Doc 9261

Heliport Manual

Fourth Edition, 2018

Disclaimer

This document is an unedited version of an ICAO publication and has not yet been approved in final form. As its content
may still be supplemented, removed, or otherwise modified during the editing process, ICAO shall not be responsible
whatsoever for any costs or liabilities incurred as a result of its use.

Approved by and published under the authority of the Secretary General

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION

 FOREWORD
The Heliport Manual (Doc 9261) is divided into two parts to address helicopter landing areas at a range of offshore
installations and vessels (Part I), as distinct from the heliports used in the onshore environment (Part II).

Although not exclusively the case, the types of facilities illustrated in Part I are typically used in the process of mineral
extraction; for the exploration and/or exploitation of oil and/or gas in the offshore environment. Increasingly, however,
installations equipped with helicopter landing areas are being used to service the offshore renewable energy sector, e.g.
a substation with helideck is used as a base helicopters for shuttling around a wind farm. Although the current method of
personnel transfer from a helicopter to a wind turbine (nacelle) tend to be helicopter hoist operations (HHO), rather than
a land-on operation, it is possible that in the future, considering the development of yet-larger wind turbines, some
turbines may be equipped with helicopter landing areas that allow maintenance personnel to land-on the turbine in the
same way that a helicopter would land on an oil or gas facility.

Acknowledgements

ICAO wishes to acknowledge the dedicated work of the offshore sub group of the Heliport Design Working Group
(HDWG) of the ICAO Aerodrome Design and Operations Panel in developing the contents of Part I of this manual

Future developments

Part I, Offshore Heliports represents the first stage in the modernization and updating of the Heliport Manual in light of
the substantial development of Annex 14 — Aerodromes, Volume II — Heliports in recent years, and of the equipment,
technology and best practices used by the heliports arena.

Part II of this manual is planned for publishing in 2020.

The guidance material in this manual will be updated at regular intervals. Comments on this manual would be
appreciated from all parties involved in heliport design, construction, safety oversight and operations. These comments
should be addressed to:

The Secretary General

International Civil Aviation Organization
999 Robert Bourassa Boulevard
Montréal, Quebec, Canada H3C 5H7
icaohq@icao.int

______________________
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Glossary ....................................................................................................................................................... (iv)

PART I. OFFSHORE HELIPORTS

Chapter 1. General ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2. Heliport data ................................................................................................................................. 9
Chapter 3. Physical characteristics ................................................................................................................ 14
Chapter 4. Obstacle environment ................................................................................................................... 33
Chapter 5. Visual aids – Marking and lighting ................................................................................................ 43
Chapter 6. Helideck rescue and fire-fighting facilities ..................................................................................... 63
Chapter 7. Winching areas on ships ............................................................................................................... 71
Chapter 8. Miscellaneous items ..................................................................................................................... 74

Appendix I-A. Sample risk assessment for helicopter operations to helidecks and shipboard heliports
which are sub- 1 D ............................................................................................................... 83

Appendix I-B. Specification for helideck lighting scheme comprising: perimeter lights, lit
touchdown/positioning marking and lit heliport identification marking ......................... 87

Appendix I-C. Drainage calculation ............................................................................................................ 95

PART II. ONSHORE HELIPORTS

______________________
 GLOSSARY
ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS

AFFF Aqueous film forming foam

AMSL Above mean sea level
ATEX Equipment for potentially explosive atmospheres
BS British Standard
CAFS Compressed air foam systems
cd Candela
CFD Computational fluid dynamics
cm Centimetre
CZ Clear zone
DIFFS Deck integrated fire-fighting system
DPS Dynamic positioning system
EN European number
FATO Final approach and take-off area
FFAS Fixed foam application system
FMS Fixed monitor system
FOV Field of view
FPSO Floating production storage and offloading
FSO Floating storage and offloading
ft Feet
GPU Ground power unit
HDA Helideck assistant
HD Helideck directory
HHO Helicopter hoist operations
HIP Helideck information plate
HLO Helicopter landing officer
HMS Helideck motion system
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation
ICS International Chamber of Shipping
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
In Inches
IMO International Maritime Organisation
ISO International Organisation for Standardisation
kg Kilogram
L Litre
Lb(s) Pound(s)
LDP Landing decision point
LED Light emitting diode
LFL Lower flammable limit
L/min Litres per minute
LNG Liquefied natural gas
LOA Limited obstacle area
LOS Limited obstacle sector
LP Luminescent panel
LPA Limited parking area
lx lux
m Metre
mm Millimetre
MODU Mobile offshore drilling unit
MTOM Maximum (certificated) take-off mass
MZ Manoeuvring zone
N Newton
NDB Non directional beacon
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NM Nautical miles

iv
NPAI Not permanently attended installation
OFS Obstacle-free sector
PAI Permanently attended installation
PC Performance class
PCF Post-crash fire
PIPA Push-in parking area
PLS Prohibited landing sector
PPE Personal protective equipment
PTA Parking transition area
2
kN/m Kilonewton per square meter
QFE Query: field elevation
QNH Query: nautical height
RAO Response amplitude operator
RO Radio operator
RD Rotor diameter
RFFS Rescue and firefighting services
RMS Ring main system
ROTS Remotely operated TV system
R/T Radio telephony or radio communications
s Second
SLS Serviceability limit States
SRF Structural response factor
t Tonne (1000 kg)
TD/PM Touchdown position markings
TLOF Touchdown and lift-off area
ULS Ultimate limit States
UPS Uninterrupted power supply
UV Ultraviolet
° Degree

DEFINITIONS

D. The largest overall dimension of the helicopter, when rotor(s) are turning, measured from the most forward position of
the main rotor tip path plane to the most rearward position of the tail rotor tip path plane or helicopter structure. D is
sometimes referred to as D-value.

Design helicopter. The helicopter type having the largest overall length and greatest maximum certificated take-off
mass for which a helideck or shipboard heliport has been designed. Both attributes may not reside in the same
helicopter.

Dynamic load-bearing surface. A surface capable of supporting the loads generated by a helicopter in motion.

Essential objects permitted. Includes, but may not be limited to: around the TLOF: perimeter lights and floodlights,
guttering and raised kerb, foam monitors or ring main system, handrails and associated signage, other lights; on the
TLOF: helideck net and helideck touchdown marking (“H” and “circle”) lighting; and in the area between the TLOF
perimeter and the FATO perimeter, helideck safety netting is present (for helideck installations completed on or before
1 January 2012, this is permitted to exceed the TLOF surface by 25 cm (10 in). For helidecks completed after
1 January 2012 the outboard edge of netting should be flush level with the TLOF (for shipboard heliports the effective
date is 1 January 2015).

Falling gradient. A surface extending downwards on a gradient of 5:1 measured from the edge of the safety netting (or
shelving) located around the touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) below the elevation of the helideck or shipboard heliport
to water level for an arc of not less than 180 degrees, which passes through the centre of the TLOF and outwards to a
distance that will allow for safe clearance of obstacles below the TLOF in the event of an engine failure for the type of
helicopter, the helideck or shipboard heliport is intended to serve. Where high-performing helicopters are exclusively
used, consideration may be given to relaxing the falling gradient from a 5:1 to a 3:1 slope.

v
FATO. A defined area over which the final phase of the approach manoeuvre to hover or landing is completed and from
which the take-off manoeuvre is commenced.

Helideck. A heliport located on a fixed or floating offshore facility such as an exploration and/or production unit used for
the exploitation of oil and gas.

Heliport elevation. The highest point of the final approach and take-off area (FATO).

Limited obstacle sector(s). A sector, not greater than 150 degrees, within which obstacles may be permitted, provided
the height of the obstacles is limited.

Obstacle. All fixed (whether temporary or permanent) and mobile objects, or parts thereof, that: are located on an area
intended for the surface movement of helicopters; extend above a defined surface intended to protect helicopters in
flight; or stand outside those defined surfaces but nonetheless are assessed as a hazard to air navigation.

Obstacle-free sector. A sector, not less than 210 degrees, extending outwards to a distance that will allow for an
unobstructed departure path appropriate to the helicopter the TLOF is intended to serve, within which no obstacles
above the level of the TLOF are permitted (for helicopters operated in PC1 or PC2 the horizontal extent of this distance
will be compatible with the one-engine inoperative capability of the helicopter type to be used).

Shipboard heliport. A heliport located on a ship that may be purpose built or non-purpose built. A purpose built
shipboard heliport is one designed specifically for helicopter operations. A non-purpose built shipboard heliport is one
that utilises an area of the ship that is capable of supporting a helicopter but is not designed specifically for it.

Static load-bearing area. A surface capable of supporting the mass of the helicopter situated upon it.

TLOF. An area on which a helicopter may touchdown and lift-off.

Touchdown/positioning marking circle. The TD/PM circle is the reference marking for a normal touchdown, so
located that when the pilot’s seat is over the marking, the whole of the undercarriage will be within the TLOF and all
parts of the helicopter will be clear of any obstacles by a safe margin.

Winching area. An area provided for the hoist transfer by helicopter of personnel or stores to and from a ship.

µ. The coefficient of friction, Mu, is the ratio between the friction force and the vertical load.

REFERENCES

Air Transport Association Specification 103 (Standard for Jet Fuel Quality Control at Airports)
International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) Helicopter/Ship Guide 2008
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollutions from Ships (MARPOL)
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)
International Maritime Organization (IMO) mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) Code

______________________

vi
 PART I

OFFSHORE HELIPORTS
 Chapter 1

GENERAL
1.1 INTRODUCTION

Offshore heliports, even when confined to mineral extraction activities, employ a wide range of offshore landing facilities
including from helidecks on fixed platforms, mobile offshore drilling units, crane barges and floating production storage
and offloading (FPSO) units, to purpose built shipboard heliports located on large tankers or on smaller vessels such as
diving support vessels, seismic survey vessels, ice-breakers and research vessels. For vessels, in particular, helicopter
landing areas may be purpose built above the bow or stern, purpose built in an amidships location or purpose built
overhanging the ship’s side. This manual also provides information for non-purpose built shipboard heliports, whether
located on the side of a ship (ship’s side) or on other areas not specifically designed to receive helicopters such as hatch
covers (Figure I-1-9. refers). Finally the document addresses shipboard winching areas, where a helicopter hoist
operation (HHO) is completed in lieu of landing. The operation of non-purpose built shipboard heliports and shipboard
winching areas is described in detail in the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) Helicopter/Ship Guide.

1.2 HELIDECKS

1.2.1 Fixed platforms (permanently attended and not permanently attended)

1.2.1.1 Fixed platforms sit directly on the sea floor and are thus stable. They can be single units or can consist of
two or more separate modules for production, processing and accommodation. Separate modules are generally linked
by bridges and can be served by more than one helideck. Fixed platforms that are occupied year-round are often
referred to as permanently attended installations (PAI), while those facilities that do not subscribe to a permanent
attendance model are referred to in this manual as not permanently attended installations (NPAIs). For the purpose of
simplicity, the acronyms PAI and NPAI are used throughout the document although it is appreciated that individual
States may use additional or alternative acronyms to describe particular attendance models to distinguish specific levels
of occupancy for offshore facilities.

Figure I-1-1. A fixed platform with helideck above accommodation, bridge linked to a production platform

1
 1.2.2 Mobile offshore drilling units: semi-submersible

1.2.2.1 Semi-submersible units have the hull design of a catamaran and are either towed or self-propelled. A
semi-submersible unit has good stability and sea-keeping characteristics and can be positioned dynamically with
thrusters or by the use of anchors. These units are heavy duty specialized rigs, with their hull structure submerged at a
deep draft (ballasted down fifty feet or so to give it stability) so that a semi-submersible unit, being less affected by wave
loadings than a normal ship, is able to operate in adverse weather conditions. They are used in a number of specific
offshore roles such as offshore drilling rigs and heavy lift cranes. In the latter case, a semi-submersible unit is able to
transform from a deep to a shallow draft rig by de-ballasting (removing ballast water from the hull), thereby becoming a
surface vessel. Semi-submersibles are classified as mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs) and should therefore comply
with standards for helidecks, also addressed in the International Maritime Organization (IMO) MODU Code.

Figure I-1-2. A deep ballasted semi-submersible mobile offshore drilling unit

1.1.3 Mobile offshore drilling units: self-elevating unit (jack up)

1.1.3.1 A jack-up rig, or a self-elevating unit, is a type of mobile platform that consists of a buoyant hull fitted with a
number of moveable legs (typically three or four). These rigs are towed to and from locations or may be self-propelled.
When on site the legs (which can measure up to 137 m (450 ft) or more) are ‘jacked’ down until they penetrate the
seabed or sit on the sea floor with the main body of the rig about 15.24 m (50 ft) above sea level. The height of the legs
when on station is dependent upon the depth of the water. When on tow, the legs are jacked up and specific limitations
are applied for helicopter operations to moving decks (Part 1, Chapter 8, 8.3 refers). When in the jacked-down position,
helidecks are not subject to significant movement and therefore behave more like fixed platforms. Jack-up rigs are
classified as MODUs and should therefore comply with standards for helidecks, also addressed in the IMO MODU
Code.

2
 Figure I-1-3. A three-legged jacked-up mobile offshore drilling unit

1.1.4 Floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) and tankers

1.1.4.1 An FPSO unit is a floating vessel used for the production and processing of hydrocarbons and for the
storage of oil, until it can be offloaded onto a tanker (Figure I-1-4 refers)) or, less frequently, transported through a
pipeline. The FPSO extracts and stores the oil while the tanker hooks up to the FPSO before it shuttles the oil ashore.
FPSOs are either purpose built or can result from the conversion of an oil tanker. They are really effective when used in
remote or deep-water locations, where seabed pipelines are not a commercially viable option. Variations of the FPSO
concept may include a floating storage and offloading unit (FSO) or a liquefied natural gas (LNG) floating storage and
re-gasification unit.

Figure I-1-4. Tanker (right) hooks up with a FPSO (left)

3
 Figure I-1-5. A tanker with a purpose built mid-ship centreline shipboard heliport

1.2 SHIPBOARD HELIPORTS

1.2.1 Drill ships

1.2.1.1 A drill ship is a merchant vessel designed for use in exploratory offshore drilling for new oil and gas wells.
They can be either purpose built or a converted older vessel and are kept on station by standard anchoring systems or
by a dynamic positioning system (DPS). In recent years they have increasingly been used to drill in deep water or in
ultra-deep water and, in this operating environment, require the most advanced DPS.

Figure I-1-6. A high-mounted bow helideck on a drill ship

4
 1.2.2 Small vessels

1.2.2.1 Support and survey vessels are amongst the most challenging ships to fly to, especially at night. Vessels
can be quite small and the helideck can be high above the bow, over the stern or even amidships.

Figure I-1-7. A high bow mounted helideck on a pipe laying vessel

1.2.3 Non-purpose built landing area on ship’s side – tanker port and starboard

1.2.3.1 Some helicopter landing areas, located on tankers, consist of a non-purpose built ship side arrangement,
located on either side of the vessel. For non-purpose facilities, the control of ground-based, and usually immoveable,
obstacles become an issue. In this case, care needs to be taken to ensure that deck-mounted obstacles, which may
form part of the vessel superstructure, do not impinge on the safety of helicopter operations. This is discussed in detail
in Part I, Chapter 4, 4.6.

Figure I-1-8 Non-purpose built ship side landing areas (port and starboard)

5
 Figure I-1-9. An S61N helicopter lands on the hatch cover of a large vessel

1.5 TABLE OF CHARACTERISTICS FOR COMMON OFFSHORE HELICOPTER TYPES

Table I-1-1. D-value, “t” value and other helicopter type criteria (metric units)

D-value Perimeter ‘D’ Rotor diameter Max weight ‘t’

Type (metres) marking (metres) (kg) value
EC130 12.60 13 10.70 2 432 2.4 t
MD902 11.84 12 10.31 2 835 2.8 t
Bell 206B 11.95 12 9.51 1 452 1.5 t
Bo105D 12.00 12 9.90 2 400 2.4 t
EC135 T2+ 12.20 12 10.20 2 910 2.9 t
Bell 407 12.70 13 10.40 2 381 2.4 t
Bell 429 13.00 13 11.00 3 402 3.4 t
Bell 206L IV 12.96 13 10.44 2 018 2.0 t

6
 D-value Perimeter ‘D’ Rotor diameter Max weight ‘t’
Type (metres) marking (metres) (kg) value
AS355 12.94 13 10.69 2 600 2.6 t
BK117 13.00 13 11.00 3 200 3.2 t
Bell 427 13.00 13 11.28 2 971 3.0 t
A109 13.05 13 11.00 2 600 2.6 t
AW119 13.02 13 10.83 2 720 2.7 t
EC145/H145 13.03 13 11.00 3 585 3.6 t
AS365 N2 13.68 14 11.93 4 250 4.3 t
AW189 17.60 18 14.60 8 300 8.3 t
EC175/H175 18.06 18 14.80 7 500 7.5 t
AS365 N3 13.73 14 11.94 4 300 4.3 t
EC155 B1 14.30 14 12.60 4 850 4.9 t
Bell 222 15.33 15 14.08 3 742 3.7 t
Bell 430 15.29 15 12.80 4 218 4.2 t
Ka-32 15.90 16 15.90 12 600 12.6 t
S76 16.00 16 13.40 5 307 5.3 t
AW139 16.63 17 13.80 6 800 6.8 t
Bell 412EP 17.13 17 14.02 5 398 5.4 t
Bell 212 17.46 17 14.00 5 080 5.1 t
AS332 L 18.70 19 15.60 8 599 8.6 t
AS332 L2 19.50 20 16.20 9 300 9.3 t
EC225 19.50 20 16.20 11 000 11.0 t
S92A 20.88 21 17.17 12565 12.6 t
Mil Mi-17 25.30 25 21.10 13 000 13.0 t
Mil Mi-8 25.24 25 21.29 12 000 12.0 t
S61N 22.20 22 18.90 9 298 9.3 t
AW101 22.80 23 18.60 15 600 15.6 t
Note — The specifications presented in this table should be verified against manufacturer derived data

Table I-1-2. D-value, “t” value and other helicopter type criteria (imperial units)

Maximum
Perimeter Max allowable
D-value ‘D’ Rotor diameter Weight mass
Type (feet) marking (feet) (lbs) marking
EC130 35.00 35 35.10 5 361 5.4
MD902 38.80 39 33.80 6 250 6.3
Bell 206B 39.20 39 33.00 3 201 3.2
Bo105D 39.36 39 32.48 5 291 5.3

7
 Maximum
Perimeter Max allowable
D-value ‘D’ Rotor diameter Weight mass
Type (feet) marking (feet) (lbs) marking
EC135 T2+ 40.00 40 33.50 6 400 6.4
Bell 407 41.40 41 35.00 5 250 5.3
Bell 429 41.75 42 36.00 7 500 7.5
Bell 206L 42.40 42 37.00 4 450 4.5
AS355 42.50 43 35.00 5 732 5.7
BK117 42.65 43 36.00 7 055 7.1
Bell 427 42.65 43 37.00 6 550 6.6
A109 42.80 43 36.00 5 732 5.7
AW119 42.70 43 35.50 6 000 6.0
EC145 42.70 43 36.00 7 900 7.9
AS365 N2 44.80 45 39.10 9 370 9.4
EC175/H175 44.90 45 35.00 16 535 16.5
AS365 N3 45.00 45 39.10 9 480 9.5
EC155 B1 46.90 47 41.30 10 700 10.7
Bell 222 49.50 50 40.00 8 245 8.2
Bell 430 50.10 50 42.00 9 300 9.3
Ka-32 52.02 52 52.02 27 778 27.8
S76 52.49 52 44.00 11 700 11.7
AW139 54.63 55 45.28 15 000 15.0
Bell 412EP 56.20 56 46.00 11 900 11.9
Bell 212 57.25 57 48.20 11 200 11.2
AW189 57.90 58 47.11 18 300 18.3
AS332 L 61.34 61 49.60 19 000 19.0
AS332 L2 63.94 64 53.20 20 500 20.5
EC225 63.96 64 53.20 24 250 24.3
S92A 68.49 68 56.32 28 000 28.0
Mil Mi-17 83.00 83 69.03 28 660 28.3
Mil Mi-8 82.10 69 69.10 26 455 26.5
S61N 72.80 73 62.00 20 499 20.5
AW101 74.80 75 61.00 34 400 34.4
Note — Specifications presented in this table should be verified against manufacturer derived data.

8
 Chapter 2

HELIPORT DATA

2.1 INTRODUCTION

2.1.1 For a fixed facility, the heliport elevation is measured at the highest point of the final approach and take-off
area(s) (FATO(s)) and recorded on the helideck information plate (HIP) (Figure I-2-1 refers). Heliport elevation (in feet or
metres) is the height of the FATO(s) above mean sea level (AMSL). For floating installations and vessels, the heliport
elevation is measured from the keel of the installation/vessel to the highest point of the FATO. The profile information is
independent from the draft marking and the actual elevation above the water level. The installation/vessel crew has to
calculate the current height above the water level by subtracting the current draft at the perpendicular closest to the
helideck and providing this to the helicopter operator.

