Low Altitude IFR Route Structure and Approaches For Helicopters
Thread Starter
Low Altitude IFR Route Structure and Approaches For Helicopters
Excerpt from a statement made by Robert Sumwalt who is a recognized Aviation Safety Expert having served in many related capacities to include the US NTSB in a senior position.
Recall Nick Lappos was saying the same thing many years ago and did flight testing at Sikorsky in field trials that confirmed the feasibility of such innovations to existing IFR route structures fhat are designed for Fixed Wing Aircraft and not Helicopters.
Safety and operational flexibility would be enhanced if the FAA would embrace this concept and apply funding for the creation of these routes and approaches.
"Former National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) member and chairman Robert Sumwalt began his tenure as a distinguished fellow in aviation safety and executive director of the new Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Center for Aviation and Aerospace Safety in January. Sumwalt was one of the NTSB’s longest-standing members, serving from 2006 to 2021 and holding the role as chairman since 2017. Prior to joining the NTSB, he spent 32 years as a pilot, including for Piedmont Airlines and US Airways, and also managed a corporate aviation department of a Fortune 500 energy company, amassing some 14,000 flight hours. While at US Airways, he served on the airline's flight operational quality assurance (FOQA) monitoring team. At Embry-Riddle, he intends to focus his attention on “three buckets” of interest, he told AIN.
“One is research. Part of the university's strategic plan is to bring in more research, and there are certainly a lot of areas ripe for improvement. Then we will be looking at our academic curriculum, across all three of our campuses, to see if there are ways that we can enhance that to better prepare students.” Finally, Sumwalt said, he will examine the university’s professional education courses “to see if there are ways that we can enhance that program.” He also noted that the university plans to use advisory boards to “keep our fingers on the pulse of what the industry needs.”
With regard to helicopter safety, Sumwalt again made the case for increased helicopter IFR and development of a low-level route structure to support it as a long-term strategy to avoid accidents related to encounters with inadvertent IMC. “The NTSB, years ago, did call for an enhanced low route structure to accommodate IFR helicopter traffic, and that needs to move forward. It is much safer to have a well-trained, well-qualified, proficient pilot in a helicopter that is capable of operating in IFR conditions.” Sumwalt made a similar case last year in the wake of the NTSB hearings on the fatal 2020 helicopter crash that killed basketball legend Kobe Bryant and eight others. Then he told AIN, “Which would you rather have? Somebody who is scud-running in a hilly area—or anywhere—or would you rather have someone who is competent, qualified, and certified to be flying IFR, where they are receiving the radar separation they need and have the terrain clearances that are in accordance with the TERPS [terminal instrument procedures]. We’ve seen so many accidents where people are trying to remain VFR and then get into inadvertent IMC.”
In June last year I made this post here at Rotorheads....and referenced a Safety Presentation given by Nick in Raleigh, North Carolina Ten Years earlier......
"Many EMS operations in the United States have an IAP to the Hospital Landing Pad which are off airport and are such IAP's.
I attended a Safety Seminar in Raleigh, North Carolina at least ten years ago where Nick Lappos talked of that work by Sikorsky using an S-76 to do those Point in Space Approaches.
He was a very strong advocate for the expansion of Helicopter IFR flight in non-traditional IFR environments.....or in plain language....doing Helicopter IFR using the unique ability to land at places other than legacy airport facilities.
That is the hard task...getting the authorities to bless and embrace that change in thinking .
It can be done...and done safely with the right equipment and training, combined with a careful intiial survey of the intended approach and surveillance of that to ensure no changes occur....much as has to be done with current on-airport IAP's."
Recall Nick Lappos was saying the same thing many years ago and did flight testing at Sikorsky in field trials that confirmed the feasibility of such innovations to existing IFR route structures fhat are designed for Fixed Wing Aircraft and not Helicopters.
Safety and operational flexibility would be enhanced if the FAA would embrace this concept and apply funding for the creation of these routes and approaches.
"Former National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) member and chairman Robert Sumwalt began his tenure as a distinguished fellow in aviation safety and executive director of the new Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Center for Aviation and Aerospace Safety in January. Sumwalt was one of the NTSB’s longest-standing members, serving from 2006 to 2021 and holding the role as chairman since 2017. Prior to joining the NTSB, he spent 32 years as a pilot, including for Piedmont Airlines and US Airways, and also managed a corporate aviation department of a Fortune 500 energy company, amassing some 14,000 flight hours. While at US Airways, he served on the airline's flight operational quality assurance (FOQA) monitoring team. At Embry-Riddle, he intends to focus his attention on “three buckets” of interest, he told AIN.
