Vanguard for the chop by the Feds
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Surrey
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So maybe not just rumours then?
My point was of course that the CAA, instead of showing leadership or concern over recent changes at Battersea, are spending their time potentially ruining any slight competition for another site.
Surely a better way forward would be to develop a genuine competitor to Battersea and allow the markets to work their magic?
As an aside - Isn't funny how everything is now down to JAR OPS 3? What did we blame for our failure before we had that?
My point was of course that the CAA, instead of showing leadership or concern over recent changes at Battersea, are spending their time potentially ruining any slight competition for another site.
Surely a better way forward would be to develop a genuine competitor to Battersea and allow the markets to work their magic?
As an aside - Isn't funny how everything is now down to JAR OPS 3? What did we blame for our failure before we had that?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Received a copy recently via the BHAB of the appendix to the CAA letter which bans CAT into Vanguard unless the hele can maintain a OEI HOGE! So the rumour is true, it would appear.
Think the reason is fairly clear........SAFETY.
Here's the letter..............
Vanguard Helipad, Isle of Dogs, London – Commercial Air Transport Operations
Vanguard Helipad is an unlicensed privately owned helipad on the North bank of the River Thames on the Isle of Dogs. It is generally made available to operators on a prior permission required basis. The Touch Down and Lift Off Area (TLOF) however, is defined by non-frangible obstacles on all four sides, making it non-compliant with the design requirements of Annex 14 Volume 2 (chapter 3).
Having regard to the tidal flow of the River Thames, the helipad is elevated for the majority of the time i.e. the water level is greater than 3m below the helipad level. At low water for instance, the drop is of the order of 10m. The pad itself is rectangular, being 34.3m wide and 31.4m deep. High walls define the two sides at right angles to the river and the Vanguard building defines the inboard edge parallel to the river. The only practical entry/exit path therefore is via the river and the forward edge of the helipad has a wall 0.9m high. NB: In accordance with the airspace design requirements specified in chapter 4 of Annex 14 Volume 2, an elevated heliport shall have at-least two take-off climb and approach surfaces separated by not less than 150 degrees. As the site itself is non- compliant with Annex 14 Volume 2 it may only be suitable to conduct Commercial Air Transport (CAT) operations on the basis of performance rules governing the helicopter operation.
The principle of that part of a Performance Class 1 take-off landing before Take-off Decision Point or after Landing Decision Point, is that the helicopter will at all times be able to carry out a Category A single engine landing i.e. with no damage to helicopter or occupants. This is not a ‘forced landing’ as referred to in Performance Class 2 and 3 operating rules but the end result of an approved Category A procedure which will have been practiced during recurrent checking of the pilot. Whereas the basic dimensions of the helipad itself will be able to accommodate most ‘minimum helipad size’ requirements promulgated in Flight Manuals e.g. 25m for the AS355, the obstacle environment at Vanguard make it unsuitable for Category A Helipad procedures directly to the pad (because of the obstacle environment). The alternative of using the Helipad procedure to an aiming point adjacent to the pad but over the river, is also not acceptable under Performance Class 1 operating rules. The reason being that an engine failure would require a ‘forced landing’ onto the river. Even when fitted with flotation equipment, this is not acceptable under Performance Class 1.
The only way the intent of Performance Class 1 rules can be achieved at Vanguard is for the take-off or landing to be performed at a weight that would allow the helicopter to Hover Outside Ground Effect (HOGE) with One Engine Inoperative (OEI). During a landing, the Helipad procedure could be used when aiming for a point in space over the river. Following an engine failure at any point, it should still be possible to position over the riverside perimeter wall and land safely on the pad. During take-off, the HOGE OEI capability would once again give zero exposure to risk during the transition to the river. Emergency Flotation Equipment would not therefore be required.
Operations at Vanguard other than as described above would involve ‘Operations Without an Assured Safe Forced Landing Capability’ as defined by JAR-OPS 3 at Amendment 5. JAR-OPS now permits such operations under Performance Class 2 or 3 operating rules but requires an approval in accordance with Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.517(a). No UK onshore operator currently has such an approval.
Here's the letter..............
