PERFORMANCE - FROM RUNWAYS TO HELIPORTS IN CITY CENTRES

The Introduction and Evolution of Category A Procedures

The introduction of Category A performance for helicopters

With the advent of commercial twin-engine Transport Category helicopters in the 1970s, the aspiration
of the helicopter community that operations could be conducted with engine-failure accountability
provided by Category A performance was within sight. By operating to and from runways and adapting
concepts in use by aeroplanes, a complete flight profile consisting of take-off, climb, cruise, and
approach to landing could be achieved without the necessity for a forced landing due to engine failure
- at any stage. This would require that:

• at any time before one engine inoperative (OEI) safe speed (V1) was attained, a reject could
be carried out on the runway;
• from V1, continued OEI acceleration to a realistic climb speed (V2) could be achieved;
• from V2 an OEI climb gradient satisfying the minimum Aerodrome Take-off Climb Surface slope
would be possible;
• from 1000 ft, en route OEI obstacle clearance could be maintained; and
• from the cruise, OEI approach, landing/balked1 landing, could be carried out.

Where expressed in terms no longer in use for helicopters, V1 is the last point where a reject onto the
runway can be conducted and the first point where OEI sustained flight is possible; and V2 is the point
where Take-Off Safety Speed (Vtoss), a height 35 ft, and a positive climb rate are achieved (and where
the airport/heliport climb gradient can be met2).

There remained differences in helicopter procedures:

• all engine operating (AEO) helicopter acceleration is commenced after lift-off – V1 therefore
occurs in flight (there is one recent example of a Category A running take-off);
• acceleration OEI from V1 could involve a descent (caused mainly by latency in engine pickup
due to hydro-mechanical fuel systems and a sudden loss of rotor RPM) to a minimum of 15 ft
above the surface of the runway, followed by a recovery to 35 ft surface clearance by V2; but,
• achieving the required OEI gradient of climb presented (economic) problems for early twins.

1
The word ‘balked’ is used in regulatory manuals, not the European ‘baulked’.
2
Located at the ‘outer edge’ of the runway/clearway is the ‘inner edge’ of the take-off climb surface (see the
diagram below); it has a gradient (or angle of climb) of 4.5% (or 2.57°). The distance from the start of the runway
to the inner edge of the take-off climb surface is defined as the take-off distance available (TODAH). At or before
the TODAH, the helicopter should be at least 35 ft above the surface and established in a sustainable climb
meeting, or exceeding, the specified gradient.
The absence of the requirement for gradients in the Certification Code

This last issue resulted in a decision not to require climb gradients in the certification code but, instead,
to specify two minimum climb segments: segment 1 - at Vtoss and Rate of Climb (ROC) of 100 ft/min
at 200 ft; and segment 2 - at best rate of climb speed (Vy) and ROC of 150 ft/min at 1,000 ft – both
above the take-off surface. The level acceleration segment, required to transition from Vtoss to Vy (at
200 ft), also severely impacted the climb gradient. This unfortunate legacy from the 1980s has the side
effect that the actual climb gradient has to be established from the aggregate slopes of the three parts:
first segment, level segment, and second segment.

This has presented a problem for heliport design with ICAO-specified climb gradients - not addressed
until installed power was improved in the late 1990s, and an aggregate climb segment was proposed
in the 2000s.

Correlation between engine settings and phases of the take-off path

Worthy of note at this point is the (then) correlation between the phases of the take-off procedure
and the specified engine power settings. The OEI flight between V1 and V2 – is undertaken at the 30-
second power setting, the first segment climb - at the 2-minute setting, the second segment climb - at
the 30-minute setting and, the en-route climb – at the 30-minute or continuous setting. As engine
efficiency improved the rates of climb increased until, in the recent era, the 1,000 ft point could

Page 2 of 17
(potentially) be reached within the 2-minute setting. This, coupled with the (now) reduced Vtoss (at a
lower speed, improving the angle of climb), resulted in a potential climb gradient in excess of that
required by the ICAO Heliport Standard.

Dependence upon aerodromes, runways, and surfaces

The adapted procedure remained dependent upon a runway surface over which AEO acceleration, to
a point where V1 (a sustainable OEI speed, before which a reject onto the runway is required), could
be achieved: either over the runway (Balanced Field Length – where it takes the same distance to reject
or reach V2);

or, the addition of a clearway (a surface clear of obstacles that may not be suitable for touchdown and
over which the OEI acceleration between V1 and V2 is to take place):

The surface required for acceleration from the hover to V2 can be hundreds of metres in length. This
‘surface area’ had to be within the confines of the aerodrome, or later the heliport, and under the
control of the aerodrome/heliport operator.

At this point in time, the expectation was that Transport Category helicopters would continue to
operate from existing runways designed for aeroplane operations. The ICAO Standards for aerodromes
were more than adequate to support helicopter operations – particularly with respect to the surfaces
and slopes provided, both on the ground and in the departure and arrival sectors.

