HeliTester,
Yes, the issue needs to be addressed in a more general form than the two alleviations shown (which are under scrutiny because they both contradict the Flight Manual).
The move to introduce exposure into the regulations (and subsequently into the ICAO SARPs) brought this into focus some years ago. The alleviation was seen as sufficient to address the operational necessity to have the required flexibility. Even though the European alleviation was comprehensive, the FAA one wasn't (addressing only over-water departures).
The move to put the European Regulations onto a more legal footing has now resulted in a reluctance to continue with the current rule alleviation and a more permanent solution is being sought (hence the move to remove the HV diagram from the limitation section).
There is no problem for HEMS, or any other operation permitting exposure during the take-off and landing phases. AL 5 introduced ground level exposure, which provided the additional flexibility that was omitted (deliberately) from NP 8. Exposure is now permitted in all but a congested hostile environment; for the HEMS Operating Site this is also permitted. HEMS locations (hospitals) in a congested hostile environment (other than a HEMS Operating Base) are addressed by the Public Interest Site provisions. This is unlikely to change with EASA OPS.
The (apparent) provisions of FAR 29.1 and the inclusion of the HV diagram in the Limitations Section can confine a Part 29 helicopter to operations in Performance Class 1 (using a CAT A procedure). The fact that Europe has a slightly different slant on the interpretation of Part 29.1 is mainly because the definition of CAT A differs between the FAA and Europe (ICAO appears to favour the European position). In the European definition the performance data that is provided in compliance with Part 29 is seen as facilitating the use of PC1, not requiring it.
Jim
Last edited by JimL; 10th Sep 2010 at 09:24.