Note.—The helicopter operator should include the corrected elevation information supplied by the
installation/vessel operator in the helideck template.

2.1.2 A Helideck directory entry (HD) should promulgate additional information for the helicopter landing area
including the D-value of the FATO, whether expressed in metric metres or in imperial feet and inches, and specify the
maximum allowable mass of the helicopter permitted to operate to the FATO, a marking expressed either in metric
tonnes (known as the t-value), or in imperial units (expressed in lbs). The D-value, in metres or feet, corresponds to the
size (diameter) of the FATO (and where coincident, to the size (diameter) of the TLOF) while the maximum allowable
mass is a t-value marking expressing metric tonnes or a marking defined by imperial units (lbs), that equates to the load
bearing strength of the touchdown and liftoff area (TLOF) (see Part 1, Chapter 3, 3.1). Detailed guidance on how these
marking issues should be displayed, whether expressed using metric or imperial units, is presented in Part 1, Chapter 5,
5.3 and 5.4.

2.2 AUTHORISATION OF OFFSHORE HELIPORTS — ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST,

CONTENT OF A HELIDECK DIRECTORY (HD) AND
CONTENT OF A HELIDECK INFORMATION PLATE (HIP)

2.2.1 General

2.2.1.1 The content of the operations manual relating to the specific usage of offshore helicopter landing areas
(helidecks and shipboard heliports), should contain both the listing of limitations in an HD and a pictorial representation
(template) of each offshore location and its helicopter landing area recording all necessary information of a permanent
nature. The HD should be amended as necessary and indicate, the most recent status of each offshore helicopter
landing area concerning non-compliance with applicable Standards, contained in Annex 14 — Aerodromes, Volume II —
Heliports, with limitations, warnings, cautions or other comments of operational importance. An example of a typical
template is shown in Figure I-2.1.

2.2.1.2 In order to ensure that the safety of flights is not compromised, the operator should obtain relevant
information and details for a compilation of the HD, and the pictorial representation, from the owner/operator of the
offshore helicopter landing area.

2.2.1.3 If more than one name of the offshore location exists, the common name painted of the surface of the
landing area should be listed, but other recent names should also be included in the HD (e.g. radio call sign if different).
After renaming an offshore location, the previous name should be retained in the HD for a period of six months, following
the change.

9
2.2.1.4 All limitations should be indicated in the HD, including offshore locations without limitations. With complex
installation arrangements including combinations of installations/vessels (e.g. combined operations), a separate listing in
the HD, accompanied by diagrams where necessary, may be required.

2.2.1.5 Each offshore helicopter landing area should be assessed based on its limitations, warnings, instructions
and restrictions to ensure its safety. The following factors, as a minimum, should be considered::

a) the physical characteristics of the landing area, including size and load bearing capability;

b) the preservation of obstacle-protected surfaces (the most basic safeguard for all flights), which
include:

1) the minimum 210° obstacle-free surface (OFS);

2) the 150° limited obstacle surface (LOS); and
3) the minimum 180° falling ‘5:1’ gradient with respect to significant obstacles;
Note.— If these sectors/surfaces are infringed, even on a temporary basis and/or if an adjacent
installation or vessel infringes the obstacle protected surfaces related to the landing area, an assessment should be
made to determine whether it is necessary to impose operating limitations and/or restrictions to mitigate any non-
compliance with the criteria.

c) marking and lighting:

1) for operations at night:

i) adequate illumination of the perimeter of the landing area, utilising perimeter
lighting;
ii) adequate illumination of the location of the touchdown marking by use of a lit
touchdown/positioning marking and lit heliport identification marking or by
perimeter floodlighting;
2) presence of dominant obstacle paint schemes and lighting;
3) appropriate condition of helideck markings; and
4) adequacy of general installation and structure lighting;
Note.— Any limitations with respect to non-compliant lighting arrangements should be annotated as
‘daylight only operations’ in the HD.

d) deck surface:

1) assessment of surface friction;

2) adequacy and condition of helideck net (where provided);
3) fit-for-purpose drainage system;
4) deck edge safety netting or shelving;
5) system of tie-down points adequate for the range of helicopters in use; and
6) cleanliness of the surface e.g. removal of bird guano, sea spray, snow and ice;

e) environment:

1) foreign object damage;

2) assessment of physical turbulence generators, e.g. structure-induced turbulence due
to clad derrick;
3) bird control measures in place;
4) air quality degradation due to exhaust emissions, hot gas vents (turbulence and
thermal effects) or cold gas vents; and
5) possible inclusion of adjacent offshore installations in air quality assessment;
Note.— To assess for potential adverse environmental effects described in 2), 4) and 5), an offshore
location should be subject to appropriate studies e.g. wind tunnel testing, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis.

f) rescue and fire-fighting:

10
 1) fixed foam application systems (FFAS) for delivery of fire-fighting media to the
landing area, e.g. deck integrated fire-fighting system (DIFFS);
2) delivery of primary media types, critical area, application rate and duration;
3) deliveries of complementary agent(s), media types, capacity and discharge;
4) personal protective equipment (PPE); and
5) rescue equipment and crash box/cabinet;

g) communications and navigation:

1) presence and/or quality of aeronautical radio(s);

2) radio-telephone (R/T) call sign to match offshore location name and side
identification (should be simple and unique);
3) non-directional beacon (NDB) or equivalent (as appropriate); and
4) radio log;

h) fuelling facilities: in accordance with the relevant national guidance and regulations

i) additional operational and handling equipment:

1) windsock(s);
2) meteorological information including wind, pressure, air temperature and dew point
temperature recording/ displaying mean wind (10 minute wind) and gusts;
3) deck motion recording and reporting (helideck motion system - HMS) where
applicable;
4) passenger briefing system;
5) chocks;
6) tie-down strops/ropes;
7) weighing scales;
8) a suitable power source for starting helicopters (ground power unit (GPU)) where
applicable; and
9) equipment for clearing the landing area of snow and ice and other contaminants;

j) personnel: qualified helicopter landing area staff (e.g. helicopter landing officer/helicopter deck
assistant and fire-fighters, etc.) and persons required to assess local weather conditions or
communicate with helicopter by radio telephony.

2.2.1.6 For offshore locations on which there is incomplete information, ‘limited’ usage based on the information
available may be considered by the operator, subject to a risk assessment prior to the first helicopter visit. During
subsequent operations, and before any restriction on heliport usage is lifted, information should be gathered and the
following should apply:

a) pictorial (static) representation:

1) template blanks (see Figure I-2-1) should be available to be filled in during flight
preparation, on the basis of the information given by the offshore location
owner/operator and flight crew observations;
2) where possible, suitably annotated photographs may be used until the HD and
template have been completed;
3) until the HD and template have been completed, conservative operational restrictions
(e.g. performance, routing, etc.) may be applied;
4) any previous inspection reports should be obtained and reviewed by the operator;
and
5) an inspection of the offshore helicopter landing area should be carried out to verify
the content of the completed HD and template. Once found suitable the landing area,
it may be considered authorized for use by the operator;

b) with reference to the above, the HD should contain at least the following:

11
 1) HD revision date and number;
2) generic list of helideck motion limitations;
3) name of offshore location;
4) ‘D’ value; and
5) limitations, warnings, instructions and restrictions;
Note.—The content of the helicopter landing area authorization or certificate should include 3), 4) and
5).

c) the template should contain at least the following fields(see Figure I-2-1):

1) name of the offshore location;

2) R/T call sign;
3) helicopter landing area identification marking;
4) side panel identification marking;
5) landing area elevation;
6) maximum installation/vessel height;
7) ‘D’ value;
8) type of offshore location:
i) fixed: permanently attended installation (PAI);
ii) fixed: not permanently attended installation (NPAI);
iii) vessel type (e.g. diving support vessel, tanker);
iv) mobile offshore drilling unit: semi-submersible;
v) mobile offshore drilling unit: jack-up; and
vi) floating production storage offloading (FPSO);
9) name of the owner/operator;
10) geographical position, where appropriate;
11) communication and navigation (com/nav) frequencies and identification;
12) general drawing of the offshore location showing the helicopter landing area with
annotations showing location of derrick, masts, cranes, flare stack, turbine and gas
exhausts, side identification panels, windsock, etc.;
13) plan view drawing, chart orientation from the general drawing, to show the above.
The plan view will also show the 210 degree sector orientation in degrees true;
14) type of fuelling:
i) pressure and gravity;
ii) pressure only;
iii) gravity only; and
iv) none;
15) type and nature of fire-fighting equipment;
16) availability of ground power unit (GPU);
17) deck heading;
18) maximum allowable mass (metric tonnes “t” value) or lbs; and
19) revision date of publication.

12
Installation/vessel name R/T call sign: Helideck identification:
… …
Helideck elevation: Maximum height: Side identification:
… ft. … ft. …
Type of installation/vessel: D value:
…1 …m and/or ft
Position: 2 Operator3
ATIS:
VHF 123.456
COM LOG: VHF NAV NDB: 123 (ident.)
123.456
Traffic: VHF GNSS: 123
123.456
Deck: VHF VOR/DME: 123
123.456
Not applicable:

Fuelling: GPU: Deck heading:

…4 …5 …
MTOM: Status light: Fire-fighting equipment:
… T and/or lbs …6 …7
Revision date:
…
1
Fixed permanently attended, fixed not permanently attended; vessel type (e.g. diving support vessel); MODU - semi-submersible;
MODU - jack-up; FPSO, tanker.
2
Latitude and longitude in degrees, minutes and decimals of a minute.
3
Name of operator of the installation/vessel.
4
Pressure/gravity; pressure; gravity; no.
5
Yes; no; 28v DC.
6
Yes; no (as required by applicable codes e.g. IMO MODU Code).
7
Type of foam (e.g. 3 per cent aqueous film forming foams (AFFF) (3 per cent AFFF)) and nature of primary media delivery (e.g.
DIFFS).

Figure I-2-1. Helicopter landing area template

______________________

13
 CHAPTER 3

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

3.1 HELIDECK AND PURPOSE BUILT SHIPBOARD HELIPORT STRUCTURAL DESIGN

3.1.1 The helicopter landing area and any parking area provided (see Part I, Chapter 8, 8.1) should be of
sufficient size and strength and laid out to accommodate the heaviest and largest helicopter requiring to use the facility
(referred to as the design helicopter). The structure should incorporate a load bearing area designed to resist dynamic
loads without disproportionate consequences from the impact of an emergency landing anywhere within the area
bounded by the touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) perimeter markings. Consideration should be given to the possibility
of accommodating an unserviceable helicopter in a parking area (where provided) adjacent to the helideck to allow a
relief helicopter to land.

Note — If the contingency is designed into the construction and operating philosophy of the installation or
vessel, the helicopter operator should be advised of any mass restrictions imposed on a relief helicopter due to the
presence of an unserviceable helicopter; whether elsewhere on the landing area or removed to a parking area, where
present.

3.1.2 The helicopter landing area and its supporting structure should be fabricated from steel, aluminium alloy or
other suitable materials designed and fabricated to applicable standards. Where differing materials are to be used in
near contact, the detailing of the connections should be such as to avoid the incidence of galvanic corrosion.

3.1.3 Both the ultimate limit states (ULS) and the serviceability limit states (SLS) should be assessed. The
structure should be designed for the SLS and ULS conditions appropriate to the structural component being considered
as follows:

a) for deck plate and stiffeners

1) ULS under all conditions;
2) SLS for permanent deflection following an emergency landing

b) for helicopter landing area supporting structure

1) ULS under all conditions;
2) SLS

3.1.4 The supporting structure, deck plates and stringers should be designed to resist the effects of local wheel
or skid actions acting in combination with other permanent, variable and environmental actions. Helicopters should be
assumed to be located within the TLOF perimeter markings in such positions that maximize the internal forces in the
component being considered. Deck plates and stiffeners should be designed to limit the permanent deflection
(deformation) under helicopter emergency landing actions to no more than 2.5 per cent of the clear width of the plates
between supports. Stiffener webs should be assessed locally under wheels or skids and at the support areas so as not
to fail under landing gear actions due to emergency landings. Tubular structural components forming part of the
supporting structure should be checked for vortex-induced vibrations due to wind.

Note — For the purposes of the following sections it may be assumed that single main rotor helicopters will
land on the wheel or wheels of two landing gear or on both skids where skid-fitted helicopters are in use. The resulting
loads should be distributed between two main undercarriages. Where advantageous, a tire contact area may be
assumed within the manufacturer’s specification.

14
 3.1.5 Case A – Helicopter landing situation

A helideck or a purpose built shipboard heliport should be designed to withstand all the forces likely to act
when a helicopter lands. The load and load combinations to be considered should include:

a) Dynamic load due to impact landing.

This should cover both a heavy landing and an emergency landing. For the former an impact load of
1.5 x maximum (certificated) take-off mass (MTOM) of the design helicopter should be used while for
an emergency landing an impact load of 2.5 x MTOM should be applied in any position on the landing
area together with the combined effects of b) to g) inclusive. Normally the emergency landing case will
govern the design of the structure.

b) Sympathetic response of the landing platform.

After considering the design of the helideck structures, i.e. the supporting beams and columns, and
the characteristics of the design helicopter, the dynamic load (see a) above) should be increased by a
suitable structural response factor (SRF) to take account of the sympathetic response of the helicopter
landing area structure. The factor to be applied for the design of the helicopter landing area framing
depends on the natural frequency of the deck structure. Unless specific values are available based on
particular undercarriage behaviour and deck frequency, a minimum SRF of 1.3 should be assumed.

c) Overall superimposed load on the landing platform.

To allow for any appendages that may be present on the deck surface, such as helideck nets or
2
lighting, in addition to the wheel loads, an allowance of 0.5 kN/m should be applied over the whole
area of the helideck.

d) Lateral load on landing platform supports.

The helicopter landing platform and its supports should be designed to resist concentrated horizontal
imposed actions equivalent to 0.5 x MTOM of the design helicopter, distributed between the
undercarriages in proportion to the applied vertical loading in the horizontal direction that will produce
the most severe loading for the structural component being considered.

e) Dead load of structural members.

This is the normal gravity load on the element being considered.

f) Environmental actions on the helideck.

1) Wind actions on the helideck structure should be applied in the direction, which together with the
horizontal impact actions, produce the most severe load case for the component considered. The
wind speed to be considered should be that restricting normal (non-emergency) helicopter
operations at the landing area. Any vertical up and down action on the helideck structure due to
the passage of wind over and under the helideck should be considered.

2) Inertial actions due to platform motions – the effect of accelerations and dynamic amplification
arising from the predicted motions of the fixed or floating platform in a storm condition with a ten
year return period should be considered.

g) Punching Shear.
Where helicopters with wheeled undercarriages are operated, a check should be made for the
2
punching shear from a wheel of the landing gear with a contact area of 65 x 103 mm acting in any
probable location. Particular attention to detailing should be taken at the junction of the supports and
at the platform deck.

3.1.6 Case B — Helicopter at rest situation

In addition to Case A above, a helideck or a purpose built shipboard heliport should be designed to
withstand all the applied forces that could result from a helicopter at rest. As such, the following loads should be taken
into account:

15
 a) Imposed load from helicopter at rest.
All parts of the helideck or shipboard heliport should be assumed to be accessible to helicopters,
including any separate parking area (see Part I, Chapter 8, 8.1) and should be designed to resist an
imposed (static) load equal to the MTOM of the design helicopter. This load should be distributed
between all the landing gear, and applied in any position so as to produce the most severe loading on
each element considered.

b) Overall superimposed load.

To allow for personnel, freight, refuelling equipment and other traffic, snow and ice, and rotor
2
downwash effects etc., a general area imposed action of 2.0 kN/m should be added to the whole area
of the helideck or shipboard heliport.

c) Horizontal actions from a tied-down helicopter including wind actions.

Each tie-down should be designed to resist the calculated proportion of the total wind action on the
design helicopter imposed by a storm wind with a minimum one-year return period.

d) Dead load.
This is the normal gravity load on the element being considered and should be regarded to act
simultaneously in combination with a) and b). Consideration should also be given to the additional
wind loading from any parked or secured helicopter (see also e)1) below).

e) Environmental actions.
1) Wind loading.
Wind loading should be allowed for in the design of the platform. The one hundred year return
period wind actions on the helicopter landing area structure should be applied in the direction
which, together with the imposed lateral loading, produces the most severe load condition on
each structural element being considered.

2) Acceleration forces and other dynamic amplification forces.

The effects of these forces arising from the predicted motions of mobile installations or vessels,
the appropriate environmental conditions corresponding to a ten year return period should be
considered.

Note. — Not all helicopter landing areas on ships consist of purpose built structures and some helicopter
landing areas may alternatively utilize areas of the ship’s deck, which were not specifically designed for helicopter
operations e.g. main decking on a ship’s side, a large hatch cover, etc. In the case of a non-purpose built structure it
should be established, before authorizing a landing area, that the area selected can withstand the dynamic and static
loads imposed for the types of helicopters for which it is intended.

3.2 HELIDECK/SHIPBOARD HELIPORT DESIGN

CONSIDERATIONS — INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Note. — In the following sections, the term “helideck” is used throughout to denote a heliport on a fixed or
floating facility such as an exploration and/or production unit used for the exploitation of oil and gas. Where heliports are
located on ships, it would be for the designer to assess whether each aspect of design is appropriate for the “shipboard
heliport” under consideration. A stand-alone section (Section, 3.2.5 refers) is provided to address special considerations
for floating facilities and ships which have particular applicability to all shipboard heliports as well as to helidecks located
on floating offshore facilities.

3.2.1 General design considerations

3.2.1.1 The location of a helideck is often a compromise between the conflicting demands of the basic design
requirements, the space limitations on the often cramped topsides of offshore facilities and the need for the facility to
provide for a variety of functions. It is almost inevitable that helidecks installed on the cramped topsides of offshore
structures will suffer to some degree from their proximity to tall and bulky structures, and to gas turbine exhausts or

16
flares. The objective for designers becomes to create topside designs incorporating helidecks that are safe and ‘friendly’
to helicopter operations by minimizing adverse environmental effects (mainly aerodynamic, thermal and wave motion)
which can affect helicopter operability.

Note. — Where statutory design parameters cannot be fully met, it may be necessary for restrictions or
limitations to be imposed upon helicopter operations which could, in severe cases, lead to a loss of payload when the
wind is blowing through a turbulent sector.

3.2.1.2 Helidecks are basically flat plates and are therefore relatively streamlined structures. In isolation, they
would present little disturbance to the wind flow, and helicopters would be able to operate safely to them in a more or
less undisturbed airflow environment. Difficulties may arise, however, when the wind has to deviate around the bulk of
the offshore installation, causing large areas of flow distortion and turbulent wakes and/or because the producing facility
itself is a source of hot or cold gas emissions. The effects fall into three main categories:

a) the flow around the bulk of the offshore facility. Platforms in particular are slab-sided, non-
streamlined assemblies (bluff bodies) which create regions of highly distorted and
disturbed airflow in the vicinity;

b) the flow around large items of superstructure such as cranes, drilling derricks and exhaust
stacks, generates turbulence that can affect helicopter operations (see Section 3.2.2).
Like the platform itself, these are bluff bodies which encourage turbulent wake flows to
form behind the bodies; and

c) hot gas flows emanating from exhaust outlets and flare systems (see Section 3.2.3)
and/or cold faring (see Section 3.2.4).

3.2.1.3 A helideck on a fixed or floating offshore facility should ideally be located at or above the highest point of
the main structure. This will minimize the occurrence of turbulence downwind of adjacent structures. However, while this
is a desirable feature it should be appreciated that in many parts of the world, for a helideck much in excess of 60 m
above sea level, the regularity of helicopter operations may be impacted by low cloud base conditions. Conversely, low
elevation helidecks may also adversely affect helicopter operations where one-engine inoperative (dropdown)
performance is an operational requirement for a State, i.e. due to the insufficient drop-down between the landing area
and the sea surface. Consequently, a trade-off may need to be struck between the height of the helideck above
surrounding structures and its absolute height above mean sea level (AMSL).

3.2.1.4 A key driver for the location of the helideck is the need to provide a generous sector, clear of physical
obstructions for the approaching/departing helicopters and also sufficient vertical clearance for multi-engine helicopters
to lose altitude after take-off in the event of an engine failure. This will entail a design incorporating a minimum
210 degree obstacle-free sector with a falling gradient below the landing area over at least 180 degrees of this arc
(these particular issues are discussed further in Part I, Chapter 4). From an aerodynamic point of view, the helideck
should be as far away as possible from the disturbed wind flow around the platform and in order to achieve this, in
addition to providing the requisite obstruction-free areas described above, it is recommended that the helideck be
located on the corner of the facility with as large an overhang as possible.