Page 3 of 17
The economic imperative for small heliports

However, helicopters operating airfield-to-airfield could never compete, economically, against

aeroplanes. Alternative solutions were necessary to support niche operations for which helicopters
were better suited. These niche operations required heliports provided on sites too small for
aeroplanes, and/or in obstacle-rich environments (at the extreme, in city centres, or on oil rigs far from
land).

With neither a surface large enough for a reject nor a clear area (within the boundary of the heliport)
available for acceleration to V2, the runway-type profile became incompatible with such smaller
heliports. Without OEI Hover Out of Ground Effect (HOGE) performance (an aspiration of regulators
never embraced by manufacturers or operators), operations with engine-failure accountability would
not be possible without alternative solutions.

ICAO enters the scene

Simultaneously with these developments (in the late 1980s), the three relevant ICAO Annexes: 6 –
Operations; 8 – Airworthiness of Aircraft; and Annex 14 - Aerodromes, were being transposed to
Parts/Volumes suitable for helicopters.

Worthy of mention in this transposition was the adoption of the Performance Classes3 – a pragmatic
classification having an understanding of operations and the strengths (and weaknesses) of both
Category A and B certification standards and the adoption from the ICAO aeroplane standards of the
principle of the Safe-Forced-Landing (SFL) for helicopters not applying Category A procedures.

The necessity for three Performance Classes was based on the decision taken by the FAA not to enforce
take-off and landing procedures in FAR 294. This had a profound impact as FAR 29 was to become the
basis for the worldwide harmonization of certification standards. It left a gap in engine failure
accountability that had to be filled by the introduction of Performance Class 2.

Note: The first regulations to be harmonised were the certification codes (the principal aim of the FAA/
JAA). The changes made to Parts 27/29 would therefore apply to almost all of the aviation world –
excluding Russia which decided that it would retain its regulations. The lack of the requirement for
take-off and landing procedures – signalled in the Federal Register (FR) – would therefore apply
worldwide and would have to be compensated for in operational regulations. This would either be in
accordance with a code of performance (for those States that applied the ICAO SARPs) or interpretation
of the certification regulations5 for those that did not.

Critically, the transposition of the ICAO Standards from aerodromes to heliports was undertaken
without sufficient consideration of the move to smaller heliports, at a time when greater numbers of
twin-engine helicopters (both in the Transport/Large and Normal/Small Category) certificated in
Category A were being designed and produced. (This was not rectified until the 2010s when the ICAO
Heliport Manual underwent a substantial reorganisation and update.)

The deregulated nature of the building of heliports in most States resulted in surfaces suitable only for
AEO operations – i.e. without the provision for engine-failure accountability or SFL provision.

3
The Performance Classes are fully explained in ICAO Doc 10110.
4
The background to this decision can be found in Volume 48 No. 21 of the Federal Register.
5
This would eventually result in applications for exemption from FAR 91.9(a) for offshore operations – see the
discussion of this in the second paper of this series ‘The introduction and evolution of helideck procedures’.

Page 4 of 17
Onwards and Upwards - the introduction of Vertical Procedures

In the early 1990s and at a time when the European Regulations were being produced (interestingly,
in compliance with the newly minted ICAO Helicopter Annexes), the FAA, after extensive discussions
with other regulators and interested parties, proposed significant changes to Category A performance
to facilitate other than runway-type procedures – this included the introduction of the term take-off
decision point (TDP).

Where, when applying the vertical procedure, TDP is the last point where an OEI rejected take-off and
the first point where a continued take-off can be carried out – defined by no more than two parameters
(in the case of Vertical Procedures, one). From here in the following narrative, only TDP is used.

It was now possible to produce profiles that were concentrated on the strengths of the helicopter and
not driven by the weaknesses of aeroplanes.

Although a helicopter can climb vertically with all engines operating, following an engine failure it has
limited ability to climb OEI until it attains Vtoss. Manufacturers have overcome this potential weakness
by utilising AEO vertical climb performance to the TDP and increasing potential energy (in the form of
height) whilst retaining the ability to reject the take-off and return to the heliport safely should an

engine fail before the TDP. Two critical elements have to be satisfied: the take-off surface has to remain
within the sight of the pilot at all times up to, and at, the TDP; and, the helicopter must remain in a
steady state throughout any OEI descent to allow a safe reject.

After reaching TDP, the height (potential energy) can be converted to forward speed (kinetic energy)
in the continued take-off, whilst accelerating to Vtoss by the take-off distance required (TODR). Vertical
clearance from obstacles is achieved by locating the TDP at a suitable height to ensure that, during any
drop-down, Min-Dip remains the required height above obstacles.

Where Min-Dip is the lowest point in the continued take-off (established in the RFM only as a drop-
down from the TDP - without location information). TODR is defined as the point where ‘Vtoss, a
clearance of 35 ft above obstacles and a positive rate of climb’ is met. It should be established during
the planning stage that TODR (from the RFM supplement) will be achieved before TODAH (from the
Heliport Information).