“One is research. Part of the university's strategic plan is to bring in more research, and there are certainly a lot of areas ripe for improvement. Then we will be looking at our academic curriculum, across all three of our campuses, to see if there are ways that we can enhance that to better prepare students.” Finally, Sumwalt said, he will examine the university’s professional education courses “to see if there are ways that we can enhance that program.” He also noted that the university plans to use advisory boards to “keep our fingers on the pulse of what the industry needs.”
With regard to helicopter safety, Sumwalt again made the case for increased helicopter IFR and development of a low-level route structure to support it as a long-term strategy to avoid accidents related to encounters with inadvertent IMC. “The NTSB, years ago, did call for an enhanced low route structure to accommodate IFR helicopter traffic, and that needs to move forward. It is much safer to have a well-trained, well-qualified, proficient pilot in a helicopter that is capable of operating in IFR conditions.” Sumwalt made a similar case last year in the wake of the NTSB hearings on the fatal 2020 helicopter crash that killed basketball legend Kobe Bryant and eight others. Then he told AIN, “Which would you rather have? Somebody who is scud-running in a hilly area—or anywhere—or would you rather have someone who is competent, qualified, and certified to be flying IFR, where they are receiving the radar separation they need and have the terrain clearances that are in accordance with the TERPS [terminal instrument procedures]. We’ve seen so many accidents where people are trying to remain VFR and then get into inadvertent IMC.”
In June last year I made this post here at Rotorheads....and referenced a Safety Presentation given by Nick in Raleigh, North Carolina Ten Years earlier......
"Many EMS operations in the United States have an IAP to the Hospital Landing Pad which are off airport and are such IAP's.
I attended a Safety Seminar in Raleigh, North Carolina at least ten years ago where Nick Lappos talked of that work by Sikorsky using an S-76 to do those Point in Space Approaches.
He was a very strong advocate for the expansion of Helicopter IFR flight in non-traditional IFR environments.....or in plain language....doing Helicopter IFR using the unique ability to land at places other than legacy airport facilities.
That is the hard task...getting the authorities to bless and embrace that change in thinking .
It can be done...and done safely with the right equipment and training, combined with a careful intiial survey of the intended approach and surveillance of that to ensure no changes occur....much as has to be done with current on-airport IAP's."
Last edited by SASless; 17th Apr 2022 at 13:45.
It is exactly what is needed but will the operators pay the extra costs involved in training and salaries for IFR rated pilots plus their currency requirements?
The scud running is a disease of the helicopter world with no obvious cure - how much does it cost and how many hoops have to be jumped through to get an IR?
The authorities seem to want everyone to have airline-level professional knowledge when in most cases a far less involved process more suited to helicopter operations could be created.
Make instrument flying and a simplified IR part of every commercial licence.
The scud running is a disease of the helicopter world with no obvious cure - how much does it cost and how many hoops have to be jumped through to get an IR?
The authorities seem to want everyone to have airline-level professional knowledge when in most cases a far less involved process more suited to helicopter operations could be created.
Make instrument flying and a simplified IR part of every commercial licence.
I'm still a great believer that heli IFR should be getting you out of trouble and not into it. Regular practiced competency, plus coupled to at least one firm action plan in place for getting yourself out of trouble should accompany every IFR flight. IFR isn't for everybody and you need to know where your limits are. I have no problem saying no, but hey, I've pretty much leaned the hard way over the years. Once again, pick your employer carefully.
Thread Starter
Crab.....do remember the UK CAA system and the US FAA system are chalk and cheese different in process and out of pocket costs due to the national differences in funding for aviation in the two Nations.
When it comes to the real world difference in minimum. practical standards thee is not a lot of different.
Licensing requirements are quite different in structure.....the FAA uses building block steps in licensing with written tests being focused upon the necessary subjects for each particular license as compared to the UK system.
Flight Test standards are much the same with in some ways the FAA includes a more extensive Oral Quizzing by the Pilot Examiner than does the UK system.
I hold both US and FAA ATPL's.....thus have been exposed to both in great detail over the years.
The way I describe the UK system to my FAA colleagues is this...."If you get Terminal Cancer...go get a UK ATPL for Helicopters....as when you finish you shall think you have lived forever!".
Back to the main topic....helicopters are different than fixed wing aircraft and have unique abilities that can be utilized in different ways to enhance safety while flying IFR.
Being able to slow down on approaches....in most cases to about Sixty Knots IAS....makes rates of descent and ground speed much slower than for the average Air Taxi Airplane which should make for safer approaches.
Past experience in 76's and 212/412's with the Sperry Helipilot system and RadAlts confirm the ability to go lower than the standard 200 Foot DH on an ILS Approach.....in practice/training flights have used Fifty Feet with no problems....using the Autopilot system hands off.