Vanguard Helipad, Isle of Dogs, London – Commercial Air Transport Operations
Vanguard Helipad is an unlicensed privately owned helipad on the North bank of the River Thames on the Isle of Dogs. It is generally made available to operators on a prior permission required basis. The Touch Down and Lift Off Area (TLOF) however, is defined by non-frangible obstacles on all four sides, making it non-compliant with the design requirements of Annex 14 Volume 2 (chapter 3).
Having regard to the tidal flow of the River Thames, the helipad is elevated for the majority of the time i.e. the water level is greater than 3m below the helipad level. At low water for instance, the drop is of the order of 10m. The pad itself is rectangular, being 34.3m wide and 31.4m deep. High walls define the two sides at right angles to the river and the Vanguard building defines the inboard edge parallel to the river. The only practical entry/exit path therefore is via the river and the forward edge of the helipad has a wall 0.9m high. NB: In accordance with the airspace design requirements specified in chapter 4 of Annex 14 Volume 2, an elevated heliport shall have at-least two take-off climb and approach surfaces separated by not less than 150 degrees. As the site itself is non- compliant with Annex 14 Volume 2 it may only be suitable to conduct Commercial Air Transport (CAT) operations on the basis of performance rules governing the helicopter operation.
The principle of that part of a Performance Class 1 take-off landing before Take-off Decision Point or after Landing Decision Point, is that the helicopter will at all times be able to carry out a Category A single engine landing i.e. with no damage to helicopter or occupants. This is not a ‘forced landing’ as referred to in Performance Class 2 and 3 operating rules but the end result of an approved Category A procedure which will have been practiced during recurrent checking of the pilot. Whereas the basic dimensions of the helipad itself will be able to accommodate most ‘minimum helipad size’ requirements promulgated in Flight Manuals e.g. 25m for the AS355, the obstacle environment at Vanguard make it unsuitable for Category A Helipad procedures directly to the pad (because of the obstacle environment). The alternative of using the Helipad procedure to an aiming point adjacent to the pad but over the river, is also not acceptable under Performance Class 1 operating rules. The reason being that an engine failure would require a ‘forced landing’ onto the river. Even when fitted with flotation equipment, this is not acceptable under Performance Class 1.
The only way the intent of Performance Class 1 rules can be achieved at Vanguard is for the take-off or landing to be performed at a weight that would allow the helicopter to Hover Outside Ground Effect (HOGE) with One Engine Inoperative (OEI). During a landing, the Helipad procedure could be used when aiming for a point in space over the river. Following an engine failure at any point, it should still be possible to position over the riverside perimeter wall and land safely on the pad. During take-off, the HOGE OEI capability would once again give zero exposure to risk during the transition to the river. Emergency Flotation Equipment would not therefore be required.
Operations at Vanguard other than as described above would involve ‘Operations Without an Assured Safe Forced Landing Capability’ as defined by JAR-OPS 3 at Amendment 5. JAR-OPS now permits such operations under Performance Class 2 or 3 operating rules but requires an approval in accordance with Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.517(a). No UK onshore operator currently has such an approval.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
So being a total pedant, they are not saying you have to have HUMS at all, they (CAA) are saying that there are currently no On-Shore operators with an approval to use Vanguard. It is simply an assumption that as all Off-Shore operators have HUMS, and Off-Shore Operators can use the facility, ergo, you must need HUMS. Surely the the correct assumption is that you need an Off-Shore Operating certification to go in there, somewhat negating the utility of the site?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
of course this only matters if its "public transport" , 90% are private/aerial work/ at the behest of the owner/for a mate/corporate , or whatever you want to call it.
will it stop any of these NO
whats the point of trying to play by the rules when the rules get tougher ,yet nobody tries to stop the cowboys
will it stop any of these NO
whats the point of trying to play by the rules when the rules get tougher ,yet nobody tries to stop the cowboys
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:
The following statement by Helinut is not implied by the letter:
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
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"
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
Last edited by JimL; 26th Aug 2007 at 06:20.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tha basis of my statement was to try and summarise the net effect of what the CAA letter seemed to say. The last 2 paras are the important bits. Since no UK onshore operator seems to have the necessary approvals or equipment (at present) the only way that a CAT can get in there is with OEI HOGE.......
Last edited by Helinut; 26th Aug 2007 at 13:12.