The vertical procedure was initially intended only to minimise the required runway, or Final Approach
and Take-off (FATO), length for the rejected take-off; it was a procedure with a fixed TDP of around 100
ft. Early helicopter types were prone to acceleration during any OEI reject, not assisted by the

Page 5 of 17
previously mentioned hydro-mechanical fuel systems6, or the failure by the pilot to maintain the
remaining engine at maximum power by holding down the rotor speed (Nr). Quite severe rejected
take-off manoeuvres, consisting of a dive followed by a harsh flare, were demonstrated but it soon
became clear that stable descent at a constant rotor speed produced a more predictable touchdown
(a situation improved with the advent of digital engine control).

It is necessary to introduce a precautionary note at this point, early profiles had a vertical ascent to 100
ft over a helipad not much larger than the overall length of the helicopter. Even on an airfield rich with
lateral visual cues, an accurate reject to the helipad is problematical – for an elevated helipad, it is
close to impossible. Maintaining the view of the helipad from the side window is a much safer option
but one which the manufacturers (except Bell) are reluctant to accept. Those who have had offshore
experience know the value of this positioning as it is common practice for most approaches.

Establishing the minimum size for the Rejected take-off area7.

The issue of runway length for a rejected take-off was now, essentially, solved by the manufacturers
establishing the minimum surface area required for Category A take-off or landing.

(To distinguish from the clear area/runway procedure, the term ‘rejected take-off distance’ was
dropped from Vertical Procedure Category A Supplements, to be replaced by the minimum helipad
size. Terms used by manufacturers are ‘minimum demonstrated heliport size’ or ‘minimum take-off
and landing surface’ (MTLS). The minimum FATO size is defined, by one manufacturer, as the ‘minimum
take-off and landing area’ (MTLA8).)

It is important to recognise that the minimum heliport size, specified in the RFM Supplement, relates
to the Category A procedure and may be less than that specified in ICAO Annex 14, Volume II - Heliports.
The establishment of the minimum size for a Performance Class 1 (PC1) Touch Down and Lift Off (TLOF)
and FATO area is addressed more fully in ICAO Doc 9261, Volume I, Chapter 3, Appendix C – ‘Establishing
the rejected take-off distance’.

Dealing with the obstacles penetrating the take-off climb surface

Obstacles outside the heliport now had to be addressed. Providing that the two requirements of the
vertical phase of the take-off or the OEI landing – Field of View (FOV) and stable descent - could
continue to be satisfied, the further raising of the TDP was not seen as an issue by the manufacturers.
There was initial caution by the certificating authority but, in time and after extensive and observed
flight trials, a further extension to a limit of 400 ft was accepted.

As has already been seen (in the early graphics), the inner edge (origin) of the take-off climb surface is
located at the end of the FATO/SA, or the outer edge of the clearway. However, unlike aerodromes,
heliports are rarely sited in extensive clear areas and meeting the constraints of a shallow departure
slope is almost always problematical. The elevation of the TDP well above the heliport surface provided
a means of addressing obstacles that (potentially) penetrated this obstacle limitation surface (OLS).

6
Another observed cause has been due to the FADEC being slow to detect engine failure and arm the OEI
power setting
7
The rejected take-off area is that area declared available and suitable for a helicopter to complete a Category A
rejected take-off. It has the combined attributes of the FATO and the TLOF and is usually expressed as a distance.
8
There is some discussion around the exact meaning of MTLA – i.e. whether it includes the SA as well as the
FATO. This would not be an issue if the correct terminology was used.

Page 6 of 17
The issue of complexity for the pilot

The introduction of Vertical Procedures added complexity to the piloting aspect because of the two
(distinct) phases of the procedure – both for the departure and arrival (more later on the arrival). The
somewhat restricted pilot’s FOV in the ascent/descent phase was an important consideration in raising
the TDP. Further complexity was introduced because the OEI descent could now exceed 30 seconds;
this required additional management of power settings, in the OEI descent.

As a result of feedback from operators on the difficulty in achieving repeatable, stable rejects during
training (a leftover from the dive and flare manoeuvre), manufacturers introduced steeper slopes for
the ascent/descent. This had the corollary benefit of reducing the footprint of the procedure.

Addressing the problem of small heliports - elevating the clearway

The way was now clear for the manufacturers to offer Category A, Vertical Procedures as a solution for
small heliports. This would break the reliance on the runway-type procedure, with its requirement for
extensive ‘surfaces’, by elevating the clearway outside the heliport boundary – i.e., (safely)
superimposed above the take-off climb surface. (See below a to-scale simulation from actual flight
manual data with a 260 m clearway. The location of the Min-Dip is ‘estimated’ by projecting backwards
from the TODR. The lesser dotted line represents the required 35 ft obstacle clearance above the
clearway level.).

Note 1: The origin of the take-off climb surface cannot be located on the surface outside the boundary
of the heliport, therefore on a small heliport, vertical procedures always require elevation of the
clearway. This allows the pilot to calculate the TDP as current RFMs do not include sufficient
information to allow this to be done, other than from a level surface, without using mathematics. (This
procedure may be an issue for older types that do not have access to a variable TDP and a standard
drop-down to 15 ft above the surface is assumed.)