3.2.1.5 In combination with locating the helideck at an appropriate elevation and, providing a vital air gap (see
Section 3.2.1.8), the overhang will encourage the disturbed airflow to pass under the helideck, leaving a relatively clean
‘horizontal’ airflow above the deck. It is recommended that the overhang should be such that the centre of the helideck is
vertically above or outboard of the corner of the facility’s superstructure.

3.2.1.6 When determining a preference for which corner of the facility the helideck should overhang, a number of
considerations should be evaluated. The helideck location should:

a) facilitate a direct approach whenever possible;

b) provide for a clear overshoot;

c) minimize the need for sideways or backwards manoeuvring;

17
 d) minimize the environmental impact due to turbulence, thermal effects etc.;

e) allow, wherever possible, an approach to be conducted by the commander of the helicopter.

3.2.1.7 The relative weighting of these considerations will change depending on factors such as wind speed.
However, the helideck should generally be located such that winds from prevailing directions carry turbulent wakes and
exhaust plumes away from the helicopter approach path. To assess if this is likely to be the case, for fixed facilities, it
will usually be necessary for designers to overlay the prevailing wind direction sectors over the centre of the helideck to
establish prevailing wind directions, wind speed combinations and to assess the likely impact on helicopter operations
for a helideck if sited at a particular location.

3.2.1.8 The height of the helideck AMSL and the presence of an air gap between the helicopter landing area and a
supporting module are the most important factors in determining wind flow characteristics in the helideck environment. In
combination with an appropriate overhang, an air gap separating the helideck from superstructure beneath it, will
promote beneficial wind flow over the landing area. If no air gap is provided, then wind conditions immediately above the
landing area are likely to be severe, particularly if mounted on top of a large multi-storey accommodation block — it is
the distortion of the wind flow that is the cause. However, by allowing for an air gap, typically between 3 m and 6 m in
height, this has the effect of ‘smoothing out’ distortions in the airflow immediately above the helideck. Helidecks mounted
on very tall accommodation blocks will require the largest clearance (typically 5 to 6 m) while those on smaller blocks,
and with a very large overhang, will tend to require smaller clearances (typically 3 to 4 m). For shallow superstructures
of three storeys or less, such as are often found on semi-submersible drilling facilities, a 1 m air gap may be sufficient;
but there is scope to increase the air gap as long as the size and presence of a more generous air gap does not have an
adverse effect on the stability of a floating facility or the sea-keeping qualities of a ship.

Note.— To avoid wave loading on the helideck, the air gap required by Section 3.2.1.8 is also provided to
clear the maximum wave height that might be encountered during transportation and for operational conditions. For a
shipboard heliport mounted on the deck of a floating vessel, the maximum vertical displacement due to vessel motion
should also be taken into account.

3.2.1.9 It is important that the air gap is preserved throughout the operational life of the facility, and care is taken
to ensure that the gap between the underside of the helideck structure and the superstructure beneath does not become
a storage area for bulky items that might otherwise hinder the free-flow of air through the gap.

3.2.1.10 Where it is likely that necessary limitations and/or restrictions would have a significant effect on helideck
operability, being caused by issues that cannot easily be ‘designed out’, an option may exist for providing a second
helideck which could be made available when the wind is blowing through the restricted sector of the primary helideck.

3.2.2 Effects of structure-induced turbulence

3.2.2.1 It is almost inevitable that helidecks installed on cramped topsides of offshore structures will suffer to some
degree from their proximity to tall and bulky structures such as drilling derricks, flare towers, cranes or gas turbine
exhausts stacks; it is often impractical to site the helideck above every tall structure. Any tall structure above and/or in
the vicinity of the helideck may generate areas of turbulence or sheared flow downwind of the obstruction and therefore
potentially pose a hazard to the helicopter. The severity of the disturbance will be greater, the bluffer the shape, and the
broader the obstruction to the flow. The effect reduces with increasing distance downwind from the source of turbulence.

3.2.2.2 An assessment of the optimum helideck position should also take into account the location and
configuration of drilling derricks, which can vary in relative location during the field life. A fully clad derrick, being a tall
and solid structure, may generate significant wake downwind of the obstacle. Since the flow properties of the wake will
be unstable, if the helideck is located downwind of a clad derrick, it is likely to be subject to large and random variations
in wind speed and direction. As a guide on wake decay from bluff bodies, it should be assumed that the wake effects will
not fully decay for a downwind distance of some ten to twenty structure widths (for a 10 m (33 ft) wide clad derrick this
corresponds to a decay distance of between 100 to 200 m). Consequently, it is preferable that a helideck is not placed
closer than ten structure widths from a clad derrick. However, few offshore facilities will be large enough to facilitate
such clearances in their design, and any specification for a clad derrick has potential to result in operational limitations
being applied when the derrick is upwind of the helideck. In contrast, unclad derricks are relatively porous and while a
wake still exists, it will be of a much higher frequency and smaller scale due to the flow being broken up by the lattice
element of the structure. Consequently, a helideck can be safely located closer to an unclad derrick than to its clad

18
equivalent. As a rule of thumb, separations of at least five derrick widths at helideck height should be the design
objective. Separations of significantly less than five structure widths, may lead to the imposition of operating restrictions
in certain wind conditions.

3.2.2.3 Gas turbine and other exhausts, whether or not in operation, may present a further source of
structure-induced turbulence by forming a physical blockage to the air flow over the helideck and creating a turbulent
wake (as well as presenting a potential hazard due to the hot exhaust). As a rule of thumb, to mitigate physical
turbulence effects at the helideck, it is recommended that a minimum of ten structure widths be established between the
obstruction and the helideck.

3.2.2.4 Other potential sources of turbulence may be present on offshore facilities, which could give rise to
turbulence effects, for example: large structures in close proximity to the helideck or a lay-down area in the vicinity of the
helideck. In the latter case, bulky or tall items placed in lay-down areas close to the helideck could present a source of
turbulence, and being only of a temporary nature, their presence may increase the hazard, since pilots otherwise familiar
with a particular facility would not be expecting turbulence if the source is a temporary obstruction. Ideally, a platform
design should seek to ensure that any proposed lay-down areas are significantly below helideck level and/or are
sufficiently remote from the helideck so as not to present a problem for helicopter operations.

3.2.3 Temperature rise due to hot exhausts

3.2.3.1 Increases in ambient temperature at the helideck are a potential hazard to helicopters, as increased
temperatures result in less rotor lift and less engine power margin. Rapid temperature changes are a significant hazard,
as the rate of change of temperature in the plume has potential to cause engine compressor surge or stall (often
associated with an audible ‘pop’), which can result in loss of engine power, damage to engines and/or helicopter
components and, ultimately, engine flame-out. It is therefore extremely important that helicopters avoid these conditions
by ensuring that occurrences of higher than ambient conditions are foreseen, mapped, and, where necessary, that steps
are taken to reduce payload to maintain an appropriate performance margin.

3.2.3.2 Gas turbine power generation systems are often a significant source of hot exhaust gases on fixed
offshore facilities, while diesel propulsion or auxiliary power system exhausts occurring on some floating offshore
facilities may also need to be considered. For certain wind directions the hot gas plumes from the exhausts will be
carried by the wind directly across the helideck. The hot gas plume then mixes with the ambient air to increase the size
of the plume, at the same time reducing its temperature by dilution.

3.2.3.3 Appropriate modelling designed to evaluate likely temperature rise would indicate that for gas turbine
exhausts, with not untypical release temperatures up to 500°C and flow rates of between 50-100 kg/s, the minimum
range at which the temperature rise in the plume drops to 2°C above ambient temperature would be in the range of
130-190m downwind of the source. Even where gas turbine generation systems incorporate waste heat recovery
systems, resulting in lower gas temperatures of about 250°C, with the same flow rate assumptions the minimum
distance before the temperature rise in the plume drops to 2°C above ambient is still in the range of 90-130 m downwind
of the source.

3.2.3.4 In consideration of the above, except for the very largest offshore facilities, it is implied that regardless of
design, there will always be a wind condition where temperature rise above the helideck exceeds the 2°C threshold.
Consequently, it may be impossible to design a helideck that is compliant with these criteria for all conditions. The
design aim then becomes one of minimizing the occurrence of high temperatures over the helideck rather than
necessarily eliminating them completely. This can be achieved by ensuring that the facility layout and alignment
directions are such that these conditions are only experienced rarely.

3.2.3.5 If it is necessary to locate power generation modules and exhausts close to the helideck, the location can
still be acceptable, provided that the stacks are high enough to direct the exhaust gas plume clear of arriving/departing
helicopters. It is also important to ensure that the design of the stacks does not compromise helideck obstacle protection
surfaces or are wide enough to present a source of structure-induced turbulence.

3.2.3.6 The helideck should be located so that winds from the prevailing wind direction(s) carry the plume away
from the helicopter approach/departure paths. To minimize the effects for other wind directions, the exhausts should be
sufficiently high to ensure that the plumes are above all the likely helicopter approach/departure paths. To achieve this, it
is recommended that exhaust outlets are no less than 20 to 30 m above the helideck. The provision of downward-facing
exhausts that initially direct hot exhaust gases towards the sea should be avoided, as experience has shown that hot
19
plumes can rise from the sea surface and disperse in an unpredictable way, particularly in light and variable wind
conditions.

3.2.3.7 In situations where it is difficult or impractical to reduce the potential interaction between the helicopter and
the turbine exhaust plume to a sufficiently low level, consideration should be given to installing a gas turbine exhaust
plume visualization system on facilities having a significant gas turbine exhaust plume problem, in order to highlight the
hazard to pilots when operating by day, to minimize the potential effect of the plume by making it easier to see and
avoid a plume encounter.

3.2.3.8 Helicopter performance may also be significantly impaired as a result of the combined radiated and
convection heat effects from flare plumes under certain wind conditions. In moderate or strong winds, the radiated heat
from a lit flare is rapidly dissipated and usually presents little problem for the helicopter, provided flight through the flare
plume is avoided. However, in calm or light wind conditions, potential changes in air temperature in the vicinity of the
helideck could be much greater and have a marked effect on the performance of the helicopter. Therefore, designers
should exercise great care in the determining location and elevation of flare towers in relation to helicopter operations.

3.2.4 Cold flaring and rapid blow-down systems

3.2.4.1 Hydrocarbon gas can be released as a result of the production process on the installation or from drilling
facilities at various times. It is important to ensure that a helicopter does not fly into a cloud of hydrocarbon gas because
even relatively low levels of concentration (typically above 10 per cent lower flammable limit (LFL)) can cause a
helicopter engine to surge or flame-out with a consequent risk to the helicopter. Also, in these conditions, the helicopter
poses a risk to the offshore facility because it is a potential ignition source for any hydrocarbon gas that may be present
in the atmosphere. It must therefore be ensured that gas release points are as remote as possible from the helideck and
from the helicopter flight path and that, in the event of any unforeseen gas release occurring during helicopter
operations, the pilot of a helicopter is given sufficient warning so that, if necessary, he can break off his approach to the
helideck. Planned gas releases should only occur when helicopters are not in the area.

3.2.4.2 The blow-down system on a production facility depressurises the process system releasing hydrocarbon
gas. It will normally be designed to reduce the pressure down to half its operating value in about fifteen minutes.
However, for a large facility this could feasibly require the release of fifty tonnes of gas, or more. Once down to the
target pressure, in fifteen minutes or less, the remainder of the gas will continue to be released from the system. A blow-
down may be automatically triggered by the detection of a dangerous condition in the process or alternatively manually
triggered.

3.2.4.3 The blow-down system should have venting points that are as remote as possible from the helideck and
prevailing winds should be downwind of the helideck. It is not uncommon to have this vent on the flare boom, and this
will normally be a good location. However, it should be borne in mind that dilution of the gas to acceptably low levels of
concentration (to <10 per cent LFL) may not occur until the plume is a considerable distance from the venting point. This
distance may be anywhere between 200 m and 500 m depending on the size of the vent, the rate of venting and the
prevailing wind speed.

3.2.4.4 Drilling facilities often have ‘poor-boy degassers’ which are used to release gas while circulating a well,
but, except for a sudden major crisis such as a blow-out on a drilling facility, they are unlikely to release significant
quantities of gas without warning. As with production facilities, it is not likely to be possible to locate the helideck
sufficiently distant from the potential source of gas, to always guarantee low levels of concentration at the helideck or in
the helicopter flight path. The drilling facility may therefore need to curtail helicopter flights when well circulation activity
is going on, or when problems are experienced down the well.

3.2.5 Special considerations for floating facilities and ships

Note. — Operating limits for safely remaining on the deck for a period necessary to affect safe passenger
and cargo transfer are not considered in detail in Part II. See Part I, Chapter 8, 8.3 for deck motions reporting and
recording.

3.2.5.1 As well as experiencing the aerodynamic effects and potential hazards highlighted above, floating
installations and ships experience dynamic motions due to ocean waves. These motions are a potential hazard to

20
helicopter operations, and motion limits will need to be established in order to maintain safe landing conditions. The
recording and reporting of deck motions for the safe landing of helicopters is discussed in more detail in Part I, Chapter
8, 8.3.

3.2.5.2 The setting of helideck performance or motion limitations due to floating installations and ship dynamic
motions is usually the responsibility of the helicopter operator and will be influenced by the type of floating facility or ship
to which they are operating, the types of helicopters being operated, the operating conditions (e.g. whether day or night)
and the location of the helideck (a helicopter operator may, for example, discuss landing limits with the Ship’s Master).
Limitations typically apply to both vertical linear motions in heave and to angular motions expressed as pitch and roll.
Some operators may consider additional parameters such as helideck inclination.

3.2.5.3 The angle of pitch and roll is the same for all points on a facility or ship but the amount of heave, sway or
surge motion experienced will vary considerably depending on the precise location of the helideck. The severity of
helideck motions will depend on:

a) the wave environment;

b) the size of the floating facility or ship (a smaller facility/ship generally tends to exhibit larger and faster
wave induced motions than a large facility/ship where the response amplitude operator (RAO) is
lower);

c) the characteristics of the floating facility or ship (certain hull forms exhibit larger wave induced motions
than others, or are sensitive to particular sea conditions);

d) whether the floating facility or ship is moored, underway or under tow; and

e) the location of the heliport on a ship (vertical motions tend to be greater at the bow or stern of a ship
than at the amidships location, and sway motions due to roll tend to increase with helideck height).

3.2.5.4 Sea States are usually characterised in terms of a significant wave height, an associated wave period and
a wave energy spectrum. The motions of a ship or floating facility generally become larger as the significant wave height
and period increase, but can be especially severe at certain wave periods (e.g. at natural roll or pitch periods) and may
be sensitive to the range in frequency content of the wave spectrum experienced. The motion characteristics of a
floating facility or ship may be reliably predicted by recourse to well-established computer models or to physical model
testing. Helideck downtime will occur whenever the motions of the floating facility or ship exceed the derived criteria.

3.2.5.5 The operability of a helicopter landing area depends on its location on a floating facility or ship, both
longitudinally and transversely. For ships and ship-shaped floating facilities, such as floating production storage and
offloading (FPSOs) units, the pitching motion is such that the vertical heave motion experienced at the helideck on the
bow or stern will generally be much greater than if the helideck is located amidships. Bow mounted helidecks can be
particularly vulnerable to damage from green seas spilling over the superstructure of the ship, unless mounted high
above deck level. Helidecks located off the vessel centreline, and cantilevered over the side (which usually provides the
benefit of an unobstructed falling gradient over at least 180 degrees) may experience downtime due to heave motions
caused by roll; although generally downtime for a helideck located amidships will be less than for a helideck located at
the bow or stern of a ship or ship-shaped facility.

Note. 1 — The location of the helideck, particularly on drilling facilities, is generally determined by factors
other than the need to minimize heave motions, and it maybe that the central area of an FPSO or drillship, for example,
is otherwise occupied by processing or drilling equipment. A helideck located at the bow or stern may be more
accessible to the temporary refuge and/or accommodation on board the facility which is another factor to consider
particularly where the helideck is designated to be a primary means of escape in the event of an incident occurring.

Note. 2 — Some thruster-assisted FPSOs and dynamically positioned facilities or ships have the ability to
turn to a desired heading which can be used operationally to minimize helideck downtime due to wave motions and
aerodynamic effects. Where dynamic positioning (DP) systems are used to maintain heading control, it is important to
ensure that the heading control system has adequate integrity (operability and redundancy) to maintain heading control
at all times during helicopter operations.

21
 3.2.6 Helideck design - environmental criteria

3.2.6.1 The design criteria may be applied to new fixed or floating facilities or ships and to significant modifications
to existing facilities or ships and/or where operational experience has highlighted potential issues. When considering the
volume of airspace to which the following criteria apply, designers should consider the airspace up to a height above
helideck level which takes into consideration the requirement to accommodate helicopter landing and take-off decision
points (or committal point). This is considered to be a height above the helideck corresponding to 9.14 m (30 ft) plus
wheels-to-rotor height plus one rotor diameter. For the Sikorsky S92, for example, this equates to a column of air
approximately 31 m (or 102 ft) above helideck surface level. The formula is clearly type-specific, being predicated on two
of the dimensional aspects of the design helicopter, which are specific to type.

3.2.6.2 As a general rule with respect to turbulence, a limit on the standard deviation of the vertical airflow velocity
of 1.75 m/s should not be exceeded. However, it should be borne in mind that this criterion is close to onshore
background turbulence levels and that it would be unusual for a helideck not to exceed this lower threshold limit for at
least some wind speeds and directions. In consideration of this, the lower threshold limit of 1.75 m/s is intended to draw
attention to conditions that might result in operating difficulties and to alert pilots to exercise caution, unless or until,
operating experience has confirmed the airflow characteristics to be acceptable. Where these criteria are significantly
exceeded (i.e. where the limit exceeds 2.4 m/s), there is the possibility that operational restrictions will be necessary and
in this case it may be advisable to consider modifications to the helideck to improve the airflow (such as by increasing
the air gap). Fixed or floating facilities or ships where there is a likelihood of exceeding the criteria should be subjected
to appropriate testing e.g. a scale model in a wind tunnel or by computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis, to establish
the wind environment in which helicopters will be expected to operate.

3.2.6.3 Unless there are no significant heat sources on the facility or ship, designers should commission a survey
of ambient temperature rise based on a Gaussian dispersion model and supported by wind tunnel testing or CFD
analysis. Where the results of such modelling and/or testing indicate there may be a rise of air temperature of more than
2°C averaged over a three second time interval, there is the possibility that operational limitations and/or restrictions
may need to be applied.

3.2.6.4 For permanent multiple platform configurations, normally consisting of two or more bridge-linked modules
in close proximity to each other, the environmental effects of hazards emanating from all constituent modules should be
considered on helideck operations. This is particularly appropriate for the case of hot or cold gas exhausts where there
will always be a wind direction which carries any exhaust plumes from a bridge-linked module in the direction of the
helideck.

3.2.6.5 For temporary combined operations where typically one or more mobile facilities and/or ships are operated
in close proximity to another (usually fixed) facility, the environmental effects emanating from one facility or ship should
be fully considered for all facilities located together in temporary combined operations.

3.3 GUIDANCE ON HELIDECK SIZE AND SURFACE MOUNTED OBJECTS

Note. — In respect to D and D-value referenced in the following sections (Sections 3.3 and 3.4), it should
be noted that this corresponds to the largest overall dimension of a single main rotor helicopter when rotors are turning,
being measured, and expressed in metres, or in feet, from the most forward position of the main rotor tip path plane to
the most rearward position of the tail rotor tip path plane or the helicopter structure.

3.3.1 For a helideck which is 1 D or greater, it is presumed that the final approach and take-off area (FATO) and
the TLOF will always be coincidental, occupying the same space and having the same load bearing characteristics.
Therefore, for helidecks that are 1 D or greater any reference to FATO may be assumed automatically to include the
TLOF; so for a 1 D helideck TLOF is used throughout the relevant sections of Annex 14 — Aerodromes, Volume II —
Heliports and in Part I of this manual (Figure I-3-1 refers). The FATO and TLOF are each bounded by the circle “1 x D”
which is a dynamic load bearing surface.