With more modern systems....could the approach minimums be lowered and improve our operations.
Point In Space approaches have been implemented but not formal route structures to the extent that any notable progress has been achieved.
When it comes to the real world difference in minimum. practical standards thee is not a lot of different.
Licensing requirements are quite different in structure.....the FAA uses building block steps in licensing with written tests being focused upon the necessary subjects for each particular license as compared to the UK system.
Flight Test standards are much the same with in some ways the FAA includes a more extensive Oral Quizzing by the Pilot Examiner than does the UK system.
I hold both US and FAA ATPL's.....thus have been exposed to both in great detail over the years.
The way I describe the UK system to my FAA colleagues is this...."If you get Terminal Cancer...go get a UK ATPL for Helicopters....as when you finish you shall think you have lived forever!".
Back to the main topic....helicopters are different than fixed wing aircraft and have unique abilities that can be utilized in different ways to enhance safety while flying IFR.
Being able to slow down on approaches....in most cases to about Sixty Knots IAS....makes rates of descent and ground speed much slower than for the average Air Taxi Airplane which should make for safer approaches.
Past experience in 76's and 212/412's with the Sperry Helipilot system and RadAlts confirm the ability to go lower than the standard 200 Foot DH on an ILS Approach.....in practice/training flights have used Fifty Feet with no problems....using the Autopilot system hands off.
With more modern systems....could the approach minimums be lowered and improve our operations.
Point In Space approaches have been implemented but not formal route structures to the extent that any notable progress has been achieved.
There are plenty of TK helicopter low level IFR GPS routes in US metro areas that work very well, especially in the NE USA. The 76 was capable of flying the ILS at 20 knots. I remember trying it once for a ' what if ' and it hunted a bit, but didn't kick us out like more modern types will.
Thread Starter
Bell SCAS was "Hands On" but worked well down to 40KTS.
Using the Turn Knob would work for making heading corrections and power for ROD....while flying an ILS.
EMS Operations would be a lot safer if all night ops outside a small radius local area were conducted via Low Level IFR Routes....using well equipped aircraft and trained, current, AND proficient pilots.
Using the Turn Knob would work for making heading corrections and power for ROD....while flying an ILS.
EMS Operations would be a lot safer if all night ops outside a small radius local area were conducted via Low Level IFR Routes....using well equipped aircraft and trained, current, AND proficient pilots.
Sasless , I understand the systems are different but the end result is the same - VFR pilots are cheaper than IFR pilots so a scud running VFR pilot will get the job because most of the time he is lucky.
We all know what a modern, or even not so modern, helicopter is capable of so why isn't that reflected in the regulations?
We all know what a modern, or even not so modern, helicopter is capable of so why isn't that reflected in the regulations?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Age: 59
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been flying EMS in the US for six years. Three VFR and three single pilot IFR. The PINs approaches are almost all developed by the operator or a hospital. The FAA only approves them. I don't see any reason to develop routes as I am always cleared direct but I have never worked in the NE corridor. I doubt they are having Medivac helicopters flying routes but can't say. Also, VERY little scud running going in EMS anymore that I have seen. Rare for sure, so I see no reason to change any regulations. I like being IFR as I can file if the weather is a little iffy and get a clearance if I need one. Or just go IFR. The main advantage to IFR is we often can accept flights VFR programs cannot. At this point in US EMS, I see this whole thing as a solution in search of a problem. I do enjoy IFR and would hesitate go back to a VFR program unless is was a really special situation.
Last edited by helonorth; 18th Apr 2022 at 21:11.
Thread Starter
Some questions that might be asked by readers that would help describe your operation....if answered would be useful for the discussion.
What altitudes do you fly when IFR/IMC and how do you determine the MOCA for the "route" you are flying.
What approaches do you fly when arriving at your destination.....either at a hospital or at an accident scene off airport?
What percentage of your flight time is in IMC?
NVG equipped and used when on an IFR flight?
Is your aircraft single engine or twin and what kind of level of avionics does it have onboard?
What determines if you file IFR and do you have to involve a remotely located Operations Center forDispatch Clearance?
I think our friends across the salt water divide might be interested in how your operation is conducted so they can compare it to what they do where they live.
What altitudes do you fly when IFR/IMC and how do you determine the MOCA for the "route" you are flying.
What approaches do you fly when arriving at your destination.....either at a hospital or at an accident scene off airport?
What percentage of your flight time is in IMC?
NVG equipped and used when on an IFR flight?
Is your aircraft single engine or twin and what kind of level of avionics does it have onboard?