Page 7 of 17
Note 2: The vertical element of Vertical Procedures can be implemented within a backup procedure
(the earliest type), a sideways procedure, or a true-vertical procedure. As already mentioned, two
principal elements have to be satisfied: the landing surface must remain within the FOV up to the TDP;
and, the reject can be undertaken as a controlled and stable manoeuvre. In the backup procedure, this
requirement is achieved with the view through the chin window; the sideways, through (the usually
enlarged or modified) side window; or, for the true-vertical, with the assistance of the autopilot
monitored by the pilot using the vertical camera. In the latter case, the availability of the procedure at
any given site may be conditional upon the serviceability of the camera.

Note 3: The use of other than a true-vertical procedure requires a modification of the obstacle
limitation surfaces of a heliport to take into account obstacles underneath the back-up or lateral profile,
methods for providing additional or modified obstacle surfaces are provided in ICAO Doc 9261 –
Heliport Manual Volume 1, Chapter 4, Appendix A.

Although the responsibility for defining the length of the clearway should fall to heliport management,
it is not yet part of the accepted heliport infrastructure design (although it is expected to be in the
future). In the absence of its provision, a clearway of 300 m should be sufficient for most existing
helicopter types; for a 4.5% gradient, this would require (a clearway) elevation of 45 ft (or 15 ft/100 m
of clearway). For the backup procedure, the required length of a clearway will reduce as the height of
the TDP is raised and moves backwards from the helipad; an additional benefit will be a slight reduction
in the required height of the TDP9.

Provided that the helicopter type has Vertical Procedures as Category A supplements to the RFM, there
is no real operational penalty to their use with elevated clearways. The latest twin-engine types are
able to use these procedures with a practical take-off mass in a wide range of temperatures/altitudes.
That applies both to ground-level and elevated heliports.

Elevating the take-off climb surface above obstacles

Obstacles that penetrate the 4.5% gradient (outside the heliport boundary), can be tolerated by
elevating both the take-off climb surface (as defined in Annex 14) and the clearway, thus facilitating
operations in obstacle-rich environments (for example in medical facilities in city centres where third-
party risk would be a consideration). An example with a 200 ft tower at 200 m is shown below.

Figure II-4-A-3 Visualised take-off climb (flight path to achieve minimum clearance from obstacles)

The design of an ICAO-compliant heliport requires the obstacle environment to be surveyed. By

projecting a 4.5% slope from the edge of the FATO/SA along the length (and width) of the take-off
climb surface, the height of the limiting obstacle (and the extent of the penetration) can be established.
This then determines the required elevation of the take-off climb surface. (The take-off climb surface
could include turns (a curved portion) to avoid notable obstacles; obstacles under this modified flight

9
The reduction is a function of the clearway’s reduced length - in accordance with the calculation.

Page 8 of 17
path must be taken into account when determining the critical obstacle). If the take-off climb surface
is elevated in order to clear obstacles, the elevation of the clearway would be in addition to this.

Even if the ICAO provisions have not been observed (due, in the main, to the somewhat unregulated
nature of the heliport design and building process), there is nothing to prevent a (hospital) landing-
site operator taking responsibility for showing compliance with the ICAO Standards (usually performed
in cooperation with a future operator or organisation) – it is a duty-of-care. Furthermore, where the
HEMS services to a hospital landing site are provided by contract with a helicopter operator, the
helicopter operator might themselves have a responsibility for satisfying a similar duty-of-care -
contained within the State’s operational regulations.

The approach – standard considerations

For an approach to a runway-type heliport where the obstacle environment is not an issue, standard
approach techniques are appropriate - an alternative ICAO slope of 12.5% can be applied (this is
categorised, in some States as 8:1 – which is just a different way of expressing the slope). The final part
of the approach is a decelerative manoeuvre to the landing spot.

The landing decision point (LDP) represents the last point of the helicopter’s approach to the landing
site from which, following an engine failure, either an OEI landing or balked landing can be performed.
The definition of the LDP should include a rate of descent and speed – which will determine the
amount of drop-down following an engine failure, and a height – to ensure that the obstacle (the
aerodrome/heliport surface) in the balked landing area is cleared OEI by the appropriate margin.

The LDP will be defined in the RFM and can be used with either a 4.5% or 12.5% approach surface.
Passing through the LDP (the last point at which a balked landing can be initiated) represents a
commitment to land regardless of where the LDP is situated.

If the approach and take-off climb surfaces are not diametrically opposed, the LDP should be at a point
where a turn and balked landing can be conducted safely – this will be a ‘fly-by’ or ‘fly-over’ depending
upon the obstacles on either side of the heliport. Where a balked landing is conducted straight ahead
i.e., not directly above a take-off surface, specific instructions should be provided.