22
 Figure I-3-1. Helideck obstacle limitation sectors and surfaces for a FATO/TLOF of 1D

3.3.2 For a helideck which is less than 1 D, the TLOF and FATO are regarded to be collocated but are not
coincidental as only the TLOF element, consisting of a load bearing surface, is permitted to apply the reduction below
1 D. The FATO element, for the containment of the helicopter, remains a constant 1 D regardless of the dimension of
the reduced TLOF (Figure I-3-2 refers). The FATO is bound by the outer circle from which the obstacle sector surfaces
derive their origin. The TLOF is bound by the inner circle (represented as a circle within the octagonal shape of the
helideck load bearing area). The FATO, outside the TLOF perimeter represents a non-load bearing surface for
helicopters as it usually extends over the safety device (whether safety net or safety shelf) which is incapable of
supporting even the static load of a helicopter. Therefore, a helideck incorporates one FATO and one TLOF,
notwithstanding for a fixed or floating offshore facility, to improve operational flexibility, there may be the possibility to
provide additional helideck(s) elsewhere on the facility – the advantages of this are raised in Part I, Chapter 3, 3.2.1.10.

23
 Figure I-3-2. Helideck obstacle limitation sectors and surfaces for a FATO/TLOF less than 1D
(particular example is for a minimum-size 0.83D TLOF)

3.3.3 It should be remembered that the basic size of a 1 D FATO with coincident TLOF is, of necessity, a
compromise for offshore operations where space is invariably limited. Nonetheless, it is essential that the TLOF provides
sufficient space for the landing gear configuration and sufficient surface area to promote a helpful “ground cushion”
effect from rotor downwash. The area provided should also allow adequate room for passengers and crew to alight or
embark the helicopter and to transit to and from the operating area safely. In addition, space consideration needs to be
given to allow essential on-deck operations, such as baggage handling, tying down the helicopter or helicopter

24
refuelling, to occur safely and efficiently, and, in the event of an incident or accident occurring, for rescue and
fire-fighting teams to always have good access to the landing area from an upwind location (see also Part I, Chapter 6).

3.3.4 The design should allow for sufficient clearance from the main rotor and tail rotor of the helicopter to
essential objects permitted to be around the perimeter of the TLOF, including obstacles that may be present in the
limited obstacle sector (LOS). It should be clearly understood that a FATO of 1 D is the minimum dimension sufficient for
the containment of the helicopter; in this case, where a precise landing is completed (see also Part I, Chapter 5
especially the use of touchdown/positioning marking circle), the main and tail rotors will a-but the edge of the 1 D circle.
For this reason it is important that the yellow touchdown/positioning marking circle is accurately and clearly marked and
is used by aircrew every time for positioning the helicopter during the touchdown manoeuvre.

3.3.5 Sufficient margins to allow for touchdown/positioning inaccuracies as a result of normal variations or
handling difficulties, for example due to challenging meteorological conditions, aerodynamic effects and/or dynamic
motions due to ocean waves, should be allowed for in the design. The helideck and environs should provide adequate
visual cues and references for aircrew to use throughout the approach to touchdown manoeuvre from initial helideck
location and identification (acquisition) through final approach to hover and to landing. In addition, adequate visual
references should be available for the lift-off and hover into forward flight.

3.3.6 In consequence of the considerations stated in above, except where an aeronautical study/risk
assessment is able to demonstrate otherwise (see Appendix I-A), the minimum size for the new-build design of a TLOF
for single main rotor helicopters is deemed to be an area which can accommodate a circle whose dimension is no less
than the overall length including rotors of the largest helicopter that the helideck is intended to serve. For helicopters
with a MTOM of 3 175 kg or less, it is permitted, on the basis of a risk assessment (see Appendix I-A) to shrink the
overall size of the TLOF so that it is less than 1 D, but is not less than 0.83 D.

3.3.7 A FATO of 1 D provides full containment of the helicopter where touchdown markings are used correctly
and precisely. For a helideck that has a dynamic load bearing surface (TLOF) of less than 1 D, elements of the
helicopter will inevitably extend beyond the edge of the TLOF. For this reason the TLOF is surrounded by a circle with a
diameter of 1 D — which is obstacle free with the exception of the permitted obstacles discussed in Section 3.3.8 below.
In essence, this obstacle free area represents the standard 1 D FATO from which the limited obstacle sector extends.
To ensure obstacle clearance, it is important that the diameter of the touchdown/positioning marking circle is 0.5 of the
notional FATO (not of the smaller landing surface (TLOF)) and is located at the centre of the FATO (these points are
emphasised in the Appendix I-A sub-1 D risk assessment).

3.3.8 One of the key elements relating to acceptance of a sub-1 D TLOF is the requirement for sufficient
clearance to exist from the main or tail rotor of the helicopter to permitted objects which, to ensure safe helideck
operations may need to be present around the TLOF. These essential objects may include guttering, with or without a
raised kerb around the helideck, where provided, helideck perimeter lighting systems including helideck perimeter
floodlighting, helideck fire-fighting equipment e.g. a fixed monitor system (FMS) (see Part I, Chapter 6) and any
handrails or signage associated with the helideck which may not be capable of complete retraction or removal during
helicopter operations.

3.3.9 For a helideck having an overall dimension of 1 D or larger, assuming also a D-value greater than 16 m
(52.5 ft), the height of permitted objects around the TLOF perimeter should be no greater than 25 cm (10 in) above
helideck level (see Figure I-3-1) but ideally no more than 15 cm (6 in) above helideck level. For a helideck, which has an
overall dimension less than 1 D and/or has a D-value of 16.00 m (52.5 ft) or less, the height of permitted objects around
the TLOF perimeter should be no greater than 5 cm (2 in) above helideck level (see Figure I-3-2).

3.3.10 Essential objects, which because of their function are required to be located around the TLOF perimeter,
should be of a suitable construction when assessed against the undercarriage design of helicopters operating to the
helideck. For a helideck having an overall dimension of 1 D or larger, assuming also a D-value greater than 16.00 m
(52.5 ft), where the construction of permitted objects around the TLOF could present a threat to the undercarriage and
tail rotor systems of helicopters passing over the TLOF perimeter at low altitude and at low airspeed, more demanding
obstacle height restriction for objects around the TLOF should be considered; so that essential objects are restricted to a
height no greater than 15 cm (6 in) above helideck level.

3.3.11 The helideck may be of any shape as long as it can contain within its boundary the minimum prescribed
dimensions, which is based on accommodating a usually ‘hypothetical’ circle. Although helidecks may be square,
circular or rectangular — all common shapes for early helideck designs — new build helidecks are more likely to be
hexagonal or octagonal in shape. Consisting of a series of straight sides/edges, these arrangements provide some

25
advantages over early design shapes. For example, multi-sided straight lines can provide more effective visual cues at
night than do either a circular or square arrangement. Circular helidecks tend to be less rich in visual cues than do
helideck consisting of a series of straight lines.

3.4 SHIPBOARD HELIPORT SIZE AND SURFACE-MOUNTED OBJECTS

3.4.1 A shipboard heliport may be purpose built or non-purpose built and be provided in the bow or stern of a
ship, have an over-side location (usually cantilevered), be amidships on or close to the centre line of the ship, be located
on the ships side or, subject to structural considerations (see Part I, Section 3.1), utilize other non-purpose built areas of
the ship such as over a hatch cover (see also Part I, Chapter 3, 3.2.5).

3.4.2 For a shipboard heliport, regardless of whether it is purpose built or non-purpose built, where the diameter
of the landing area is 1 D or larger it is presumed that the FATO and TLOF will always be coincidental and therefore the
TLOF is assumed to include the FATO when used throughout the relevant sections of Annex 14, Volume II and in this
manual. A shipboard heliport commonly incorporates one TLOF, notwithstanding that for a large ship, to improve
operational flexibility, there may be opportunity to provide an additional landing area elsewhere on the facility — the
advantages of this are raised in Part I, Chapter 3.

3.4.3 For a purpose built shipboard heliport provided in the bow or stern of a ship, where operations are
conducted within limited touchdown directions only (see Figure I-3-3), consideration may be given to reduce the load
bearing surface dimension athwart-ships; provided in the helicopter’s longitudinal (landing) direction the TLOF
dimension is at-least 1 D, the width of the TLOF in the athwart-ships direction may be reduced to no less than 0.83 D.
Across both axes the minimum dimension of the FATO is 1 D, so athwart-ships the FATO will typically overlap the
perimeter netting (or safety shelving) on both the port and starboard sides. This portion of the FATO, which for a
minimum size (0.83 D TLOF), extends either side beyond the TLOF by 0.85 D, is assumed to be non-load bearing for
helicopters.

3.4.4 The basic size of the FATO and TLOF for a shipboard heliport is, of necessity, a compromise for offshore
operations where space is often limited. The landing and take-off (load bearing) area should provide sufficient space for
the landing gear configuration and a sufficient surface area to promote helpful “ground cushion” effect from rotor
downwash. The surface area should allow adequate room for passengers and crew to alight or embark the helicopter
and to transit to and from the operating area safely. In addition, space consideration needs to be given to allow essential
on-deck operations, such as baggage handling, tying down the helicopter or helicopter refuelling, to occur safely and
efficiently, and, in the event of an incident or accident occurring, for rescue and fire-fighting teams to have good access
to the landing area, at all times from an upwind location (see also Part I, Chapter 6). For the arrangement described in
3.4.3, operators should consider running this through the risk assessment ‘template’ provided for sub-1 D helidecks at
Appendix I-A.

3.4.5 The design should allow for sufficient clearance from the main rotor and tail rotor of the helicopter to
objects permitted to be around the perimeter of the TLOF, including objects that may be present in the limited obstacle
sector. It should be clearly understood that a FATO of 1 D is sufficient only for containment of the helicopter; the main
and tail rotors will always be at the edge of the 1 D circle — even when the helicopter is perfectly positioned. For this
reason, it is important that the touchdown/positioning marking circle is accurately and clearly marked and is used by
aircrew for positioning the helicopter during the touchdown manoeuvre.

3.4.6 Sufficient margins to allow for touchdown/positioning inaccuracies as a result of normal variations or
handling difficulties, for example due to challenging meteorological conditions, aerodynamic effects and/or dynamic
motions due to ocean waves, should be allowed for in the design. Finally, the helideck and the environs should provide
adequate visual references for the aircrew throughout the approach to touchdown manoeuvre from initial helideck
location and identification (acquisition) through final approach to hover and to landing. In addition, adequate visual
references should be available for lift-off and hover (see Appendix I-A for guidance).

3.4.7. In consequence of the considerations stated above, the minimum size of the FATO and the TLOF for
single main rotor helicopters is deemed to be an area which can accommodate a circle whose dimension is no less than
the overall length including rotors of the largest (design) helicopter that the shipboard heliport is intended to serve.

26
3.4.8 In the case of a purpose built shipboard heliport provided in the bow or stern of a narrow-beam ship, where
operations are conducted with limited touchdown directions it is permissible to make a case for operations to shipboard
heliports that are less than 1 D, but are no less than 0.83 D in the athwart-ships direction. The criterion used to assess
operations conducted to sub-1 D helidecks is contained in Appendix I-A and could be used to help inform a decision on
safe operations to a sub-1 D shipboard heliport.

Example — For a ship with a bow mounted shipboard heliport steaming into wind on a heading of 360°,
the touchdown heading of the helicopter (nose) is limited in heading between 330° and 030°, while for a ship with a
bow- mounted shipboard heliport steaming downwind on a heading of 180°, the touchdown headings of the helicopter
(nose) is limited to between 150° and 210°. In each case the ship may need to be manoeuvred to ensure that the
direction of the helicopter touchdown heading is aligned with the direction of the relative wind at the time the helicopter is
operating. See Figure I-3-3 below.

Note.— States should carefully consider the available visual references before sanctioning operations to
bow or stern mounted shipboard heliports at night, especially those which are less than 1 D.

Permitted heading landing

arc

15º 15º

BOW
D

15º 15º

0.83D

Arc of minimum value 1D

Figure I-3-3. Shipboard permitted landing headings for limited heading operation

3.4.9 One of the important elements relating to the minimum size of the FATO and TLOF is the requirement for
sufficient clearance to exist from the main or tail rotor of the helicopter to essential objects which may need to be present
around a TLOF. For a shipboard heliport, which has an overall dimension less than 1 D and/or has a D-value of 16.00 m
(52.5 ft) or less, the height of essential permitted objects around the TLOF perimeter should be no greater than 5 cm
(2 in) above the level of the landing area, while for a shipboard heliport having an overall dimension of 1 D or greater,
assuming also a D-value greater than 16.00 m, the height of essential permitted objects around the TLOF perimeter
should be no greater than 25 cm (10 in), but ideally no more than 15 cm (6 in), above the level of the landing area.
Essential objects may include guttering with or without a raised kerb, where provided, perimeter lighting systems,
including perimeter floodlighting and foam monitors where a FMS is the primary means for fire-fighting (see Part 1,
Chapter 6) and any handrails or signage associated with the shipboard heliport which may not be capable of complete
retraction or removal during helicopter operations.

3.4.10. Essential objects, which because of their function are required to be located around the TLOF perimeter,
should be of a suitable construction when assessed against the undercarriage design of helicopters operating to the
shipboard heliport. For a purpose built shipboard heliport having an overall dimension of 1 D or larger, assuming also a
D-value greater than 16.00 m (52.5 ft), where the construction of permitted objects around the TLOF could present a

27
threat to the undercarriage and tail rotor systems of helicopters passing over the TLOF perimeter at low altitude and at
low airspeed, more demanding obstacle height restriction for objects around the TLOF should be considered; so that
essential objects are restricted to a height no greater than 15 cm (6 in) above heliport level.

3.4..11 With the exception of the operation illustrated in Figure I-3-3, a FATO and TLOF for a shipboard heliport
may be any shape as long as it can contain a usually ‘hypothetical’ circle with the minimum prescribed dimensions of
1 D. Although purpose built shipboard heliports may be square, circular or rectangular — a common shape used for
early designs — new build purpose built shipboard heliports are more likely to be hexagonal or octagonal in shape.
Consisting of a series of straight sides/edges, these arrangements provide some advantages over early design shapes.
For example, multi-sided straight lines can provide better visual cues at night than either a circular or a square
arrangement.

3.5 HELIDECK SURFACE ARRANGEMENTS

3.5.1 Objects which, due to their function, are required to be located on the surface of the TLOF, such as
helideck nets and helideck touchdown marking lighting systems, where provided, should not exceed a height above
surface level prior to installation of more than 2.5 cm (1 in) and may only be present if they do not represent a hazard to
helicopter operations. It should be appreciated that the presence of raised fittings on a helideck has potential to induce
dynamic roll over for helicopters fitted with skids and extra care should be taken when incorporating deck-mounted
fittings to helidecks intended for use by skid-fitted helicopters. As a consequence, because of the possible adverse
effects of skid tips becoming enmeshed in helideck surface netting, it is recommended that skid-fitted helicopters not
operate to helidecks while a net is present. In addition, because of the concerns of dynamic rollover, helicopters should
only operate to helidecks fitted with deck-mounted touchdown marking lighting systems where the system components
are suitably finished, and the installed height of the system does not exceed 2.5 cm (1 in). This would include proper
arrangements for the chamfering of components (e.g. panels) and the maintenance of suitable friction surface finishes
for each element of the system (see Part I, Chapter 5, 5.15 and Appendix I-B).

3.5.2 The surface of the landing area should be sloped to prevent the pooling of water. To this end, the landing
area should contain a suitable drainage system capable of directing rainwater, seawater, fire-fighting media and fuel
spills away from the helideck, to a safe place. To ensure the adequate drainage of a helideck located on a fixed facility,
the surface of the helideck should be laid to a fall or cambered to prevent any liquids accumulating on the landing area.
Such falls or cambers should be approximately 1:100 and should be designed to drain liquids away from the main
structure. A system of guttering, and/or slightly raised kerb, should be located around the perimeter of the TLOF to
prevent spilled fuel falling onto other parts of the facility while directing any spillages to a safe storage or disposal area,
1
which may include the sea surface (where permitted) . The capacity of the drainage system should be adequate to
contain the maximum likely spillage of fuel on the helideck taking into account the design helicopter and its fuel capacity,
typical fuel loads and uplifts. The design of the drainage system should preclude blockage by debris. Any deflection of
the helideck surface, in service, due to static loads imposed by the helicopter while stationary, should not modify the
surface to the extent that it encourages pooled liquids to remain on the helideck. An example of a helideck drainage
system capacity check, based on an S92 helideck design, is attached at Appendix I-C.

3.5.3 The surface of the landing area should be skid-resistant to both helicopters and personnel using the TLOF.
This entails that all essential markings on the surface should have a coating of non-slip material. A wide variety of
suitable materials are commercially available and information on which system would be best applied in particular cases
may be sought through an appropriate authority in each individual State. Guidance may also be given by said State on
what minimum friction properties need to be achieved to ensure that a given surface is rendered ‘skid-resistant’ to
helicopters and is suitable for personnel using the helideck. The appropriate authority should advise how a helideck can
be tested and re-tested, to ensure compliance.

Note — It is recognized that certain aluminium helidecks contain holes in the topside construction for the
rapid drainage of fluids, including fuel spills which could occur, for example, if a helicopter’s fuel system is ruptured by
the impact of a crash. In these cases, particular care should be taken to assess the quality of skid-resistance prior to the
helideck going into service. In addition, it is also important to ensure that the pattern, and especially the size of any
holes, does not have a detrimental effect on helicopter operations, i.e. the surface arrangement should not promote the

1
See regulation 4 of Annex I to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollutions from Ships (MARPOL), 1973, as amended.

28
breakdown of a helpful ground cushion beneath the helicopter to reduce beneficial ground effect (for a fuller discussion
of this issue see Section 3.2).

3.5.4 Whenever possible, the helideck surface should be rendered so as to meet minimum friction coefficients,
acceptable to the appropriate authority (e.g. for helicopter operations on fixed helidecks not less than 0.6µ inside the
touchdown/position marking (TD/PM) circle and on the painted markings and 0.5µ outside the TD/PM circle, and for
moving helidecks not less than 0.65µ inside the TD/PM circle and on the painted markings and 0.5µ outside the TD/PM
circle). However, where an acceptable minimum friction coefficient of 0.6µ for a fixed helideck or 0.65µ for a moving
helideck cannot be achieved for operations with wheeled helicopters, there is an option to provide a surface mounted
tautly stretched helideck landing net to encompass the touchdown/positioning marking circle and the heliport
identification “H” marking, so that for a normal touchdown, the wheeled undercarriage of the helicopter, is contained
within the perimeter of the net. The net should not be so large as to compromise the clear interpretation of other
markings; for example, the heliport-name marking or the maximum allowable mass marking — the helideck net may
need to be modified to achieve this objective, e.g. corners are cropped and removed. Where a net is fitted, the entire
surface should meet a minimum friction coefficient of 0.5µ.

3.5.5 It is preferable that the net be manufactured from material which is durable, in consideration of the mass of
the design helicopter and the forces acting on the net through the undercarriage. Materials selected should not be prone
to wear and tear such as flaking caused by prolonged exposure to adverse weather conditions. The rope should be
secured at regular intervals and tensioned to a suitable level (typically 2 225 N). As a rule of thumb it should not be
possible to raise any part of the net by more than 25 cm (10 in) above the helideck surface when applying a vigorous
vertical pull by hand. The profile of the uninstalled net should ensure that it does not exceed the touchdown area height
constraint requirements specified in Section 3.5.1.

Note.— It is not recommended that nets be provided for operations by skid-fitted helicopters, as skids can
easily become enmeshed in netting. Further, it should also be considered that the presence of a net may have a
detrimental effect on certain fire-fighting solutions where, components when activated are required to ‘pop-up’ through
the surface of the helideck. This action might be hindered by the presence of a tautly stretched helideck net.

3.5.6 Sufficient tie-down points and flush-fitting to obviate damage to tires or skids, should be provided for
securing the design helicopter. Tie-downs should be located, and be of such construction, so as to secure the helicopter
in severe weather conditions. Construction should take account of the inertial forces resulting from any movement of a
floating facility (See also Section 3.1). Tie-down points should be compatible with the dimensions of tie-down strop
attachments.

3.5.7 Personnel protection safety devices such as perimeter safety nets or safety shelves should be installed
around the edge of the helideck, except where structural protection already exists. For helidecks completed on or after
1 January 2012, any safety device employed should not exceed the height of the outboard edge of the TLOF, which
would present a hazard to helicopter operations. The load bearing capability of the safety device should be assessed
fit-for-purpose by reference to the shape and size of the workforce that it is intended to protect.

3.5.8 Where the safety device consists of perimeter netting, this should be of a flexible nature and be
manufactured from a non-flammable material with the inboard edge fastened just below the edge of the helideck. The
net itself should extend to a distance of at least 1.5 m (5 ft) in the horizontal plane and be arranged with an upward slope
of approximately 10°. The net should not act as a trampoline but should exhibit properties that provide a hammock effect
to securely contain a person falling or rolling into it, without serious injury. When considering the securing of the net to
the structure and the materials used, care should be taken to ensure each element will meet adequacy of purpose
requirements, particularly that netting should not deteriorate over time due to prolonged exposure to the elements,
including ultraviolet light. Perimeter nets may incorporate a hinge arrangement to facilitate the removal of sacrificial
panels to allow for periodic testing.

