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