The surveying imperatives applied to the take-off climb surface apply also to the approach. If both a
take-off climb surface of 4.5% and an approach surface of 12.5% are provided, expect the elevation of
the origin of the approach surface to be lower10.

10
Because of the steeper angle of a 12.5% gradient the elevation of the origin of the OLS, to clear an object at
200 ft at 200 m, needs to be 124 ft; for a 4.5% gradient, the elevation would be 164 ft.

Page 9 of 17
The effect of vertical procedures on the balked landing

It has already been established that, for a small heliport, the absence of a clearway within the
boundary of the heliport presents an issue when establishing the required clearance from the take-off
climb slope; this also affects the balked landing. When an elevated clearway has been established
above the take-off climb surface (which, remember, normally emanates from the edge of the FATO/SA),
its level should be used to inform the height of the (revised) LDP.

The conditions up to the LDP should be such that initiation of a balked landing, will not result in descent
below the approach path, and/or, 35 ft above obstacles in the balked landing path (when the balked
landing is conducted over an existing take-off path, the minimum height will therefore be the height
of the elevated clearway plus 35 ft).

Elevating the approach surface above obstacles

Obstacles that penetrate a standard approach surface can be tolerated by elevating that surface; the
use of the 12.5% slope allows a lesser elevation of the approach surface. The to-scale simulation below
represents an approach (when flying back to the heliport) over the same obstacle – 200 ft at 200 m,
shown in the previous sections.

This approach has a generic flight path which may vary with helicopter capability; the backup obstacle
limitation surface (OLS) and ascent/descent surfaces are reproduced from actual flight manual data.
The LDP can be anywhere on the approach flight path before, or at, the ascent/descent surface; if the
LDP is on the ascent/descent surface, it will be at the same position (or above) as the corresponding
TDP – depending on the height of the critical obstacle on the approach.

As the helicopter approaches the ascent/descent surface it will be decelerating to the point where the
correct attitude, speed, and altitude for the descent to the FATO, are attained (for a true-vertical
descent, this will be in the hover - for other profiles there will be a defined, residual ground speed).
The target attitude at the LDP will be the sight picture represented in the appropriate section of the
Flight Manual Supplement.

As with the departure, adding Vertical Procedures, with a two-slope approach introduces complexity
to the piloting task. This (potentially) removes the pilot from a single sight-picture approach to the
runway threshold (or helipad) and breaks the link between the helicopter/pilot and approach path
indicator – which might thereby provide false indications of a safe approach angle. Fortunately, and as

Page 10 of 17
already seen with the true-vertical procedure, pilot assistance through autopilot functions has the
potential to negate that disadvantage.

The backup OLS and ascent/descent surface for the arrival will normally be that provided for the
departure. When the approach and take-off climb surfaces are not diametrically opposed, this surface
should be reoriented to the approach heading.

Exploring Category A Procedure design and testing, and contents of the Category A Supplement

It may be worthwhile at this juncture to dive into Category A Procedure design and contents of
Category A Supplements to understand how procedures are constructed, avoid any pitfalls, and get
the best out of them.

The design, development, testing and certification of a Category A procedure – other than the clear
area/runway which is a basic element of Category A certification, is an expensive undertaking for which
recovery of cost can be achieved only through the sale of aircraft. It results from an operational
requirement that is either part of the perceived role of a type (such as air ambulance in the case of the
small and medium twins) or, as a request from an important user group (such as the oil companies in
the case of offshore operations).

The design and testing process

The design and testing process for each of the procedures, although specific to each manufacturer,
would follow a similar path. The example below starts with the establishment of the basic elements of
Category A Performance before progressing to the definition of a clear area/runway, and Vertical,
Procedure.

1. First, all of the trim flight performance testing (hover, level flight, climb and descent) is carried
out in fully instrumented helicopters and in ideal conditions. Parametric power required data
maps and a trim flight performance computer model are developed.

2. Engine inlet and exhaust surveys and installed engine power available verification testing are
carried out, and the installed engine power available computer model is obtained from the
engine manufacturer.

3. The Category A second segment Weight Altitude Temperature {WAT) curve is then calculated
using the results of 1 and 2. Note that the Category A second segment WAT curve gives the
absolute maximum possible Category A weight for altitude and temperature.

4. The lowest Vtoss at which the Category A first segment WAT curve, at least equal to the
Category A second segment WAT curve, is determined using the results of 1 and 2.

Page 11 of 17
 5. The Category A airfield/clear-area procedure is developed by flight testing at the WAT curve
determined in step 3. using Vtoss from step 4.

6. Category A first segment WAT curves are then calculated for reduced Vtoss values using the
results of 1 and 2. Note that these result in lower weights when adjusted for altitude and
temperature.

7. The airfield Category A field length data maps are then developed by flight testing at WAT
limiting conditions for all selectable Vtoss values.

8. While the airfield/clear-area WAT curves are based on trim OEI climb performance minima,
vertical procedure WAT curves are based on low-speed dynamic performance - that is, the
ability to transition from AEO flight at TDP to OEI flight at Vtoss, or from AEO flight at TDP to
OEI for a reject.