What determines if you file IFR and do you have to involve a remotely located Operations Center forDispatch Clearance?
I think our friends across the salt water divide might be interested in how your operation is conducted so they can compare it to what they do where they live.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Age: 59
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foreflight will show minimum altitude for the route. Pick the one you want. I fly at 4,000 most of the time. That is usually the lowest available but my flights are usually short so climbing for winds isn't usually worth the effort.
If a PINs approach is available, that's obviously what I do. If no PINs, file to the nearest airport and depending on the weather you can proceed VFR to the hospital. Otherwise the patient must come to the airport. I let them know this before I accept in case it's not possible. There are no PINs approaches to scenes.
Probably 10% in the weather. Probably 75% on a clearance. We having icing much of the year.
We have NVGs. I don't use them in the clouds. I use them when I need them.
It is a twin with dual 430's or 530's and Astronautics nav displays.
I file when I feel necessary. My operation does not have an OCC as we operate less than 10 aircraft, so I'm on my on with the decision. The plans all go through Foreflight. If I am at a location with no radio coverage and low ceilings, I have to call and get a void time.
If a PINs approach is available, that's obviously what I do. If no PINs, file to the nearest airport and depending on the weather you can proceed VFR to the hospital. Otherwise the patient must come to the airport. I let them know this before I accept in case it's not possible. There are no PINs approaches to scenes.
Probably 10% in the weather. Probably 75% on a clearance. We having icing much of the year.
We have NVGs. I don't use them in the clouds. I use them when I need them.
It is a twin with dual 430's or 530's and Astronautics nav displays.
I file when I feel necessary. My operation does not have an OCC as we operate less than 10 aircraft, so I'm on my on with the decision. The plans all go through Foreflight. If I am at a location with no radio coverage and low ceilings, I have to call and get a void time.
h-n, it seems you face no problems integrating into the local IFR structure. Have I misinterpreted the situation? But in any case, there has been significant discussion over time regarding the establishment of unique low altitude routes for helicopters. With equipment such as you have, such routes could be easily flown if available. Comment?
Re the initial and periodic training for IFR, how does your operation handle that subject?
Thanks for your information-it sounds like you all have made yourselves well prepared.
Awhile ago, I had an experience with the local New York area ATC authorities that illuminated their opinions on the subject.
USN Capt. Bill Stuyvesant and I were sent over to Westland in early 1974 to fly the WG-13 Lynx, as the USN at the time was thinking LAMPS at that aircraft size. The day we were to fly it was 300/ 3/4 and a steady rain. This would be one of their test ships and it was a demo, but also part of a vibration survey with some upgrade solution for that issue. Pilot was Asst Ch Pilot Roy Mohammed. Roy briefed the flight and we both got to fly the machine for maybe 45 minutes, after Roy would do the vibration card maneuvers. Both flights were in cloud.
I returned to Connecticut all pumped up about how Westland does the more straightforward test flights IFR and with radar flight following etc….why can’t we? We had an employee named Ted Dumont, hired in from the FAA and out liaison back to them. Knew his job and the FAA. He made overtures to his acquaintances at NY Center and it was a very short meeting, not in favor of the helicopter.
But I’ve always thought that Nick Lappos was absolutely right on this subject as far as helicopter operations were concerned. Getting the FAA exercised to advance this technology is the challenge.
Re the initial and periodic training for IFR, how does your operation handle that subject?
Thanks for your information-it sounds like you all have made yourselves well prepared.
Awhile ago, I had an experience with the local New York area ATC authorities that illuminated their opinions on the subject.
USN Capt. Bill Stuyvesant and I were sent over to Westland in early 1974 to fly the WG-13 Lynx, as the USN at the time was thinking LAMPS at that aircraft size. The day we were to fly it was 300/ 3/4 and a steady rain. This would be one of their test ships and it was a demo, but also part of a vibration survey with some upgrade solution for that issue. Pilot was Asst Ch Pilot Roy Mohammed. Roy briefed the flight and we both got to fly the machine for maybe 45 minutes, after Roy would do the vibration card maneuvers. Both flights were in cloud.
I returned to Connecticut all pumped up about how Westland does the more straightforward test flights IFR and with radar flight following etc….why can’t we? We had an employee named Ted Dumont, hired in from the FAA and out liaison back to them. Knew his job and the FAA. He made overtures to his acquaintances at NY Center and it was a very short meeting, not in favor of the helicopter.
But I’ve always thought that Nick Lappos was absolutely right on this subject as far as helicopter operations were concerned. Getting the FAA exercised to advance this technology is the challenge.
Last edited by JohnDixson; 22nd Apr 2022 at 16:52.