3.5.9 Where the safety device consists of safety shelving rather than netting, it should be ensured that the
construction and layout of the shelving does not promote any adverse wind flow issues over the helideck (see
Section 3.2.2), while providing equivalent personnel safety benefits to Section 3.5.6, and that it is installed to the same
minimum dimensions as the netting system described above (at least 1.5 m (5 ft) in the horizontal plane beyond the
edge of the helideck. This solid shelving offers some advantage for promoting helpful ground cushion, especially for
helidecks which are sub-1 D. It may also be further covered with netting to improve “grab” capabilities.

3.5.10 Helideck access points should be located at two or preferably three locations around the landing area to
give passengers embarking or disembarking direct access to and from the helicopter without a need to pass around the
29
tail rotor or under the main rotor of those helicopters with a low main rotor profile. The need to preserve, as far as
possible, an unobstructed falling gradient over at least 180° should be carefully weighed against the size and design of
the access platform in needing to accommodate vital helideck safety equipment (e.g. fire-fighting equipment) plus
access stairs and signage so that any infringement to the falling gradient is the smallest possible, and preferably not at
all.

3.5.11 Escape routes should be of a suitable size to enable quick and efficient movement of the maximum
number of personnel who may require to use them, and to facilitate easy manoeuvring of fire-fighting equipment and use
of stretchers. Typical dimensions for width of escape routes would be 1.2 m (4 ft) for main escape routes and 0.7 m
(2.3 ft) for secondary escape routes, with consideration given to areas for manoeuvring a stretcher. Where foam
monitors are selected for fire-fighting and collocated on an access platform, care should be taken to ensure that the
presence of a monitor does not impede or cause injury to escaping personnel due to the operation of the monitor in an
emergency situation. Handrails associated with access platforms may need to be made collapsible, retractable or
removable where the height constraints of Section 3.3.9 cannot be otherwise met.

3.6 SHIPBOARD HELIPORT SURFACE ARRANGEMENTS

3.6.1 For objects which, due to their function, are required to be located on the surface of the landing area, such
as fitted surface nets and touchdown marking lighting systems, these should not exceed an uninstalled height above
surface level of more than 2.5 cm (1 in) and should only be present if they do not represent a hazard to helicopter
operations. It should be appreciated that raised fittings on a shipboard heliport has potential to induce dynamic roll over
for helicopters fitted with skids. Because of the possible adverse effects of skid tips becoming enmeshed in the netting, it
is not generally recommended that skid-fitted helicopters operate to shipboard heliports with a net present. In addition,
because of the concerns of dynamic rollover, helicopters should only operate to shipboard heliports fitted with
deck-mounted touchdown marking lighting systems where the system components are suitably finished and where the
installed height does not exceed 2.5 cm (1 in). This would include proper arrangements for chamfering of components
(e.g. panels) and the maintenance of suitable friction qualities for each element of the system (see Part I, Chapter 5,
5.15 and Appendix I-B).

Note — For a non-purpose built shipboard heliport, there may be circumstances where non-essential, and
otherwise immoveable surface-mounted obstructions are located within or immediately adjacent to the landing area
which, with robust operational controls may be assessed not to present a hazard to the helicopter but which may need to
be highlighted to be readily visible from the air. There is a scheme for marking of obstacles described in Part I,
Chapter 4, 4.5 which also provides details of how to complete a helicopter landing area/operating area plan.

3.6.2 The surface of the landing area should be arranged to prevent the pooling of water. To this end, the
landing area should be provided with a suitable drainage system capable of directing rainwater, seawater, fire-fighting
media or fuel spills away from the surface of the landing area to a safe place. A system of guttering, and/or a slightly
raised kerb, should be provided around the perimeter of the landing area to prevent spilled fuel falling onto other parts of
the facility while directing any spillages to a safe storage or disposal place, which may be the sea surface (where
permitted). The capacity of the drainage system should be adequate to contain the maximum likely spillage of fuel on
the landing area taking account the design helicopter with its fuel capacity, typical fuel loads and uplifts. The design of
the drainage system should preclude blockage by debris. Any deflection of the landing area surface due to static loads
imposed by a stationary helicopter should not modify the surface to the extent that it encourages the pooling liquids to
remain on the surface of the landing area. An example of a helideck drainage system capacity check, based on an S92
helideck design, is attached at Appendix I-C.

3.6.2 The surface of the landing area should be skid-resistant to both helicopters and personnel using the
landing area. This entails that all essential markings on the surface should have a coating of non-slip material. A wide
variety of suitable materials are commercially available and information on which system would be best applied in
particular cases should be obtained through the appropriate authority in each individual State. Guidance may also be
given by said State on what minimum friction properties need to be satisfied to ensure that a given surface is rendered
skid-resistant to both helicopters and the personnel using it. The appropriate authority should also be able to advise how
a surface can be tested, and re-tested, to ensure compliance.

Note — It is recognized that certain aluminium shipboard heliports contain holes in the topside construction
for the purpose of rapid drainage of fluids including fuel spills which might occur if a helicopter’s fuel system is ruptured

30
by the impact of a crash. In this instance, care should be taken to assess the qualities of skid-resistance prior to the
shipboard heliport going into service. For these particular arrangements, it is also important to ensure that the pattern,
and especially the size of any holes, does not have a detrimental effect on helicopter operations, i.e. the surface
arrangement should not disrupt the ground cushion beneath the helicopter and so reduce beneficial ground effect. This
issue is discussed in more detail in Appendix I-A and in Section 3.2.

3.6.3 Whenever possible, the surface of the landing area should be rendered to meet a minimum friction
coefficient, acceptable to an appropriate authority (for helicopter operations to shipboard heliports typically not less than
0.65 µ inside the TD/PM circle and on the painted markings and 0.5 µ outside the TD/PM circle). However, where this
cannot be achieved for a specific design, the option exists to provide a surface mounted tautly stretched net to
encompass the touchdown/positioning marking circle and the heliport identification “H” marking such that for a normal
touchdown, the wheeled undercarriage of the helicopter is contained within the landing net. The size of the net should
not compromise the clear interpretation of other markings; for example the heliport-name marking or the maximum
allowable mass marking — the net may be modified to achieve this objective e.g. have the corners cropped and
removed. Where a net is fitted the entire surface, regardless of whether it is covered by the net, it should meet a
minimum friction coefficient of 0.5 µ.

3.6.4 It is preferable that the landing net be manufactured from material which is durable, considering the mass
of the design helicopter and the forces acting on the net through the undercarriage, and which is not prone to wear and
tear such as flaking due to prolonged exposure to adverse weather conditions. The rope should be secured at regular
intervals and tensioned to a suitable level (typically 2 225 N). As a general rule, it should not be possible to raise any
part of the net by more than 25 cm (10 in) above the TLOF surface when applying a vigorous vertical pull by hand. The
profile of the net should ensure that it does not exceed the surface level height constraint requirements specified in
Section 3.6.1

Note.— It is not recommended that nets be provided for operations by skid-fitted helicopters as skids can
easily become enmeshed in netting. It should also be considered that the presence of a net may have a detrimental
effect on certain fire-fighting solutions where, components, when activated, are required to emmerge through the surface
of the helideck. This action might be hindered by the presence of a tautly stretched net.

3.6.5 Sufficient tie-down points and flush-fitting to obviate damage to tires or skids, should be provided for
securing the design helicopter for the shipboard heliport. These should be located and constructed so as to secure the
helicopter in severe weather conditions. Construction should take account of the inertial forces resulting from any
movement of the ship (see also Section 3.1). Tie-down points should be compatible with the dimensions of tie-down
strap attachments.

3.6.6 Personnel protection safety devices, such as perimeter safety nets or safety shelves, should be installed
around the edge of a shipboard heliport except where structural protection exists. For shipboard heliports completed on
or after 1 January 2015, any safety device employed should not exceed the height of the landing area at the outboard
edge, which would present a hazard to helicopter operations. The load bearing capability of the safety device should be
assessed fit-for-purpose according to the size of the workforce that it is intended to protect.

3.6.7 If the safety device consists of perimeter netting, it should be of a flexible nature and be manufactured from
a non-flammable material with the inboard edge fastened just below the edge of the shipboard heliport. The net itself
should extend to a distance of at least 1.5 m (5 ft) in the horizontal plane and be arranged with an upward slope of
approximately 10°. The net should not act as a trampoline but should exhibit properties that display a hammock effect to
securely contain a person falling or rolling into it without serious injury. When considering the securing of the net to the
structure and the materials used, care should be taken to ensure each element will meet adequacy of purpose
requirements, particularly that netting should not deteriorate over time due to prolonged exposure to the elements,
including ultraviolet light. Perimeter nets may incorporate a hinge arrangement to facilitate the removal of sacrificial
panels to allow for testing.

3.6.8 Where the safety device consists of safety shelving, rather than netting, it should be ensured that the
construction of the shelving does not promote any adverse wind flow issues over the shipboard heliport (see
Section 3.2.2), while providing equivalent personnel safety benefits, and that it is installed to the same dimensions as
the netting system described above (at least 1.5 m (5 ft) measured in the horizontal plane from the edge of the landing
area). This solid shelving offers some advantage for promoting helpful ground cushion, especially for shipboard heliports
which are sub-1 D. It may also be further covered with netting to improve traction.

31
3.6.9 Shipboard heliport access points should be located at two or preferably three locations around the landing
area to give passengers embarking or disembarking direct access to and from the helicopter without the need to pass
around the tail rotor or under the main rotor of those helicopters with a low main rotor profile. The need to preserve as
far as possible an unobstructed falling 5:1 (or 3:1) gradient over at least 180° should be carefully weighed with the size
and design of the access platform needed to accommodate vital heliport safety equipment (e.g. fire-fighting stations)
plus access stairs and signage so that any infringement to the falling gradient is the smallest possible, and preferably
not at all.

3.6.10 Escape routes should be of a suitable size to enable quick and efficient movement of the maximum
number of personnel who may require to use them, and to facilitate easy manoeuvring of fire-fighting equipment and use
of stretchers. Typical dimensions for width of escape routes would be 1.2 m (4 ft) for main escape routes and 0.7 m
(2.3 ft) for secondary escape routes, with consideration given to areas for manoeuvring a stretcher. Where foam
monitors are selected and collocated on an access platform, care should be taken to ensure that the presence of a
monitor does not impede or cause injury to escaping personnel due to the operation of the monitor in an emergency
situation. Handrails associated with access platforms may need to be made collapsible, retractable or removable where
the height constraints of Section 3.4.9 cannot be met.

______________________

32
 Chapter 4

OBSTACLE ENVIRONMENT

4.1 DESCRIPTION OF SURFACES — HELIDECKS

4.1.1 For any particular type of single main rotor helicopter, the final approach and take-off area (FATO) should
be sufficiently large to contain a circle of diameter D equal to the largest dimension of the helicopter when the rotor are
turning. Except for the presence of objects essential for the safe operation of helicopters, the FATO, encapsulating a
usually hypothetical D-circle, should remain unobstructed. Acceptance of essential objects within the periphery of the
FATO, intended to be an obstacle free area to contain the design helicopter, should be subject to a risk assessment
(see Appendix I-A)

4.1.2 From a point on the periphery of the above mentioned D-circle, an obstacle-free approach and take-off
sector should be provided, which extends over an angle of at least 210 degrees. Within this sector, obstacle
accountability should be considered out to a distance from the periphery of the FATO that will allow for an unobstructed
departure path appropriate to the least well performing helicopter the FATO is intended to serve. The height limitation for
obstacles in the obstacle-free sector (OFS)_is 25 cm (10 in) for a TLOF of greater than 16.00 m (52.5 ft) and/or 1 D or
greater, but ideally no greater than 15 cm (6 in), and 5 cm (2 in) for a TLOF 16.00 m (52.5 ft) or less and/or less than
1 D. For helicopters that are operated in performance class (PC) 1 or 2, the horizontal extent of this distance from the
edge of the FATO will be based on the one-engine-inoperative capability of the type to be used.

4.1.3 The bisector of the 210 degree OFS will normally pass through the centre of the D-circle. In exceptional
cases, for the avoidance of immoveable obstacles that may be located on one side towards the edge of the
obstacle-free sector boundary, when supported by an aeronautical survey it may be permitted to swing the OFS by up to
15 degrees either clockwise or anti-clockwise to clear an object — as illustrated in Part I, Chapter 5, Figure I-5-3. If it is
necessary for the 210 degree sector to be swung, then it is normal practice to swing the 180 degree falling gradient in
the same direction and by the corresponding amount, unless by doing so, an obstacle is then introduced below FATO
level, which compromises the falling gradient.

4.1.4 To account for the loss in height of a helicopter following an engine failure occurring during the early
stages of the take-off manoeuvre, it is required that a clear zone (CZ) be provided below landing area level covering a
sector of at least 180 degrees with its origin based at the centre of the D-circle. The falling gradient is measured
downwards to the sea surface from the edge of the (approximately 1.5 m (5 ft)) safety netting or safety shelving on a
gradient of 5:1 (that is 5 units vertically (downwards) for every 1 unit horizontally (outwards)). The surface should extend
outwards for a distance that will allow for safe clearance from obstacles below the landing area in the event of an engine
failure based on the least well performing helicopter that is serviced by the FATO. For helicopters operated in
performance class (PC) 1 or 2, the horizontal extent of this distance from the landing area will be based on the one-
engine inoperative capability of the helicopter type in use. All objects that are underneath the final approach and take-off
paths will need to be assessed.

4.1.5 As mentioned, the OFS should extend over a sector of at least 210 degrees, but, obstacles permitting may
extend over the whole 360 degree sector. An obvious example of where a 360 degree OFS could apply, is for a facility
where the helideck sits above the highest point at an elevation where there is no other significant topside structure
present. However, these kinds of facilities (e.g. monopods) are the exception to the rule and it is more likely that
obstacles will be present in the remaining limited obstacle sector that protrudes above the level of the FATO on the
obstacle side. A limited obstacle sector (LOS) is therefore normally present and will occupy the remaining sector,
covering an arc of up to 150 degrees.

4.1.6 The LOS consists of two segments: the first (inner) segment, which adjoins the periphery of the FATO on
the obstacle side, will extend to a horizontal distance of 0.12 D from the edge of the FATO and will have the same shape
characteristics as the physical shape of the landing area — as new build helidecks are most commonly octagonal or
hexagonal in shape, this will mean the extent of the first (and second) segments of the LOS, will be lines parallel to the

33
TLOF perimeter marking which is required to follow the physical shape of the helideck (or shipboard heliport). This is
illustrated in Part I, Chapter 3, Figures I-3-1 and I-3-2. The height limitation for obstacles in the first segment of the LOS
(at 0.12 D) is 25 cm (10 in) for a TLOF of greater than 16.00 m (52.5 ft) and/or 1 D and 5 cm (2 in) for a TLOF 16.00 m
(52.5) or less and/or less than 1D. Guidance on obstacle protected surfaces for non-standard square or circular
helidecks is given in Section 4.5.

4.1.7 The second segment of the LOS extends from the periphery of the first segment for a further distance of
0.21 D (i.e. a total distance of 0.33 D from the periphery of the FATO). Obstacle limitation within the second segment is
more relaxed, most limiting at the forward edge of the second segment where obstacle height restriction is limited to
0.05 D based on the diameter of the FATO. From this point, the obstacle limitation surfaces extend on an upward
gradient that equates to a slope of 2 units horizontally for every one unit vertically — the 1:2 slope extends from 0.12 D
to 0.33 D. Once beyond 0.33 D from the edge of the FATO, obstacle height restrictions no longer apply.

4.1.8 Obstacles that penetrate either segment of the LOS should be removed or so modified that they no longer
constitute an infringement. Where an immoveable object penetrates the LOS, whether in the first and/or second
segment (an example of this could be the leg of a self-elevating jack-up facility which is situated right in the LOS —
clearly the leg is neither moveable nor modifiable), it may be possible to mitigate the effects of the penetration by
applying a prohibitive landing sector (PLS) marking, which ensures that a helicopter cannot land with the tail towards the
obstacle, where the obstacle is not within the pilot’s field of view. The application of a PLS, including the characteristic of
the marking, is described in more detail in Part I, Chapter 5, 5.11. The benefit of a PLS marking may be maximised by
applying it in conjunction with an offset touchdown/positioning marking (the offset marking is discussed in further detail
in Part I, Chapter 5, 5.7.2 and illustrated in Figure I-5-2, Example B). The application of a PLS, with or without an offset
touchdown/position marking (TD/PM), should not be used as an easy (and often temporary) solution to justify the
presence of unwanted obstructions; it is always preferable, where practical, to remove, to relocate or to modify an
obstacle which would otherwise penetrate through the surface of the LOS.

4.1.9 Experience suggests there can be pressure to accommodate obstacles close to the extended boundary of
the OFS, but outside the second segment on the limited obstacle side, where there are no specific obstacle
restrictions/limitations. The presence of a large solid object, whether a new permanent feature or a temporary one, in
close proximity to the helideck has potential to promote turbulence over the helideck in some wind conditions and should
be avoided. This issue is discussed in depth in Part I, Chapter 3, 3.2 — but to avoid doubt, any proposed siting near to
the helideck should be subjected to appropriate modelling before it is introduced. Equally, locating a non-rigid (flexible)
structure, such as a long whip aerial, in the area immediately adjacent to the helideck can have an impact on the safety
of helicopter operations if the whip aerial should bend into the OFS under the force of an approaching helicopter’s rotor
downwash. It is therefore recommended that flexible objects, such as whip aerials, are not sited right at the edge of the
OFS where they could bend into the protected area.

4.2 DESCRIPTION OF SURFACES — SHIPBOARD HELIPORTS

4.2.1 The surfaces, sectors and warnings described above apply equally in the majority of the cases for
shipboard heliports. This includes bow and stern-mounted heliports and purpose built heliports cantilevered over the
side of a vessel. Operators with these types of arrangements should therefore read all sections above. However, there
are also so-called non-standard arrangements which do not apply the same obstacle limitation surfaces as a helideck.
These ‘exceptions’ are described in the remaining paragraphs of this section.

4.2.2 A unique arrangement for the obstacle-protected surfaces and sectors is applied for a purpose built or non-
purpose built shipboard heliport, typically, but not necessarily, located mid-ships on the centreline of the vessel (e.g. a
mid-ships heliport on a tanker — Figure I-1-5.). In this case, an OFS (sometimes known as the clear area) is provided
between two limited obstacle sectors (sometimes designated the manoeuvring zones — forward and aft). Being
sandwiched between the OFS provides an obstacle-free funnel for approach and departure, which allows a helicopter
operating across the vessel (from port to starboard or vice-versa) to do so free of obstacles and, by providing an LOS
(manoeuvring zone) either side of the approach and departure funnel, affords the helicopter some degree of lateral
movement by providing obstacle restriction forward and aft in the LOS, for a helicopter operating athwart-ships to the
heliport. The sectors and surfaces applied uniquely to this type of arrangement are illustrated in Figure I-4-1. The
markings for this arrangement are addressed in Figure I-5-4.

34
 1
Figure I-4-1. A purpose built or non-purpose built midship centerline landing area

4.2.3 A further non-standard arrangement is applied to a non-purpose built landing area located on a ship’s side.
In this case, the minimum FATO, always coincident with the TLOF, is a circle of 1 D, based on the design helicopter. A
CZ, free of obstacles above 25 cm (10 in), is established at the ship’s side adjacent to the FATO, for a distance of 1.5 D.
This is referred to as the CZ extended at the ship’s side. Surrounding the FATO is a manoeuvring zone (MZ), having a
width of 0.25 D, which tappers out from the midpoint of the D-circle to a distance of 2 D measured at the ship’s side.
Two areas adjacent to the ships side inside the inner boundary of the MZ but outside the FATO are referred to as limited
obstacle areas (LOA) where obstacles are permitted but should not exceed a maximum height of 25 cm (10 in). Similar
obstacle restrictions apply to the MZ which surround the FATO (also known as the CZ). The obstacle limitation surfaces
and sectors for this arrangement are illustrated in Figure I-4-2.

Note.— Where the FATO is 16 m (52.5 ft) or less, the maximum height of obstacles permitted in the MZ
and LOA is correspondingly reduced from 25 cm (10 in) to 5 cm (2 in).

1
Figure courtesy of International Chamber of Shipping, Helicopter Ship Guide (2008)

35
4.2.4 For a non-purpose built landing area located on a ship’s side, which by design utilises an area of the ship’s
decking, the tight control of obstacles on the ship’s surface is not as straightforward as it would be for any purpose built
heliport structure. In the circumstances it is necessary to develop a system for mapping of obstacles so the operator is
aware of their location and any potential impact on helicopter operations. A procedure for mapping of obstacles on non-
purpose built shipboard heliports is fully described in Section 4.6.