9. Low-speed dynamic performance data are acquired during vertical climb and descent, and
OEI11 reject and flyaway, with engine failures occurring over a wide range of weights, TDP
heights, and Vtoss values. These data are used to align a Low-Speed Dynamic Performance
computer model.

10. A Vertical Procedure WAT curve is calculated using the correlated computer model (mentioned
above) and compared with the Category A first segment WAT curve - to confirm that first
segment OEI climb performance minima are also achievable.

11. The final WAT curve is validated by conducting OEI reject and flyaway tests at WAT limiting
conditions over the established range of TDP heights and Vtoss values.

12. While the above addresses the take-off case, the Category A airfield and Vertical Procedure
landing procedures are developed similarly.

13. The final procedures are reproduced in the RFM and observed, or flown, by the authority test
pilots during the acceptance and certification process.
Where appropriate, nomogram format12 charts are used to present multivariate performance
information on a single RFM page. Rate of Climb (ROC), which is a function of engine power, mass,
altitude, temperature, and airspeed, is typically presented using a nomogram format chart. ROC charts
are constructed by first calculating the ROC for specific engine power ratings and airspeeds at many
discrete points over the range of mass, altitudes, and temperatures that define the operating envelope
of the helicopter. With the use of regression analyses, the resulting data are correlated and
compressed into nomogram format charts. This technique is also used to construct the climb gradient
chart and take-off and landing WAT curves as a function of Vtoss.

11
To avoid employing the 0EI, 30-second setting, with its potential for destructive consequences during flight
testing, the power, or the total aircraft torque, may be artificially limited by using a specially adapted FADEC
mode (as it currently is for pilot training). This can then be compared to the engine power available in the
provision of the WAT graph.
12
Nomogram, also called nomograph, calculating charts with scales that contain values of three or more
mathematical variables are widely used in aviation manuals.

Page 12 of 17
Contents of the Category A Supplement

The Category A Supplement is contained in the Approved Section of the RFM; it contains one, or all, of
the Category A procedures13 that are required to ensure that the helicopter is capable of meeting its
full potential (note that in some manuals the clear area/runway procedure is contained in the basic
part of the RFM along with the Category A WAT and performance data). The contents would normally
consist of:

A general part that includes: terminology and definitions; useful information about the choice of a
procedure; limitations and general performance data, all of which apply to any/all of the approved
procedures.

A number of individual parts, each applicable to a specific procedure/profile (normally vertical)

containing: limitations; normal procedures (including diagrams and pictures); emergency and
malfunction procedures; and performance data consisting of WAT, obstacle clearance distance (from
the back of the FATO/SA), drop-down height, and take-off distance (from the back of the FATO) – all
with respect to a fixed or variable TDP.

Flight profile diagrams with FOV pictures, provide relevant examples with step-by-step instructions to
the pilot for using the graphs and data. The pilot’s required actions during normal, malfunction and
emergency procedures are described in detail. Flight outside the relevant WAT or flight profile
invalidates the procedure and could, in the event of an engine failure, result in other than either a safe
landing or continued safe flight.

Vertical Procedures rely upon the accurate determination of mass and, during the piloting phase,
precise control of power through control of rotor speed (Nr), attitude, and height. Whilst failure to
apply the procedure as defined might not result in unforeseen consequences, there are critical points
in the procedure/profile where the risk is greatest and at which testing has been concentrated. These
are at the (pre-determined) intervention time immediately preceding TDP and LDP. As the profile tends
away from those points, the risk lessens, and the consequences of an engine failure diminish; however,
that should not be seen as an opportunity for casual observance of the sequence, parameters, or
limitations of the procedure - the responsibility for occupants and third parties rests on the shoulders
of the pilot(s).

Differences in Terminology between Part 29 (FAA FAR 29 and EASA CS 29) – Certification, and ICAO
Annexes

US FAR 29, was first produced in 1961 with the following announcement – ‘PART 29 – Airworthiness
Standards: Transport Category Rotorcraft [New]: Federal Aviation Regulations to replace Part 7 of the
Civil Air Regulations is a part of the Agency recodification program announced in Draft Release 61-25,
published in the Federal Register on November 15, 1961 (26 F.R. 10698)’.

It is understood that it was (as is nearly always the case) developed from aeroplane text. The language,
terminology, and guidance on means of compliance, have not changed substantially (in that respect)
since that date.

The provision of FAR 29 occurred many years before other than rudimentary regulations for operations
or heliport design existed, and before there was any notion of harmonising the codes (worldwide) to
reduce the ‘manufacturers’, ‘helicopter operators’, and ‘heliport designers’ burden for

13
This does not include any procedures that have been developed to satisfy an operational regulation, request,
or requirement that are contained in the non-approved section.

Page 13 of 17
exporting/importing, or operating to/from or in, other States - without having to recertify to a local
code or regulation.

