Jump to content

H1 H2 H3 Heliports


Recommended Posts

This was in CARS under standard 325.19

 

 

Information Note 2:

 

Heliports are divided into two categories: instrument and non‑instrument. Non‑instrument heliports have three classifications: H1, H2 and H3.

 

(a) a non‑instrument heliport is classified as H1 if the heliport is located within an obstacle environment where

 

(i) there is no emergency landing area within 625 m from the FATO, and

 

(ii) the helicopters using the heliport can be operated at a weight, and in such a manner that, in case of an engine failure at any time during approach or take‑off, the helicopters can either

 

(A) land and safely stop on the FATO or TLOF area, or

 

(B) safely continue the flight to an appropriate landing area;

 

(B) a non‑instrument heliport is classified as H2 if the heliport is located within an obstacle environment where

 

(i) the height of the obstacles are infringing the first section slope of the approach and take‑off surface set out in Table 4‑1, and

 

(ii) there are reachable emergency landing or rejected take‑off areas within 625 m of the FATO in relation to the altitude of the helicopter and its performance with one engine inoperative;

 

© a non‑instrument heliport is classified as H3 if the heliport is located within an obstacle environment where

 

(i) the height of obstacles do not penetrate any of the obstacle limitation surface (OLS) requirements set out in Table 4‑1, and

 

(ii) there are reachable emergency landing areas or rejected take‑off areas within 625 m of the FATO in relation to the altitude of the helicopter and its performance during autorotation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah the H1 topic. TC has really dropped the ball on this one. I have seen H2 helipads where the suitable reject area is a single piece of property across an intersection, behind a building and possibly not on your departure path.

 

The fact of the matter is TC turns a blind eye to H1 restrictions. Only the very latest helo types can carry any useful load into these helipads. According to TC, you may operate an twin to an H1 helipad at such a weight, that in the event of an engine failure a crash on the H1 pad is allowed (safely appearantly means safety of the general public around the helipad not the aircraft) as long as the pilot can guarantee that all the parts and pieces of the aircraft remain on the pad. Only the very best pilots can control all the parts of a helo after a very hard landing. Pure BS if you ask me. No backbone at TC as it would affect too many operations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

It isn't so much a matter of backbone at TC but a matter of being practical.

 

Many of the restrictions were written based on older aircraft and they have yet to catch up to performance a bit.

One must consider the location of the pad and the prime operator. While the pad may be available to all operators it will often be restricted to those with twin engine helicopters and those who do use it will have company procedures that allow them to meet the criteria in their flight profiles. If this was not done then no current EMS helicopter operator would be able to meet the requirement to land at several H2 pads and certainly not on any H1 pad. Pilots fly an approach or departure profile that would allow them to meet the restriction if they lost an engine, short of dictating to operators that they must buy a specific helicopter that is about all TC can expect. It's called managing risk within a reasonable range.

 

This is actually a great example of the regulator doing the best they can to maintain public safety and to accomodate operators so I personally don't see any balls being dropped.

 

As more and more newer machines come online this will in fact be less of an issue over time. The most common machines in use in Canada are the S76A, the BK117A, the A109 and now some Dauphins are showing up in QB. Soon we will be seeing AW139 in AB and certainly the Bell412s the military and Surete du Quebec use have enough power.

 

Finally great care is given to develop sites with at least one H3 (useable by single-engine helos) slope to ensure that any machine can land there. This is not always possible and often TC is contacted too late in the heliport development phase to give the landowner location advice and remember that TC does not choose heliport locations. You are then left with a site the owners want to use because of their building or parking lots and the heliport was a distant thought so that is why you sometimes get what you get. For that reason it is very subjective and up to individual inspectors to assess each site and be as practical as they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...