Note. — Where the D-value is 16.00 m (52.5 ft) or less the obstacle height limitation around the landing
area is restricted to 5 cm (2 in).

Limited obstacle sector

maximum height 25 cm
D 5
0.2

FATO / TLOF
D
Athwartships
Bisector

0.5 D
LOA LOA
Max. Max.
height 25 cm height 25 cm

1.5 D
LOA extended at the ship’s side

2D
Limited Obstacle Sector extended at the ship’s side

D = Helicopter largest overall dimension

LOA = Limited obstacle area

Figure I-4-2. Ships-side non-purpose built heliport obstacle limitation sectors and surfaces

4.3 TEMPORARY COMBINED OPERATIONS

4.3.1 Temporary combined operations are essentially arrangements where two or more offshore facilities,
whether fixed or floating, are in close proximity ‘alongside’ or ‘pulled away’ from one another. They may be in place for a
matter of hours, days or for up to several years. On occasion, combined operations may include vessels working
alongside one or more fixed and/or mobile facilities. The close proximity of facilities and/or vessels to one another is
likely to entail that one or more of the helidecks/shipboard heliports is operationally restricted due to one or more of the
obstacle protected surfaces being compromised and/or due to adverse environmental effects of one installation on the
landing area of another (environmental effects are discussed in more detail in Part I, Chapter 3, 3.2). For example, the
36
facility pictured in the centre of Figure I-4-3 has obstacle protected sectors and surfaces (extended OFS as well as the
falling gradient) that are severely compromised by the proximity of the other two facilities. In the circumstances, a
landing prohibited marker (a yellow cross on a red background) is in place on the drilling facility (centre) to prevent
operations to the helideck. Where temporary combined operations are planned, prior to helicopter operations, an
assessment should be completed to assess the physical, as well as the environmental, impact of the arrangements and
to assess any flight restrictions or limitations, including prohibitions, which might need to be disseminated to aircrew
(usually a temporary instruction). Helidecks (or shipboard heliports), which are determined to be unavailable, should
display the relevant landing prohibited marker by day while, at night, all aeronautical lights should be extinguished.

Figure I-4-3. A temporary combined operation showing relative position of each helideck 210º sector.

4.3.2. Quite often, combined operations will involve both facilities and/or vessels being in close proximity
alongside one another, where the effect of one facility on the helideck obstacle protected surfaces of another is
immediately obvious. However, during the life of a combined arrangement, there may also be periods when mobile
facilities and/or vessels are pulled away to a stand-off position, which could be some distance apart. It will be necessary
for operators to re-appraise the situation for a combined operation in the stand-off configuration. With one or more
installations or vessels pulled away, there may be an opportunity to relax or remove limitations imposed for the
‘alongside configuration. This is normally an assessment for the helicopter operator to make.

37
 4.4 MULTIPLE PLATFORM CONFIGURATIONS/LOCATION OF STANDBY VESSELS

4.4.1 Where two or more fixed structures are permanently bridge–linked, the overall design should ensure that
the sectors and surfaces provided for the helideck are not compromised by other modules which may form part of a
multiple platform configuration. It is also important to assess the environmental impact of all modules on the flying
environment around the helideck. This is discussed in further detail in Part I, Chapter 3, 3.2.

4.4.2 Where there is an intention to add new modules to an existing platform arrangement, it is important to
make an assessment on the potential impact that additional platforms might have on helideck operations. This will
include an assessment of the sectors and surfaces for the helideck which should not be compromised due to the
location of a new platform, or modification to an existing platform. This will include a detailed analysis of the
environmental impact on the flying environment around the helideck which is addressed in further detail in Part I,
Chapter 3, 3.2.

4.4.3 The presence of a Standby Vessel in the vicinity of an active helideck operation is a legal requirement in
many offshore sectors. The location of the Standby Vessel, and any other vessel present on the sea surface, should not
compromise the safety of the helicopter operation. It is prudent to re-emphasise the note below from Annex 14 —
Aerodromes, Volume II — Heliports, Section 4.2.14, which states:

Note.—Where there is a requirement to position, at sea surface level, one or more offshore
support vessel(s) (e.g. a Standby Vessel [or tanker]) essential to the operation of a fixed or floating
offshore facility, but located within the proximity of the fixed or floating offshore facility[’s obstacle-free
sector (OFS)], any offshore support vessel(s) would need to be positioned so as not to compromise
the safety of helicopter operations during take-off departure and/or approach to landing.

4.5 GUIDANCE FOR OBSTACLE PROTECTED SURFACES

FOR SQUARE OR CIRCULAR HELIDECKS

4.5.1 Earlier on, a description of surfaces for helidecks including the characteristics of the limited obstacle sector
(LOS) which assumes in each case that the physical shape of the helideck consists of an octagon or a hexagon, was
addressed. This is because the great majority of newly built helidecks, and purpose built shipboard heliports, are
configured for one of these shapes. However, it is not unknown for the physical shape of helidecks and shipboard
heliports to be quadrilateral (mainly square) or circular, and so it is important to provide some guidance on the
characteristics of the obstacle protected surfaces for square and circular helidecks and shipboard heliports. While
evidently there are any number of different variations of shapes possible (as long as the extent of the dynamic load
bearing area provided is able to accommodate the usually imaginary D-circle), characteristics for the sectors and
surfaces of non-standard shapes will, in the main, have a resemblance to one of the schemes used for octagonal or
hexagonal helidecks (illustrated in Chapter 3) or to arrangements for circular or square helidecks or shipboard heliports,
as illustrated in this section of Chapter 4 — see Figures I-4-4 to I-4-7.

4.5.2 The extent of the 150° LOS segments in the case of a helideck or shipboard heliport that is any shape
other than circular will be represented by straight lines parallel to the perimeter of the TLOF. The limiting dimensions of
the two segments for the LOS measured from the inboard edge of the landing area are similar — the first (inner) sector
comprising a 0.12 D segment where the height limitation for obstacles is 25 cm (10 in) for helidecks of 1 D and greater
provided they are also greater than D=16 m (52.5 ft), or 5 cm (2 in) for helidecks where the D-value is 16.00 m (52.5 ft)
or less and/or is less than 1 D. The second segment extending out a further 0.21 D originating at a height of 0.05 D
above the helideck surface at the inner edge rises on a 1:2 slope out to an overall distance of 0.33 D. For circular
helidecks or shipboard heliports, the segments and sectors represented by straight lines are replaced using sectors
shaped in an arc. The overall dimensions are ostensibly the same, but the penetration of the surface at certain points
along the arc is somewhat more limited. This is illustrated below: Figures I-4-4 and I-4-5 address 1.0 D
helideck/shipboard heliport arrangements and Figures I-4-6 and I-4-7 address 0.83 D helideck/shipboard heliport
arrangements.

38
Figure I-4-4. Helideck obstacle limitation sectors and surfaces for a 1 D circular FATO and coincidental TLOF

Figure I-4-5. Helideck obstacle limitation sectors and surfaces for a 1 D square FATO and coincidental TLOF

39
Figure I-4-6. Helideck obstacle limitation sectors and surfaces for a 0.83 D circular TLOF with collocated 1 D FATO

Figure I-4-7. Helideck obstacle limitation sectors and surfaces for a 0.83 D square TLOF with collocated 1 D FATO

40
 4.6 MAPPING OF OBSTACLES ON NON-PURPOSE BUILT SHIPBOARD HELIPORTS

4.6.1 This section provides guidance on the completion of a helicopter landing area plan for the benefit of
helicopter operators. The helicopter landing area plan provides additional information regarding the vessel’s surface and
the helicopter landing area (a non-purpose built ship’s side arrangement). The plan should be prepared in advance of
any intended helicopter operations and should be stored on the vessel and provided to the helicopter operator.
Amendments to the plan should be made when appropriate.

4.6.2 The system described assumes paper versions of a helicopter landing area plan would be made, but this
procedure lends itself just as easily to an electronic form of dissemination. Whichever method is used to create and file
the helicopter landing area plan, it should include templates annotated with vessel-specific data including any
obstructions within the FATO/TLOF (a 1 D circular CZ) or within the manoeuvring zone or LOA. Templates should be
annotated with obstructions which exceed the height limits prescribed for the specific areas in Figure I-4-2 — for the
LOA and the MZ the obstruction height limit is 25 cm (10 in) while for the FATO/TLOF the obstruction height limit is
2.5 cm (1 in) (if the FATO/TLOF is 16 m (52.5 ft) or less the obstruction height limit for the LOA and MZ are reduced to
5 cm (2 in)).

4.6.3 The template should ideally include a photograph showing the ship’s helicopter operating area to provide a
helicopter pilot with a quick reference guide to the ship, the helicopter operating area(s) and notable obstructions. Care
in recording the nature and location of obstructions on the template is very important. Accurate measurements of the
position and height of all significant obstructions relative to the helicopter touchdown markings should be taken.

4.6.4 Any identified obstacles should be colour coded on the template and painted on the physical surface of the
vessel. Colour coding and painting will define the safety significance of an obstruction. For the purpose of
standardization, the following paint colour schemes are recommended:

a) red and white painted stripes should be used for marking the position of notifiable objects within the
MZ, the CZ or the LOA where they exceed the height limits for these zones — see Figure I-4-8:

1) objects within the CZ of a height exceeding 2.5 cm (1 in);

2) objects outside the CZ but within the MZ or LOA which exceed a height of 25 cm (10 in); and
3) where the diameter of the CZ is 16 m (52.5 ft) or less limitation in the MZ and LOA applies to
objects which exceed a height of 5 cm (2 in);

b) yellow and black painted stripes should be applied for marking objects beyond the MZ to which it is
considered appropriate to draw the attention of the helicopter pilot. Yellow and black stripes may also
be used to mark objects within the MZ, the CZ and the LOA which though below the height limits for
these sectors, are still considered appropriate to draw to the attention of the helicopter pilot.

4.6.5 Vessel details should be included on the template and a photograph that shows the location of the
helicopter landing area should be scanned and forwarded to the helicopter operator in a colour presentation. An
indication of the scale used should also be provided.

4.6.6 Figure I-4-8 shows an example of a helicopter landing area plan for a ship’s side non-purpose built heliport
on a tanker. The red/yellow/green colour coding presentation corresponds to the absolute height of the obstruction
above deck level. The Butterworth Lid at 30 cm (1 ft) is shown in green. The tank wash line at 60 cm (0.6 m, 2 ft) is
shown in yellow and the dominant vents at 230 cm (2.3 m, 7.5 ft) are shown in red.

41
 2
Figure 4-8. Helicopter landing area plan for a ship’s side non-purpose built heliport on a tanker
______________________

2
Figure courtesy of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) Helicopter/Ship Guide 2008
42
 Chapter 5

VISUAL AIDS – MARKING AND LIGHTING

5.1 GENERAL

5.1.1 A helideck or shipboard heliport intended for use by day only, in good visibility conditions, will need to
display markings only, while a helideck or shipboard heliport intended for use at night and/or in reduced visibility
conditions by day and night, will need to display appropriate lighting in addition to defined markings. The marking and
lighting aids described in this chapter are, in some cases, amplifications of those included in Annex 14 — Aerodromes,
Volume II — Heliports and have been developed primarily in support of visual heliport operations.

5.1.2 It is not intended this chapter should address every option of a detailed marking scheme for non-purpose
built shipboard heliports, given that the precise layout, including the surface colour of the main deck on which markings
will be overlaid, can vary from ship to ship. As the underlying surface colour can vary considerably, some discretion will
need to be exercised in the colour selection of paint schemes. The primary objective in every case should be to ensure
that heliport markings achieve a good contrast with the surface of the ship and are fit-for-purpose with regards to the
maritime environment in which the ship will be operating. Figure I-5-1 illustrates the difficulties that may be encountered
in the pursuit of this objective. A specific marking scheme for a non-purpose built shipboard heliport (ship’s side
arrangement) is illustrated in detail in Figure I-5-11. Specific marking and lighting schemes for winching areas are
addressed in detail in Part 1, Chapter 7.

Figure I-5-1. S61N operating to a non-purpose built ship’s side heliport

5.1.3 It has been found that on surfaces of light colour, such as natural aluminium, the conspicuity of white and
yellow markings, in particular, can be improved by outlining them with a thin black line (typically 10 cm (4 in)) or by
overlaying white or yellow markings on a painted black background (proven to be particularly effective for enhancing the
heliport/helideck name marking). An example of how this can work in practice is illustrated in Figure I-5-6.

5.1.4 Annex 14 is currently silent on the issue of acceptable tolerances for the size and spacing of marking and
lighting. It is for the appropriate authority to determine what tolerance should be allowed giving due diligence to the clear
interpretation of visual cues and the safety of operations at all times, i.e. in the interest of providing clear and effective
visual cues being interpreted from the air, there may be more allowance given for a slightly oversized marking than for
one which is too small, with the exception of where the given specifications are treated as maximum dimensions.
Wherever practical, it is recommended that the font type Clearview Hwy-5W is used.

43
5.1.5 As well as providing effective unambiguous markings and lighting on a helideck (or shipboard heliport)
there may be an operational requirement to display the name of a fixed or floating facility (or vessel) in other locations so
they are readily identifiable from the air (and sea) from all normal angles and directions of approach. In this case,
identifiers should be unique, simple and consistent with other information given to aircrew (e.g. radio (R/T) call sign,
name on a pre-flight helideck information plate (HIP) (see Part I, Chapter 2) and be readable, at ranges that are at or
beyond the helicopter’s landing decision point (LDP), both by day and, where required, by night. Effective side signage,
which could make use of available technologies such as retro-reflective panels, LED clusters or fibre optic systems, will
assist aircrew with early positive recognition of the facility or vessel and so help to minimize the possibility of landing on
the wrong rig.

Note.—Other simple measures may be introduced to mitigate the incidence of an undesirable landing such
as increasing the size of the heliport name marking to 1.5 m (5 ft) (i.e. above the minimum dimensions specified in Part I,
Chapter 5, 5.8.1), or painting a second heliport name marking aligned with the normal direction of approach for a bow
mounted helideck with the vessel heading steaming into wind (i.e. a second heliport name marking painted between the
outboard edge of the shipboard heliport and the yellow touchdown/positioning marking (T/PM) circle facing toward the
helicopter will assist the pilot with positive recognition earlier on in the approach), and by extinguishing the touchdown
and lift-off area (TLOF) floodlights and or circle-H lighting, at night, in the case where a helideck or shipboard heliport is
unprepared and potentially unsafe when it is not expecting to receive helicopters.

5.2 WIND DIRECTION INDICATOR

5.2.1 An offshore facility or ship should be equipped with at least one wind direction indicator to provide a visual
indication of the wind conditions prevailing over the facility during helicopter operations.

5.2.2 The location of the primary wind direction indicator should be in an undisturbed air-stream avoiding any
effects caused by nearby structures (see also Part I, Chapter 3, 3.2.2 in), and unaffected by rotor downwash from the
helicopter. The location of the wind direction indicator should not compromise the established obstacle protected
surfaces (see Part I, Chapter 4). Typically, a primary wind direction indicator will consist of a coloured windsock.

5.2.3 The windsock should be easy visible to the pilot on the approach (at a height of at least 200 m (656 ft)), in
the hover and while touched down on the surface of the TLOF, and prior to take-off. Where these operational objectives
cannot be fully achieved by the use of a single windsock, consideration should be given to locating a second windsock in
the vicinity of the helideck or shipboard heliport, which could also be used to indicate a specific difference between the
local wind over the TLOF and the free stream wind at the installation or ship (which the pilot will reference for an
approach).

5.2.4 A windsock should be a truncated cone made of a suitable lightweight fabric with a minimum length of at
least 1.2 m (4 ft), a diameter at the larger end of at least 0.3 m (1 ft) and a diameter at the smaller end of at least 0.15 m
(0.5 ft). The colour should contrast well with the operating background in the offshore environment. Ideally a single
coloured windsock, preferably orange or white, should be selected. However, where a combination of colours is found to
provide better conspicuity against a changing operating background, orange and white, red and white or black and white
colour schemes could be selected, arranged as five alternate bands with the first and last band being the darker colour.

5.2.5 If a helideck or shipboard heliport is intended to be operated at night, the windsock(s) will need to be
illuminated. This can be achieved by internal illumination, perhaps a floodlight pointing through the wind cone.
Alternatively, the windsock can be externally highlighted using, for example, area floodlighting. Care should be taken to
ensure that any system used to illuminate a windsock highlights the entire cone section while not presenting a source of
glare to a pilot operating at night.

44
 5.3 HELIPORT IDENTIFICATION (H) MARKING

5.3.1 A heliport identification marking should be provided for a helideck or a shipboard heliport in the form of a
white “H” with a height of 4 m (13 ft), an overall width not exceeding 3 m (10 ft) and a stroke width not exceeding 0.75 m
(2.5 ft). In circumstances where the D-value of a helideck or shipboard heliport is less than 16 m (52.5 ft), Annex 14,
Volume II permits the size of the marking to be reduced such that the dimensions of the “H” are no less than 3 m (10 ft)
(in height) with an overall width not exceeding 2.25 m (7.4 ft) and a stroke width not exceeding 0.5 m (1.6 ft). A typical
‘standard-size’ heliport identification marking is shown in Figure I-5-2.

Figure I-5-2. Dimensions of the heliport identification “H” marking (standard size)

45
5.3.2 A heliport identification “H” marking should ideally be located in the centre of the final approach and
take-off (FATO), except where the results of an aeronautical survey indicate that an offset marking may be beneficial to
helicopter operations and still allow for the safe movement of personnel around the helicopter; in which case the centre
of the “H” may be offset by up to 0.1 D towards the outboard edge of the FATO. An example of where this measure may
be used could be for an over-sized helideck — one that exceeds the minimum 1 D dimensional requirement — but that
also has immoveable obstructions close to the inboard perimeter, in the limited obstacle sector (LOS). In this case,
moving the touchdown marking location away from the centre of the FATO towards the outboard edge will improve
clearances from dominant obstacles, while, in theory, still facilitating adequate on-deck clearance around the helicopter
for the safe movement of passengers and for the efficiency of helideck operations, such as refuelling. A comparison of
the location of the touchdown markings, whether centralized or fully offset, are shown in Figure I-5-3-, examples A and
B.

5.3.3 The heliport identification marking, regardless of whether it is based on the centre of the FATO or not,
should always be established in the centre of the touchdown/positioning marking circle (see Part I, Chapter 5, 5.7). For a
helideck, and for a purpose built shipboard heliport, the centreline of the cross bar of the “H” should be passed through
by the bisector of the obstacle-free sector (OFS). Where, in exceptional cases, it is necessary for the chevron marking
(see Part I, Chapter 5, 5.9) to be swung for a helideck (e.g. to clear an immovable obstacle which might otherwise
penetrate the 210 degree sector), it will be necessary to swing the “H” marking by the corresponding angle, to indicate to
aircrew on approach that the sector has been swung. The maximum swung sector should not exceed +/- 15 degrees
from the normal for the OFS. A ‘swung’ heliport identification “H” marking is illustrated in Figure I-5-2.

5.4 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE MASS MARKING

5.4.1 A maximum allowable mass marking should be arranged so as to be readable from the preferred final approach
direction (on a fixed facility this will usually be in a direction lining up with the prevailing wind direction for the facility).

5.4.2 The maximum allowable mass marking should be expressed as a one, two or three digit number
corresponding to the maximum allowable mass of the heaviest helicopter permitted to use the TLOF in accordance with
the structural requirements detailed in Part I, Chapter 3, 3.1. In most cases the maximum allowable mass marking will
correspond to the maximum (certificated) take-off mass (MTOM) for the design helicopter type, but this need not
necessarily be the case if the structural calculations performed for the helideck or shipboard heliport confirm a structural
limit that is different from (i.e. exceeding) the MTOM of the design helicopter. Where the MTOM is expressed in metric
tonnes, the suffix “t” will be painted with the numerical marking. For States where the marking is expressed as an
imperial measure i.e. in lbs, it is not appropriate to suffix with a “t” — in this case no suffix is provided.

5.4.3 For a maximum allowable mass marking expressed in metric units the minimum requirement is to depict a
marking rounded to the nearest 1 000 kg. A recommendation is made in Annex 14, Volume II for the marking to be
expressed to the nearest 100 kg. The following examples are offered, based on current manufacturer derived data. The
figures should be regarded for illustrative purposes only, and as a helicopter’s MTOM can increase, especially following
introduction to service of a new type, designers are advised to verify specific helicopter data with the manufacturer or
offshore helicopter operator.