The helicopter sections of ICAO Annexes 6, 8 and 14 (the basis for International Standards) were
produced in 1989, under a similar development process. The subgroup of the Heliops Panel - which
was responsible for the provision of helicopter SARPs of Annex 8, Airworthiness of Aircraft, ensured
that they were sufficiently objective that compliance through existing Codes (US FAR 29, UK BCARs and
other minor ones) could be achieved without substantial changes to those codes.

However, in an attempt to bring operations and heliport design up to date and relevant for the next
century, new concepts, along with appropriate terminology, were developed and then woven into the
three new Annexes. That decision resulted not only in the Performance Classes (a more appropriate
means of capturing the variability of operational performance) but also more detailed terminology for
the identification and bounding of areas on heliports and, probably more importantly at that time,
helidecks.

Unfortunately, this (necessary) divergence took operations out of lock-step with the certification code
language and terminology. The term ‘operating in Category A’ which had been used up to now was no
longer appropriate and was replaced by ‘Operating in Performance Class 1’14; this was reflected in the
ICAO definition of Category A in which the former ‘utilizing’ was replaced with ‘providing a capability’.

Provision of data on the size of the required surfaces/areas.

The certification of performance procedures/profiles is normally conducted on aerodromes with

runways that are extensive in terms of space and visual cues – particularly peripheral cues. Whilst ideal
for the provision of data for runway/clear-area procedures and climb data, it has its disadvantages
when used for testing and certification of vertical procedures.

When used for the runway/clear-area procedure, the resulting graphs can be used to apply the data
to the location or, alternately, to use the location information to modify the mass and distances. In
general, the guidance uses standard language constructs to describe surface conditions and
boundaries when meeting the certification objectives. There may be minor issues with helicopter
containment but, in general, if the applicant applies the guidance correctly that will not be the case
(more on this later).

For those procedures/profiles where the eventual usage will be in limited areas bounded by space
(elevated or ground level helipads) or obstacles (areas in obstacle-rich areas, where helicopters are at
their most effective) the absence of guidance on the helipad dimension providing both: a surface on
which the touchdown takes place; and, containment of the whole helicopter when it comes to rest
from a rejected take-off (which represents the full embodiment of the take-off distance required), or
OEI landing, was, and remains, problematical.

In the case of a vertical procedure where the AEO departure, rejected take-off and OEI landing all use
the ascent/descent surface, these dimensions will be identical for both types of touchdown.

The size of the required surface(s) will have been established from a series of dots (located from a
reference point on the helicopter - one for each touchdown) on a scatter graph generated from real-
time rejected take-offs, or OEI landings, and under controlled flight test conditions. The scatter graph
will be used to define the minimum size of the required surface area. However, unless this data is based

14
Where Performance Class 1 is the application of the Category A procedure to the PC1 heliport (surfaces and
slopes) and the local obstacle environment.

Page 14 of 17
on manoeuvres, from multiple directions to a surface which is representative of a heliport with the
ICAO Standard (FATO, TLOF and Touch Down Positioning Marking (TDPM)) markings, the resulting
dimension may not be matched to the operational context in which it is to be used.

Where the FATO is the area within which, at the termination of a normal or abnormal approach, the
design helicopter will be (completely) contained (which may extend beyond the physical surface of an
elevated helipad); TLOF is the surface within which, the undercarriage will be (completely) contained;
and, TDPMs are the markings described in ICAO Heliport Manual (normally, a circle with a diameter of
0.5 x maximum length of the design helicopter – which yield the minimum possible overall dimensions),
for use on heliports, helipads and helidecks in most regulatory regions. Because of the necessity for
visual cueing during OEI landings, the TLOF (undercarriage containment surface) might be as large as
the FATO (helicopter containment area).

The use of an area on the runway that does not have the standard ICAO helipad markings can therefore
result in issues both of size and, in the case of use on an elevated helipad, required visual cues.

Use of the certification minimum climb performance to establish the WAT graph

When meeting the minimum certification standard, an operator does not show anything other than
compliance with the limitations of the RFM. The WAT is a nomogram format graph, that defines the
maximum mass for the procedure to which it is applicable and includes climb data to achieve the
minimum performance Category A standard. It will satisfy all critical elements of the profile (i.e. reject
ROD, conversion to level flight from the TDP, and TODR) but is not applicable to any known obstacle
environment or departure slope - it is performance in a semantic bubble. This is not just the case for
vertical procedures/profiles, it also applies to the runway/clear-area procedure.

Depending on the speed(s) specified for the type/procedure, the minimum required performance for
the first segment might only provide a climb gradient of 1.6% or 0.9°- which is almost indistinguishable
from level flight. Minimum performance in the second segment is almost the same at 1.8% or 1.06°.
The shallowest available slope at a PC1 heliport is 4.5% or 2.58°.

It is the State’s regulation that defines the operational standards for approach, departure, and en-route
performance – (normally) in conformance with a Code of Performance. This along with the
aerodrome/heliport information will determine the required climb gradient and obstacle clearance to
meet the operational objective.

