Thanks dangermouse.
I obviously have an early version of the chart because it is not colour coordinated.
Before attempting to make an input to your post, it might be a good idea to explain some of the reasons this debate is taking place. No area of aviation exists in isolation; whilst your statement on the requirement for showing compliance with the appropriate certification code is correct, the ultimate reason for the provision of standards, limitations, information and data is to provide operations with qualified helicopters, procedures and (for the purpose of this debate) performance information.
AW responsibilities to the code are in some sense finite and static; however the code has an intent which (whilst not always obvious) can, with examination of the history, be divined quite clearly (because it is well documented). Operations on the other hand are dynamic and as broad as the imagination of the customer, operator and pilot. To plot a safe route through such an operational environment needs data and information that doesn’t require us to fly on rails.
Anyway, on with the subject at hand.
The best way to describe the ‘Category A mass’ is to use Part 29.1(e) as the example: it requires the manufacturer to provide “the Category A requirements of 29.67(a)(2), 29.87, 29.1517…”. No compliance with the other Category A rules of Subpart B – Flight, are mandated and compliance with Subpart G – Operating Limitations and Information, is assumed (including 29.1519 – referring to 29.25(a)(1) to (3)). Because there is no requirement for Category A take-off and landing procedures, this leads to a necessity for a ‘Category A mass’ without any presumption of the take-off profile (only that it must remain clear of the H-V Diagram).
Operating in Performance Class 1 correlates quite closely with Category A procedures but is
not currently required in the US and, in Europe, required
only for operations in a built-up area or when carrying more than 19 passengers (with a derogation for more than 19 passengers offshore). Operations in Performance Class 2 are used the majority of the time (and specifically for offshore landing/take-off). So whilst Category A procedures are required for occasions when ‘mandated’ or, when they can be used without payload penalty, it is operations in Performance Class 2 that are predominant and the driver for flexible performance information/data.
For this aircraft you only have 2 CAT A profiles, vertical or rolling, if you don't do either then surely the CAT A limits do not apply and you will be using the 'HV' data to plan you flying, ie a vertical reject within the WAT limits is OK up to 200 ft AGL or a flyaway provided the height loss allows it, or using CAT B WAT
In essence, this illustrates the issue; the Category A clear area procedure is too restrictive, the Category A Vertical procedure is payload limiting (as is the Vertical reject) and the Category B profile requires level acceleration to achieve flight clear of the H-V avoid curve (and doesn’t provide second segment climb compliance in the WAT).
As the Advisory circular for CS29 is that used on FAR29 then I agree arguably 29.1519 has not been met in the legal sense if you require an HV chart to cover max TO mass operations, is that your point?
Yes it is ‘a’ point, but used only as an illustration that there is a space in the information provided by the reject/fly-away graphs between the upper limits of the reject curve and the maximum Category A mass (the mass meeting the ‘design maximum mass (structural)’ and ‘the highest mass at which compliance with 29.67(a)(2) is shown’) – (for offshore operations) 8,300 kg. There is no doubt in my mind that the gap can be filled, but
not with a traditional H-V Diagram. If this information is not provided, then compliance with 29.1517 has
not be shown
unless Category A procedures, Category B procedures (remaining clear of the H-V curve), or the reject/fly-away graphs are
mandated in the limitations section. Not really the result that we want for a new type of helicopter.
Jim