Bolkow 117: MTOM 3 200 kg is expressed as “03 t” or “3.2 t”

Super Puma AS 332L: MTOM 8 599 kg is expressed as “09 t” or “8.6 t”
Sikorsky S92: MTOM 12 565 kg is expressed as “13 t” or “12.6 t”

5.4.4. For a maximum allowable mass marking expressed in imperial (customary to the United States) units, the
recommended method of designating the helideck limitations is to indicate the MTOM of the helicopter in terms of a two-
three digit number with one decimal point rounded to the nearest 100 pounds, with 50 pounds rounded up (i.e. for
15 750 lbs marked as 15.8). The following examples are offered based on current manufacturer derived data. The
figures should be regarded for illustrative purposes only, and as a helicopter MTOM can increase, especially when a
new type is first introduced into service, designers are advised to verify specific helicopter MTOM’s with the
manufacturer, or with the offshore helicopter operator.

Sikorsky S76: MTOM 11 700 lbs is expressed as 11.7

Bell 212: MTOM 11 200 lbs is expressed as 11.2
AW101: MTOM 34 400 lbs is expressed as 34.4

46
 Example A — Centralized touchdown markings

Example B — Fully offset touchdown markings.

Figure I-5-3. Location of touchdown markings

47
 Note 1. — The bisector of the 210° obstacle-free sector (OFS) should normally pass through the
Centre of the D-circle. The sector may be ‘swung’ by up to 15° in either direction from the normal. (A 15° clockwise
swing is illustrated).

Note 2. — If the 210° OFS is swung, then it would be normal practice to swing the 180° falling 5:1
gradient by a corresponding amount to indicate, and align with, the swung OFS.

Figure I-5-4. Heliport identification marking reflecting a swung OFS (in this case the OFS is swung by 15
degrees in a clockwise direction to avoid an obstacle)

5.4.5 For helicopter types with a MTOM of less than 3 175 kg (7 000 lbs) there is acceptance for the use of a
TLOF which is less than 1 D, but is no less than 0.83 D. The following examples are presented for helicopter types
which have a MTOM of less than 3 175 kg:

Bolkow 105 MTOM 2 400 kg to be expressed as “02 t” or “2.4 t” (metric); or

MTOM 5 291 lbs to be expressed as 5.3.

EC 135T2 MTOM 2 910 kg to be expressed as “03 t” or “2.9 t” (metric); or

MTOM 6 400 lbs to be expressed as 6.4.

5.4.6 The recommended size of the characters to be used for the maximum allowable mass marking is
presented in Annex 14, Volume II, Figure 5-4, which represents the full character height of 1.5 m (5 ft) applicable for the
largest helidecks and shipboard heliports. For smaller helidecks and shipboard heliports, character heights may be
reduced to 90 cm (3 ft) or 60 cm (2 ft). In each case, the thickness of characters should be correspondingly reduced.
The characteristics applicable for the decimal point, where required are also included.

48
 FATO D-value Min. height of characters Dimensions of decimal point
2
< 15 m 0.6 m 12 cm
2
15 m to 30 m 0.9 m 18 cm
2
> 30 m 1.5 m 30 cm

5.4.7 The numbers and, where appropriate, the letter of the marking and the decimal point, should be painted in
a colour contrasting with the background. For a helideck or purpose built shipboard heliport to contrast effectively with
the background (see Section 5.10), the maximum allowable mass marking would normally be white.

5.5 D-VALUE MARKINGS

5.5.1 D-value markings should be displayed within the broken white TLOF perimeter line at three locations, as
presented in Figure I-5-8 or Figure I-5-9, for least one marking to be readable from the final approach direction. For a
purpose built shipboard heliport in an amidships location, having a chevron at either end (see Figure I-5-5), two D-value
markings are required to be displayed — one on the portside of the heliport and the other starboard side.

5.5.2 The D-value marking should be painted white in not less than 90 cm (3 ft) characters where the dimension
of the FATO is 15 m or greater and not less than 60 cm (2 ft) characters where the dimension of the FATO is less than
15 m (49 feet). Where the FATO is greater than 30 m (98 ft), the characters should be increased to at least 1.5 m
(approximately 5 ft). This is summarized in the table below. The thickness of the 1.5 m characters should accord with
Annex 14, Volume II, Figure 5-4, with a corresponding reduction in thickness for 0.9 m and 0.6 m height characters.

FATO D-value Min. height of characters

< 15 m 0.6 m
15 m — 30 m 0.9 m
> 30 m 1.5 m

5.5.3 The D-value should be expressed to the nearest whole number with 0.5 rounded up e.g. EC 225 has a
D value of 19.50 m (64 ft), therefore this is expressed at “20”.

5.5.4 Where imperial units are used in preference to metric measurements

5.5.4.1 The recommended method of designating the helideck limitations is to have the weight and D size marked
in a box, outlined in red, in red numerals on a white background, as shown below in Figure I-5-5A. The height of the
figures should be 3 ft. (0.9 m) with the line width of the box approximately 5 in (12 cm). For smaller helidecks where
space may be limited, provided the box and numerals are discernible at a range which is compatible with a pilot’s
landing decision point (LDP), giving sufficient time to affect a go-around if necessary, the height of the figures may be
reduced to no less than 18 in (45 cm).

5.5.4.2 The weight/size limitation box marking should be visible from the preferred direction of approach. It is
recommended that on square or rectangular helidecks, the box should be located relative to the preferred direction of
approach (when facing the helideck). For circular, hexagonal and other similarly-shaped helidecks, the box should be
located on the right-hand side of the TLOF and outside the touchdown position marking (TD/PM) circle, when viewed
from the preferred direction of approach.

5.6 TLOF PERIMETER MARKING

5.6.1 A TLOF perimeter marking denoting the extent of the TLOF should be painted around the edge of the
TLOF using a continuous white line having a thickness of at least 30 cm (12 in).

49
5.6.2 The TLOF perimeter line should follow the physical shape of the helideck or shipboard heliport, such that
where the deck shape is octagonal or hexagonal, the shape of the painted white TLOF marking will correspond to an
octagon or hexagon. A TLOF marking should only be circular where the physical shape of the helideck or shipboard
heliport is also circular.

Figure I-5-5. D-value markings for a purpose built shipboard heliport in an amidships location

5.7 TOUCHDOWN/POSITIONING MARKING CIRCLE

5.7.1 A TD/PM circle should be provided on a helideck or shipboard heliport to assist a helicopter to touchdown
and be positioned accurately by the pilot. The TD/PM is so located that when the pilot’s seat is over the marking, the
whole of the undercarriage is comfortably within the TLOF and all parts of the helicopter are clear of any obstacles by a
safe margin. Figure I-5-6 below illustrates how the TD/PM should be used by aircrew to position the helicopter, facilitate
requisite clearances from all obstacles and allow passengers to make a safe approach to alight the helicopter (and a
safe passage for egress).

50
 Figure I-5-5A. Helideck limitation markings — imperial units

Figure I-5-6. Accurate positioning of a helicopter by correct use of the touchdown/positioning marking (TD/PM)
circle

5.7.2 A TD/PM circle should ideally be located in the centre of the FATO, except where the results of an
aeronautical survey indicates that an offset marking may be beneficial to the safety of helicopter operations, and not

51
detrimental to the safe movement of personnel, in which case, the centre of the circle may be offset by up to 0.1 D away
from the centre towards the outboard edge of the FATO. An example of where an offset marking may be beneficial is for
an over-sized helideck, one that exceeds the minimum 1 D dimensional requirement, that also has immoveable
obstructions close to the inboard perimeter, in the LOS. In this case, moving the TD/PM circle location away from the
centre of the FATO and towards the outboard edge, will improve clearances to dominant obstacles, while, in theory, still
allowing adequate on-deck clearance around the helicopter for the safe movement of passengers and for the efficiency
of helideck operations, such as refuelling. For helidecks which are less than 1 D it is not recommended that an offset
marking be utilized. A comparison of the location of the touchdown markings, whether centralized or offset, are shown in
Figure I-5-3, examples A and B.

5.7.3 The TD/PM circle should be painted yellow and have a line width of at least 1 m (3 ft) for helidecks and
purpose built shipboard heliports having a D-value of 16 m (52.5 ft) or greater. For those facilities having a D-value of
less than 16.00 m (52.5 ft), the line width of the marking may be reduced to 0.5 m (1.6 ft).

5.7.4 For a 1 D or greater helideck, and for a shipboard heliport, the inner diameter of the touchdown/positioning
marking should be 0.5 D of the design helicopter. So for a helideck designed for the Sikorsky S92 (D = 20.88 m (68.5 ft))
the inner diameter of the touchdown/positioning marking circle is 10.44 m (34.3 ft). The thickness of the marking is 1 m
(3 ft). For helidecks which are less than 1 D the inner diameter of the TD/PM should be 0.5 D of the notional FATO.
Generic dimensions, for helidecks and shipboard heliports which are 1 D or greater and/or 16.00 m (52.5 ft) or greater,
are shown in Figure I-5-7.

Figure I-5-7. Touchdown/positioning marking circle (painted yellow)

5.8 HELIPORT NAME MARKING

5.8.1 The heliport name marking should be painted on the helideck or shipboard heliport in minimum 1.2 m
(3.9 ft) (preferably) white painted characters between the chevron (see Section 5.9) and the TD/PM circle (see Section
5.7). Care should be taken to ensure that the name is to no degree obscured by a helideck net (where fitted).

5.8.2 The heliport name marking should consist of the name or the alphanumeric designator of the helideck or
shipboard heliport as used in the radio (R/T) communications. Providing a name that is unique and simple will ensure

52
that the mental process of recognition for aircrew is kept to a minimum at a time when a pilots’ concentration is being
exercised by the demands of the final approach and landing manoeuvre.

5.8.3 To allow for recognition of the facility or vessel further up the approach manoeuvre, consideration should
be given to increasing the character height of the heliport name marking from 1.2 m (4 ft) to 1.5 m (5 ft). Where the
character height is 1.5 m (5 ft), the character widths and stroke widths should be in accordance with Annex 14,
Volume II, Figure 5-4. The character widths and stroke widths of nominal 1.2 characters should be 80 per cent of those
prescribed in Figure 5-4 of Annex 14, Volume II. Where the heliport name marking consists of more than one word, it is
recommended that the space between words be approximately 50 per cent of character height.

5.8.4 In accordance with Section 5.1.5, some types of floating facilities and vessels may benefit from a second
name marking diametrically opposite the first marking, with the characters facing the opposite direction (so that the feet
of characters are located adjacent to the outboard edge of the TD/PM circle. Having a name marking either end of the
TD/PM circle will ensure that one marking is always readable the right way up for aircrew on approach, e.g. for a
bow-mounted helideck on a vessel that is steaming into wind, a second name marking oriented towards the main vessel
structure (aft) and located between the outer edge of the circle and the outboard edge of the helideck, will be more easy
to process for aircrew approaching into wind than will a heliport name marking located in the normal location. In this
case aircrew would be required to process a marking, which is upside down.

5.9 HELIDECK OBSTACLE-FREE SECTOR (CHEVRON) MARKING

5.9.1 A helideck or shipboard heliport with obstacles that penetrate above the level of the TLOF are required to
display an OFS (chevron) marking to denote the origin of the OFS. For a 1 D or greater helideck, the apex of chevron is
located at a distance from the centre of the TLOF that is equal to the radius of the largest circle which can be drawn in
the TLOF. The arrangement is shown in Figure I-5-7. For a purpose built shipboard heliport in an amidships location, the
marking scheme will consist of a chevron at either end (see Figure I-5-5)

5.9.2 The origin of the OFS should be marked on the helideck or shipboard heliport by a black chevron, each leg
being 79 cm (2.6 ft) long and 10 cm (4 in) wide forming the angle of the obstacle-free sector in the manner shown in
Figure I-5-7. Where exceptionally the OFS is swung (by up to +/- 15 degrees — see also Section 5.3.3 and Figure I-5-4)
then the chevron is correspondingly swung. Where there is insufficient space to accommodate the chevron precisely, the
chevron marking, but not the point of origin of the OFS, may be displaced by up to 30 cm (11 in) towards the centre of
the TLOF.

5.9.3 The purpose of the chevron is widely misunderstood to provide a form of visual indication to the aircrew
that the OFS is clear of obstructions. However, the marking is too small for the purposes of aircrew and instead is
intended as a visual tool for a helicopter landing officer (HLO) (who has charge of the helideck operation on the ground)
to ensure that the 210 degree OFS is clear of any obstructions, fixed or mobile, before giving a helicopter clearance to
land. The black chevron may be painted on top of the white TLOF perimeter line to achieve maximum clarity for helideck
crew.

5.9.4 Adjacent to and where practical inboard of the chevron, the certified D-value of the helideck is painted in
10 cm (4 in) alphanumeric characters. The D-value of the helideck should be expressed in metres to two decimal places
(e.g. “D = 16.05 m”). Where imperial measurements are used, the D-value of the helideck should be expressed in feet
and inches.

5.9.5 For a TLOF which is less than 1 D, but not less than 0.83 D, the chevron is positioned at 0.5 D from the
centre of the FATO which will take the point of origin outside the TLOF. If practical, this is where the black chevron
marking should be painted. If impractical to paint the chevron at this location, then the chevron should be relocated to
the TLOF perimeter on the bisector of the OFS. In this case the distance and direction of displacement along with the
words “WARNING DISPLACED CHEVRON” are marked in a box beneath the chevron in black characters not less than
10 cm (4 in) high. An example of the arrangement for a sub-1 D helideck is shown in Figure I-5-9.

53
Figure I-5-8. Chevron for a 1 D helideck and helideck D value markings

Figure I-5-9. Chevron for a 0.83 D helideck

54
 5.10 HELIDECK AND SHIPBOARD HELIPORT SURFACE MARKING

5.10.1 A surface background marking is provided to assist a pilot in identifying the location of the helideck or
shipboard heliport during an approach to land by day and to emphasize the position of the touchdown markings etc. The
helideck or shipboard heliport surface encapsulated by the white TLOF perimeter marking should be dark green using a
high friction coating.

5.10.2 Aluminium helidecks are now widely in use throughout the offshore industry. Some of these are a natural
light grey colour and may present painting difficulties. The natural light grey colour of aluminium may be acceptable
provided the conspicuity of helideck markings are assessed, preferably from the air, and if necessary are enhanced.
How this is achieved in practice is discussed further in Section 5.1.3.

5.11 PROHIBITED LANDING SECTOR MARKING

5.11.1 Helideck-prohibited landing sector markings are used where it is necessary to protect the helicopter from
landing or manoeuvring in close proximity to limiting obstructions which, being of an immoveable nature, may
compromise the sectors and surfaces established for the helideck (an example might be a jack-up leg penetrating the
150 degree limited obstacle sector or a crane on the edge of the LOS).

5.11.2 A prohibited landing sector (PLS) is therefore established utilizing the marking arrangement shown in
Figure I-5-10. The hatched marking is overlaid on the portion of the yellow TD/PM circle and extending out to the TLOF
perimeter marking within the relevant headings, for which it would be deemed unsafe to place the nose of the helicopter
(due to the presence of an obstacle behind the tail of the aircraft, which due to the landing orientation of the helicopter
would be beyond the field of view of the aircrew.

5.11.3 The arc of coverage should be sufficient to ensure that the tail rotor system will be positioned clear of the
obstruction when hovering above, and touching down on, the yellow circle at any location beyond the PLS marking. As a
guide it is recommended that the PLS marking extends by a minimum 10 to 15 degrees either side of the edge of the
obstacle (this implies that even for a simple whip aerial infringement’ the PLS arc applied will be an arc no less than 20
to 30 degrees of coverage).

Figure I-5-10. Examples of an alternative prohibited landing sector (PLS) marking

55
5.11.4 The sector of the TD/PM circle, opposite from the personnel access point, should be bordered in red with the
words “no nose” clearly marked in red on a white background as shown in Figure I-5-10. When positioning over the
TD/PM circle, helicopters should be manoeuvred so as to keep the aircraft nose clear of the “no nose” marked sector of
the TD/PM circle at all times. The minimum prohibited “no nose” marking should cover an arc of at least 30 degrees.

5.11.5 The following figure shows the required location and dimensions of the marking scheme. Colours of markings
may vary depending on the underlying surface colour of the vessel. This is discussed in more detail in Part I, Chapter 5,
5.1.2 and Figure I-5-1. For guidance on mapping of obstructions see Part I, Chapter 4, 4.6. TLOF lighting systems —
special considerations for non-purpose built shipboard heliports are addressed in Section 5.15.

5.12 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIGHTS INCLUDING SCREENING

5.12.1 The specification for the TLOF lighting system presented in the following sections assumes that the
performance of the lighting will not be diminished due to the relative intensity, configuration or colour of other lighting
sources present on a fixed or floating facility or on a vessel. Where other non-aeronautical lighting has potential to cause
confusion, or to diminish or prevent the clear interpretation of aeronautical ground lights, it will be necessary for the
facility or vessel operator, and if possible, the HLO, to extinguish, screen, or otherwise modify, non-aeronautical light
sources to ensure the effectiveness of helideck or shipboard heliport lighting systems are not compromised. To achieve
this, operators should give consideration to shielding any high intensity light sources from approaching helicopters by
fitting screens or louvers.

5.12.2 The helideck and shipboard heliport lighting systems specified in the following sections, and detailed in
Annex 14, Volume II (Chapter 5), and Appendix I-B, are designed on the assumption that operations occur in typical
-6.1
night viewing conditions, with an assumed eye threshold illuminance of Et = 10 . If there is an expectation for
aeronautical lighting to be used in more demanding viewing conditions, such as at twilight or during typical day
-5.0 -4.0
conditions, (where Et = 10 for twilight and Et = 10 for normal day), it should be recognized that the ‘true night’
viewing ranges achieved by the system design will decay considerably in more demanding viewing conditions (i.e. the
range at which a particular visual aid becomes detectable and conspicuous at night will decrease if that same aid is used
at twilight or by day; because the higher background brightness leads to a decreasing probability of detection). It is not
the intention of this manual to discuss these issues in detail — suffice to say, that to achieve the same ‘night’ detection
range for a particular visual aid, viewed in the most demanding typical day conditions, will require a very much brighter
lighting system. Further guidance is provided in the Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 4 — Visual Aids (Doc 9157).

5.13 TLOF LIGHTING SYSTEMS UTILISING FLOODLIGHT SOLUTIONS

5.13.1 The TLOF, as defined by the white TLOF perimeter marking (see Section 5.6) should be delineated by
fixed omni-directional green TLOF perimeter lights visible from on or above the level of the TLOF (the whole pattern
formed by the perimeter lights should not be visible to aircrew from below the level of the landing area, whether on a
fixed or floating facility or vessel). The photometric specification of TLOF perimeter lights is provided in the iso-candela
diagrams in Annex 14, Volume II, Figure 5-11 (Illustration 6).

5.13.2 TLOF perimeter lights, around the edge of the area designated for use as the TLOF, should be spaced at
not more than 3 m (10 ft) intervals (measured between light sources) and should follow the shape of the helideck or
shipboard heliport (e.g. for an octagonal shaped helideck, the TLOF perimeter lights should be arranged to form an
octagon). To avoid lights creating a trip hazard at points of access and egress it may be necessary to provide sources
that are flush-mounted (i.e. recessed) into the surface. The pattern of lights should be formed using regular spacing.
However, to avoid potential trip hazards, blocking foam dispensing nozzles, etc., it may be desirable to move lights to
one side. In this case, TLOF perimeter lights may be relocated by up to +/- 0.5 m (1.6 ft) such that the maximum gap
between two adjacent TLOF perimeter lights is no more than 3.5 m (11.5 ft) and the minimum no less than 2.5 m (8.2 ft).

56
Figure I-5-11. Heliport markings — special considerations for non-purpose built shipboard heliports

57
5.13.3 TLOF floodlights should be arranged around the perimeter of the TLOF so as to avoid glare to pilots in
flight or to personnel working on the area. Floodlighting can easily become misaligned and the HLO should instigate
daily checks to ensure that misaligned lights are corrected and do not create a hazard to flight operations by providing a
source of glare (the glare issue may be reduced by fitting appropriate hoods (louvers) onto deck-mounted floodlights).
Notwithstanding, lights should be realigned when, in the opinion of aircrew, they are creating a glare hazard during flight
operations.

5.13.4 Another issue with deck-mounted floodlighting, given their shallow angle of attack and the potentially very
large area needing to be illuminated, especially over the touchdown markings, is what is commonly known as the black
hole effect. In this case, adequate illumination is dispensed in areas adjacent to the perimeter lights, but a black hole is
left in the centre of the landing area where the lights cannot properly illuminate the central touchdown area markings.
Designers should aim to create a lighting environment which achieves an average horizontal illuminance of the
floodlighting which is at least 10 lx, with a uniformity ratio (average to minimum) of not more than 8:1, measured on the
surface of the TLOF. Furthermore, the spectral distribution of TLOF area floodlights should ensure adequate illumination
of the surface markings (especially the TD/PM circle) and obstacle markings (this may include a prohibited landing
sector marking, where present).