Requirement for, and use of, applicable heliport information/data

It is only possible to take off in PC1 from a heliport when the following are known and/or accounted
for (or standard company procedures assuring obstacle clearance is in place):

1. For a runway procedure: the rejected distance, continued take-off distance (which may, or may
not, include a clearway), and take-off climb slope;

2. For other procedures (including one within a limited area): the size of the helipad surface
(TLOF) and area (FATO) for rejected take-off and OEI landing, the elevation of the take-off climb
slope, and length of clearway.

Whatever profile is used, sufficient space must be available to allow the rotorcraft to accelerate from
TDP to Vtoss prior to commencing the climb. For 2. above, this will inevitably require a vertical
procedure where completion of the acceleration to Vtoss is conducted outside the boundary of the
heliport - in most cases over obstacles.

Page 15 of 17
In order for the pilot to ensure that the min-dip remains (the required height) above obstacles in the
continued take-off, the provision of an elevated clearway is necessary. This provides a level datum for
establishing the height of the TDP and length sufficient to allow completion of the acceleration to Vtoss.

The required procedure will be found in the Category A supplement; the procedure WAT may not meet
the required climb gradient (normally 4.5%), even for the runway/clear area, and it may be necessary
to establish (with the use of the climb gradient graphs) the gradient in the continued take-off (or balked
landing). This may require a reduction in take-off mass.

Almost all modern helicopters provide a suite of Category A (vertical) procedures; most can achieve
take-off at a practical operating mass meeting the required gradient15 even when the clearway is
elevated to a substantial height above the take-off surface (to raise it, and the take-off climb surface,
above all obstacles). Power reserve provided by the 30-second and 2-minute settings (or 2.5 minutes if
no 30-second setting is stipulated) can provide access to heliports (and required climb performance) in
even the most complex obstacle environment (i.e. city centres with high-rise buildings).

Establishing minimum dimensions when in doubt (see also Appendix C to Chapter 3 of ICAO Doc
9261, Part 1)

The Rejected Take-off Distance (RTOD) in the RFM or Category A supplement (runway/clear area)

For most clear area procedures, the RTOD with complete helicopter containment will be provided in
the Category A Supplement. However, that is not always the case, and it may be necessary to check
that containment is in accordance with the certification specifications.

A reasonable pointer to the presence of doubt is when the drawing in the RFM does not appear to
cover the front part of the rotor and rear part of the helicopter; the indicative drawing appears only to
show distance with respect to a reference point on the helicopter; or, another term is used instead of
RTOD.

When the RTOD with complete containment is not provided, adding 1 x Design D16 to the RFM
dimension should provide a dimension that includes containment.

The absence of RTOD for the short-field procedure

RTOD is not a term that is usually associated with the short field procedure. Any number of alternative
terms may be in use – none of which is likely to have a meaning in regulatory language. In the absence
of certainty, adding 1 x Design D to the RFM dimension will provide a FATO that ensures complete
helicopter containment.

The absence of RTOD for the helipad procedure

RTOD is a term that is almost never seen in the RFM for the helipad procedure. The term that is most
often used is ‘the minimum elevated heliport size demonstrated’ (or another term approximating that
meaning). This term indicates that the dimension of the surface area (together with the necessary
visual cues) only has been demonstrated and provided.

15
Some Category A Supplements now include a single gradient flown at one speed instead of two – this will be
lower than the Vy and might even be at Vtoss utilizing the 2.5-minute setting. There will be a precautionary note
to the procedure to ensure that, before the limit is reached, a level acceleration segment has been
accommodated.
16
‘Design D’ is the ‘D’ of the composite helicopter used to establish the minimum dimensions for the heliport
design (FATO, TLOF, Stand, SA, Taxiway etc.).

Page 16 of 17
It may not be easy to establish the limiting dimension unless the heliport designer (or relevant subject
matter expert) has surveyed, or is familiar with, all types that are likely to use the heliport. It would be
wrong to assume that the declared dimension for a large helicopter will be greater than that for a
smaller one.

When the limiting dimension has been established, if it is based upon ‘the minimum elevated heliport
size demonstrated’, adding 1 x Design D will provide a FATO that ensures complete helicopter
containment.

Some continuing issues

Alternative definitions and abbreviations that are different from the ICAO terms – e.g., MTLS for TLOF
or MTLA for FATO/Safety Area (SA), or ‘minimum … demonstrated size’ for TLOF; can result in issues
for heliport designers and operators.

In order to minimise third-party hazards from ‘rotor wash’ (i.e. downwash and outwash) it would be
useful for manufacturers to outline in the Supplement how steep a profile can be whilst still meeting
the basic aims for certification.

Operators would also benefit from a review of older Supplements to establish whether the existing
fixed TDP can be elevated without compromising basic certification. As currently framed, they do not
allow other than a reduction in the size of a FATO on an aerodrome – they cannot employ an elevated
clearway and, thereby, utilise the full flexibility of the vertical procedures.

Page 17 of 17