this Cat A approach but this would probably limit you in max mass terms. In that case you might aim off then slide in much like some ship approaches.
Offshore you could also use this Cat A approach but this would probably limit you in max mass terms. In that case you might aim off then slide in much like some ship approaches.
Agreed with above and basically an offshore helideck approach is done (into wind) to a point towards the side of the deck 45° to 90° offset, min 50' above deck height. Once you cannot fly away safely OEI and you can make the deck OEI then you commit to land.
Obviously making sure you are clear of obstructions.
Always into wind.
you can use that as a general approach. you can make it more complex with speeds, heights, go around, who's landing etc..etc..
Obviously making sure you are clear of obstructions.
Always into wind.
you can use that as a general approach. you can make it more complex with speeds, heights, go around, who's landing etc..etc..
Question: Why “always into to the wind?
Lots of the times a crosswind approach and landing is a better choice both on and offshore. Sometimes required onshore in the case of ATC wanting you to approach and land on a runway that is crosswind.
Just my opinion.
Lots of the times a crosswind approach and landing is a better choice both on and offshore. Sometimes required onshore in the case of ATC wanting you to approach and land on a runway that is crosswind.
Just my opinion.
Agreed with above and basically an offshore helideck approach is done (into wind) to a point towards the side of the deck 45° to 90° offset, min 50' above deck height. Once you cannot fly away safely OEI and you can make the deck OEI then you commit to land.
Obviously making sure you are clear of obstructions.
Always into wind.
you can use that as a general approach. you can make it more complex with speeds, heights, go around, who's landing etc..etc..
Obviously making sure you are clear of obstructions.
Always into wind.
you can use that as a general approach. you can make it more complex with speeds, heights, go around, who's landing etc..etc..
And not always 50’ above helideck either. EC175 PC2DLE CP is 40’, which I think was the case on Puma as well.
"general approach" i said.
instead of picking at my reply why not reply to the original posters request?
and a final approach to a deck offshore is done into wind, headwind component implied. I think the previous two replies took my always into wind statement as directly into wind (e.g. wind 360/10 my heading for final app 360° only) My intention was to mean not downwind or total crosswind.
instead of picking at my reply why not reply to the original posters request?
and a final approach to a deck offshore is done into wind, headwind component implied. I think the previous two replies took my always into wind statement as directly into wind (e.g. wind 360/10 my heading for final app 360° only) My intention was to mean not downwind or total crosswind.
Sorry if I offended you.
I have seen some folks who take the “Always into Wind” idea to mean directly into the prevailing wind no matter what. This leads to some interesting approaches and departures….”persistence in the face of reality”.
Sadly there are folks out there who are incapable of flying a crosswind approach. You can set them up perfectly with a crab angle into the wind and when you hand over control they immediately point the nose directly at the rig and do not realize they are drifting downwind. It would be funny to watch if it wasn’t so sad.
If, back on the beach, you can pry the Iphone out of their hands for a few minutes, you can draw diagrams and talk until you are blue in the face..no skull penetration will occur.
I have seen some folks who take the “Always into Wind” idea to mean directly into the prevailing wind no matter what. This leads to some interesting approaches and departures….”persistence in the face of reality”.
Sadly there are folks out there who are incapable of flying a crosswind approach. You can set them up perfectly with a crab angle into the wind and when you hand over control they immediately point the nose directly at the rig and do not realize they are drifting downwind. It would be funny to watch if it wasn’t so sad.
If, back on the beach, you can pry the Iphone out of their hands for a few minutes, you can draw diagrams and talk until you are blue in the face..no skull penetration will occur.
"general approach" i said.
instead of picking at my reply why not reply to the original posters request?
and a final approach to a deck offshore is done into wind, headwind component implied. I think the previous two replies took my always into wind statement as directly into wind (e.g. wind 360/10 my heading for final app 360° only) My intention was to mean not downwind or total crosswind.
instead of picking at my reply why not reply to the original posters request?
and a final approach to a deck offshore is done into wind, headwind component implied. I think the previous two replies took my always into wind statement as directly into wind (e.g. wind 360/10 my heading for final app 360° only) My intention was to mean not downwind or total crosswind.
Some RFMs allow for factored headwind - about half the actual headwind ISTR - to allow for out of wind (but not downwind) approaches.