5.13.5 Given the challenges of meeting the above specifications, designers may be tempted to provide multiple
floodlighting units, in seeking to achieve the recommendations for spectral distribution and average horizontal
illuminance for floodlighting set in Annex 14, Volume II. However, being very much brighter than the TLOF perimeter
lights, floodlighting has a tendency to make the pattern of the green perimeter lights less obvious, due to the number and
intensity of much brighter floodlights. As the green pattern provided by the TLOF perimeter lights generates the initial
source of helideck acquisition for aircrew, the desire to specify multiple sets of floodlights should be resisted. For all but
the largest helidecks a compliment of between four and six floodlights should be sufficient (up to eight for the largest
helidecks). Providing that technologies are selected which promote good, sharp, beam control, this should optimize their
effectiveness and offer the best opportunity to effectively illuminate touchdown markings. To mitigate the glare issue as
much as possible, floodlights should be mounted to ensure the centreline of the floodlight beam is at a of 45 degree
angle to the reciprocal of the prevailing wind direction. This will minimize any glare or disruption to the pattern formed by
the green perimeter lights for the majority of approaches. Figure I-5-12 provides a typical floodlighting arrangement.

5.13.6 The height of the installed TLOF perimeter lights and floodlights should not exceed 25 cm (10 in) above the
level of the TLOF, but ideally should not exceed 15 cm (6 in) for helidecks which are 1 D or greater and/or have a
D-value greater than 16.00 m (52.5 ft), and 5 cm (2 in) for helidecks which are sub-1 D, but not less than 0.83 D, and/or
have a D-value of 16.00 m (52.5 ft) or less. TLOF lighting should be inset when a light extending above the surface
could endanger helicopter operations (see also Part I, Chapter 3, 3.4.10).

5.13.7 In addition to providing the visual cues needed for helideck recognition for approach and landing, helideck
floodlighting may be used at night to facilitate on-deck operations such as passenger movements, refuelling operations,
freight handling etc. Where there is potential for floodlights to dazzle a pilot during the approach to land or during take-off
manoeuvres, they should be switched off for the duration of the approach and departure. Therefore all floodlights should
be capable of being switched off at a pilot’s request. All TLOF lighting should be fed from an uninterrupted power supply
(UPS) system.

5.13.8 For some helidecks or shipboard heliports, it may be possible to site additional high-mounted floodlighting
away from the TLOF perimeter, such as a ship’s bridge or pointing down from a hangar. In this case, extra care should
be taken to ensure that additional sources do not cause a source of glare to a pilot, especially when lifting in the hover to
transition into forward flight, and do not present a competing source to the green TLOF perimeter lights. Screens or
louvers should be considered for any additional high-mounted sources.

5.14 TLOF LIGHTING SYSTEMS UTILIZING “H” AND CIRCLE LIGHTING —

DETAILS OF A SCHEME FIRST ADOPTED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

5.14.1 As an effective alternative to providing illumination of the touchdown markings by the use of deck-mounted
floodlighting, operators may wish to consider a scheme for a lit TD/PM and a lit heliport identification marking. This

58
scheme is presented in detail in Appendix I-B, together with the photometric specification for green TLOF perimeter
lights.

Figure I-5-12. Typical floodlighting arrangement for an octagonal helideck

5.14.2 The lit TD/PM and the lit heliport identification marking scheme has been developed to be compatible with
helicopters having wheeled undercarriages. Although the design specification presented in Appendix I-B ensures
segments and sub-sections are compliant with the maximum height for obstacles on the TLOF surface (2.5 cm (1 in)),
and are likely to withstand the point loading presented by typically lighter skidded helicopters, due to the potential for
raised fittings to induce dynamic rollover, it is important to establish compatibility with skid-fitted helicopter operations
before lighting is installed on helidecks and shipboard heliports used by skid-fitted helicopters.

5.14.3 The specification for a complete helideck/shipboard heliport lighting scheme, is presented in Appendix I-B.
The detail therein is not considered mandatory but it is nevertheless reproduced in Part II to demonstrate an acceptable
alternative means of compliance for any State wishing to take advantage of the United Kingdom specification, based on
dedicated and in-service offshore trials. Figure I-5-13, shows the illumination of the TLOF for a helideck using the lit
TD/PM and the lit heliport identification marking scheme described the previous section and in Appendix I-B alongside a
helideck, which utilizes the conventional floodlighting solution described above.

59
Figure I-5-13. Fixed platform (left) with the lit TD/PM and the lit heliport identification marking scheme. Mobile
offshore drilling unit (right) with deck-mounted floodlighting system

5.15 LIGHTING SYSTEMS — SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

FOR NON-PURPOSE BUILT SHIPBOARD HELIPORTS

5.15.1 Given the possible presence of obstructions within the landing area (see Part I, Chapter 4, 4.6) some
States may decide not to permit night operations unless a risk assessment can demonstrate it is safe to do so. Where
night operations are permitted, specific lighting schemes for non-purpose built shipboard heliports may utilize an area
floodlighting solution to illuminate the TLOF and markings as illustrated in Figure I-5-14.

60
 Figure I-5-14. Lighting systems — special considerations for non-purpose built shipboard heliports

5.16 VISUAL AIDS FOR DENOTING OBSTACLES —

MARKING AND LIGHTING (INCLUDING FLOODLIGHTING)

5.16.1 Fixed obstacles which present a hazard to helicopters should be readily visible from the air. If a paint
scheme is necessary to enhance identification by day, alternate black and white, black and yellow, or red and white
bands are recommended, not less than 0.5 m (1.6 ft), or more than 6 m (20 ft) wide. The colour should be chosen to
contrast with the background to the maximum extent.

5.16.2 Obstacles to be marked in these contrasting colours include any lattice tower structures and crane booms
which are close to the helideck or to the LOS boundary. Similarly parts of the leg (or legs) of a self-elevating jack-up unit
that are adjacent to the helideck and which extend, or can extend above it, should also be marked in the same manner.

5.16.3 Omni-directional low intensity steady red obstruction lights having a minimum intensity of 10 cd for angles
of elevation between 0 degrees and 30 degrees should be fitted at suitable locations to provide the helicopter pilot with
visual information on the proximity and height of objects which are higher than the landing area and which are close to it,
or to the LOS boundary. This should apply, in particular, to all crane booms on an offshore facility or vessel. Objects
which are more than 15 m (50 ft) higher than the landing area should be fitted with intermediate low intensity steady red
obstruction lights of the same intensity spaced at 10 m (33 ft) intervals down to the level of the landing area (except
where such lights would be obscured by other objects). It is often preferable for some structures such as flare booms
and towers to be illuminated by floodlights as an alternative to fitting intermediate steady red lights, provided that the
lights are arranged such that they will illuminate the whole of the structure and not dazzle a helicopter pilot. Facilities
may, where appropriate, consider alternative equivalent technologies to highlight dominant obstacles in the vicinity of the
helideck.

5.16.4 An omni-directional low intensity steady red obstruction light should be fitted to the highest point of the
installation. The light should have a minimum intensity of 50 cd for angles of elevation between zero and 15 degrees,

61
and a minimum intensity of 200 cd between 5 and 8 degrees. Where it is not practicable to fit a light to the highest point
of the installation (e.g. on top of flare towers) the light should be fitted as near to the extremity as possible.

5.16.5 In the particular case of jack-up units, it is recommended that when the tops of the legs are the highest
points on the facility, they should be fitted with omni-directional low intensity steady red lights of the same intensity and
characteristics as described in the above paragraph. In addition, the leg (or legs) adjacent to the helideck should be
fitted with intermediate low intensity steady red lights of the same intensity and characteristics as described in
Section 5.16.3 at 10 m (33 ft) intervals down to the level of the landing area. As an alternative, the legs may be floodlit
providing the helicopter pilot is not dazzled.

5.16.6 Any ancillary structure within one kilometre of the helideck, and which is 10 m (33 ft) or more above
helideck height should be similarly fitted with red lights.

5.16.7 Red lights should be arranged so that the locations of the objects which they delineate are visible from all
directions of approach above the landing area.

5.16.8 Facility/vessel emergency power supply design should include all forms of obstruction lighting. Any failures
or outages should be reported immediately to the helicopter operator. The lighting should be fed from a UPS system.

5.16.9 For some helidecks, especially those that are on not permanently attended installations (NPAIs), it may be
beneficial to improve depth perception by deploying floodlighting to illuminate the main structure (or legs) of the platform.
This can help to address the visual illusion that a helideck appears to be floating in space. Care should be taken to
ensure that any potential source of glare from structure lighting is eliminated by directing it away from the approach path
of the helicopter and/or by providing louvers.

______________________

62
 Chapter 6

HELIDECK RESCUE AND FIRE-FIGHTING FACILITIES

6.1 INTRODUCTION

6.1.1 This chapter provides guidance regarding the provision of equipment, extinguishing media, personnel,
training, and emergency procedures for offshore helidecks and should be read in conjunction with the generic guidance
material presented in this manual, to support Annex 14 Volume II, Section 6.2 Rescue and Fire-fighting. Unless
specifically stated, it should be assumed that all sections apply to an offshore facility regardless of the manning policy
(i.e. whether a permanently attended installation (PAI) or a not permanently attended installation (NPAI)). For editorial
convenience, when it fits the context, the generic term “landing area” is used and may be assumed to include both
attendance models (PAIs and NPAIs) for fixed offshore heliports.

6.1.2 Rescue and fire-fighting (RFF) requirements for purpose built shipboard heliports on ships constructed
before 1 January 2020 should at-least comply with paragraphs 5.1.3 to 5.1.5 of SOLAS regulation II-2/18 and, for ship’s
constructed on or after 1 January 2020 with the provisions of Chapter 17 of the Fire Safety Systems Code. For non-
purpose built shipboard heliports on ships constructed before 1 January 2020, RFF arrangements should at-least be in
accordance with Part C of SOLAS II-2, Helicopter Facilities and for ships constructed on or after 1 January 2020 with the
relevant provisions of Chapter 17 of the Fire Safety Systems Code. It may therefore be assumed that this chapter does
not include RFF arrangements for purpose built or non-purpose built heliports or for shipboard winching areas.

6.1.3 The principal objective of a RFF response is to save lives. For this reason, the provision of a means of
dealing with a helicopter accident or incident occurring at or in the immediate vicinity of the landing area assumes
primary importance because it is within this area that there are the greatest opportunities for saving lives. This should
assume at all times the possibility of, and need for, bringing under control and then extinguishing a fire which may occur
either immediately following a helicopter accident or incident (e.g. crash and burn) or at any time during rescue
operations.

6.1.4 The most important factors having a bearing on effective rescue in a survivable helicopter accident are the
speed of initiating a response and the effectiveness of that response. Requirements to protect accommodation beneath
or in the vicinity of the landing area, a fuel installation (where provided) or the support structure of the offshore heliport
are not taken into account in this chapter, nor is any additional considerations that may arise from the presence of a
second helicopter located in a parking area (see Part I, Chapter 8). In the case of a parking area, consideration may be
given for providing a passive fire-retarding surface supplemented with hand-held extinguishers.

6.1.5 Due to the nature of offshore operations, usually taking place over large areas of open sea, an
assessment will need to be carried out to determine if specialist rescue services and fire-fighting equipment is needed to
mitigate the additional risks and specific hazards of operating over open sea areas. These considerations will form a part
of the heliport emergency plan.

6.2 KEY DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS — PRINCIPAL AGENT

6.2.1 A key aspect in the successful design for providing an efficient, integrated rescue and fire-fighting facility is
a complete understanding of the circumstances in which it may be expected to operate. A helicopter accident, which
results in a fuel spillage with wreckage and/or fire and smoke, has the capability to render some of the equipment
inventory unusable or to preclude the use of some passenger escape routes.

6.2.2 Delivery of fire-fighting media to the landing area at the appropriate application rate should be achieved in
the quickest possible time. The method for delivery of the primary agent is best achieved through a fixed foam
63
application system (FFAS) with an automatic or semi-automatic method used for the distribution of extinguishing agent
to knock down and bring a fire under control in the shortest possible time, while protecting the means of escape for
personnel to quickly and easily alight clear of the landing area to a place of safety. An FFAS may include, but is not
necessarily limited to: a fixed monitor system (FMS) a deck integrated fire-fighting system (DIFFS) or, for a helideck with
a D-value of 20.00 m (65.6 ft) or less, a ring-main system (RMS). The purpose of this chapter is to discuss in detail the
specification for an FMS and, as the alternative means of compliance, the preferred method of delivery now widely used
in the offshore sector; a DIFFS. The specification for an RMS, or any other alternative means of compliance present or
future, is not discussed in detail in this chapter. However, the critical area calculations illustrated in Section 6.2.7.1 are
the recommended minimum objectives for any FFAS. An FMS, RMS or DIFFS should therefore be regarded as different
methods by which the uniform distribution of foam, at the required application rate and for the required duration, may be
efficiently distributed to the whole of the landing area (an area that is based on the D-circle of the critical (design)
helicopter). For an FMS, where, due to their location around the periphery of the helideck, good range of application is
essential, foam is initially applied in a solid stream (jet) application. A dispersed pattern is applied through a DIFFS or
RMS where the requirement is to deliver media at shorter ranges to combine greater coverage and a more effective
surface application of primary media. Where a solid plate helideck is provided i.e. a helideck having a solid-plate surface
design set to a fall or camber which allows fuel to drain across the solid surface into a suitable drainage collection
system, primary media will always consist of foam (see Section 6.2.8 and Note. 1 below). However, where the option is
taken to install a passive fire-retarding surface constructed in the form of a perforated surface or grating which contains
numerous holes that allow burning fuel to rapidly drain through the surface of the helideck, the use of water in lieu of
foam is accepted. Where water is used the critical area calculation applicable for Performance Level C foam is applied
(see Section 6.2.8)

Note. — From time-to-time, new technologies may come to market which, providing they are demonstrated
by rigorous testing to be at least as effective as solutions described elsewhere in this chapter, with the approval of the
appropriate authority, may be considered for helideck fire-fighting. For example, compressed air foam systems (CAFS)
may be considered, with foam distributed through a DIFFS. CAFS has the ability to inject compressed air into foam to
generate an effective solution to attack and suppress a helideck fire. This type of foam has a tighter, denser bubble
structure than standard foams, which allows it to penetrate deeper into the fire before the bubbles are broken down.
CAFS is able to address all sides of the fire triangle by smothering the fire (preventing oxygen from combining with the
fuel), by diminishing the heat, using trapped air within the bubble structure, and by disrupting the chemical reaction
required for a fire to continue. Hence the application rate for a DIFFS using ICAO Performance Level B compressed air
foam may be accordingly reduced — see calculation of application rate in Section 6.2.8.

6.2.3 Given that the effectiveness of any FFAS is the speed of initiating a response in addition to the
effectiveness of that response, it is recommended that a delay of less than 15 seconds, measured from the time the
system is activated to actual production at the required application rate, should be the objective. The operational
objective of an FFAS should ensure that the system is able to bring under control a helideck fire associated with a
crashed helicopter within 1 minute measured from the time the system is activated and producing foam at the required
application rate for the range of weather conditions prevalent for the helicopter operating environment.

Note. — A fire is deemed to be under control at the point when the initial intensity of the fire is reduced by
90 per cent.

6.2.4 An FFAS should be of adequate performance and be suitably located to ensure an effective application of
foam to any part of the landing area irrespective of the wind strength/direction or accident location when all components
of the system are operating in accordance with the manufacturer’s technical specifications for the equipment. However,
for a FMS, consideration should also be given to the loss of a (downwind) foam monitor either due to limiting weather
conditions or as a result of a crash situation occurring. The design specification for an FMS (usually consisting of 2, 3 or
4 fixed monitors) should ensure remaining monitor(s) are capable of delivering finished foam to the landing area at or
above the minimum application rate. For areas of the landing area or its appendages which, for any reason, may be
otherwise inaccessible to an FMS, it is necessary to provide additional hand controlled foam branch pipes as described
further below.

6.2.5 Consideration should be given to the effects of the weather on static equipment. All equipment forming part
of the RFF response should be designed to withstand protracted exposure to the elements or be protected from them.
Where protection is the chosen option, it should not prevent the equipment being brought into use quickly and effectively
(see paragraphs above). The effects of condensation on stored equipment should be considered.

6.2.6 The minimum capacity of the fixed foam application system will depend on the D-value of the design
helicopter, the required foam application rate at the helideck, the discharge rates of installed equipment (i.e. capacity of
64
main fire pump) and the expected duration of application. It is important to ensure that the capacity of the main offshore
heliport fire pump is sufficient to guarantee that finished foam can be applied at the appropriate induction ratio and
application rate and for the minimum duration to the whole of the landing area, when all monitors are being discharged
simultaneously.

6.2.7 The application rate is dependent on the types of foam concentrate in use and the types of foam
application equipment selected. For fires involving aviation kerosene, ICAO has produced a performance test which
assesses and categorizes the foam concentrate. Foam concentrate manufacturers will be able to advise on the
performance of their concentrates against these tests. It is recommended that foam concentrates compatible with
seawater and meeting at-least performance level ‘B’ or performance level ‘C’ are used. Level ‘B’ foams should be
applied at a minimum application rate of 5.5 litres per square metre per minute. Level ‘C’ foams should be applied at a
minimum application rate of 3.75 litres per square metre per minute. Where seawater is used in lieu of foam (see
Section 6.2.2) the application rate should be the same as for performance level ‘C’ foam.

6.2.8 Calculation of the application rate

6.2.8.1 Example based on the D-circle for an S92 (for the purpose of illustration assumed to be the design
helicopter with a D = 20.88):

For an ICAO performance level B foam:

2
Application rate = 5.5 x π x r (5.5 x 3.142 x 10.44 x 10.44) = 1 883 litres per minute

For an ICAO performance level C foam (or seawater):

2
Application rate = 3.75 x π x r (3.75 x 3.142 x 10.44 x 10.44) = 1 284 litres per minute

For an ICAO performance level B compressed air foam:

2
Application rate = 3.00 x π x r (3.00 x 3.142 x 10.44 x 10.44) = 1 028 litres per minute

6.2.8.2 Given the often remote location of offshore heliports, the overall capacity of the foam system should
exceed that which is necessary for the initial suppression and extinction of the fire. Five minutes of foam application
capability for a solid plate helideck is generally considered to be reasonable. In the case of a passive fire-retarding
surface with a water-only DIFFS the discharge duration may be reduced to no less than three minutes.

6.2.9 Calculation of minimum operational stocks

6.2.9.1 Using the 20.88 m example as shown in Section 6.2.8.1 above, a 1 per cent performance level ‘B’ foam
solution discharged over five minutes at the minimum application rate will require: 1 883 x 0.01 x 5 = 94 litres of foam
concentrate.

6.2.9.2 A 3 per cent performance level ‘C’ foam solution discharged over five minutes at the minimum application
rate will require 1 284 x 0.03 x 5 = 193 litres of foam concentrate

Note. — Sufficient reserve foam stocks to allow for replenishment as a result of operation of the system
during an incident or following training or testing, will also need to be considered.

6.2.10 Low expansion foam concentrates can generally be applied in either aspirated or non-aspirated form. It
should be recognized that while non-aspirated foam may provide a quick knockdown of any fuel fire, aspiration, i.e. the
induction of air into the foam solution discharged by monitor or by hand controlled foam branch (see below), gives
enhanced protection after extinguishment. Wherever a non-aspirated FFAS is selected during design, additional
hose-lines capable of producing aspirated foam for post-fire security/control should be provided on solid-plate helidecks.

6.2.11 Not all fires are capable of being accessed by monitors and in some scenarios, their use may actually
endanger passengers. Therefore, in addition to foam monitor systems , there should be the ability to deploy at least two
deliveries with hand controlled foam branch pipes for the application of aspirated foam at a minimum rate of 225 to 250
litres/minute through each hose line. A single hose line, capable of delivering aspirated foam at a minimum application
rate of 225 to 250 litres/minute, may be acceptable where it is demonstrated that the hose line is of sufficient length, and
the hydrant system of sufficient operating pressure, to ensure the effective application of foam to any part of the landing

65
area irrespective of wind strength or direction. The hose line(s) provided should be capable of being fitted with a branch
pipe able to apply water in the form of a jet or spray pattern for cooling, or for other specific fire-fighting tactics.

6.2.12 As an effective alternative means of compliance to an FMS, offshore heliports are encouraged to consider
the provision of a DIFFS. These systems typically consist of a series of pop-up nozzles with both a horizontal and
vertical component, designed to provide an effective spray distribution of foam to the whole of the landing area and
protection for the helicopter suitable for a range of weather conditions. A DIFFS on a solid-plate helideck should be
capable of supplying performance level ‘B’ or level ‘C’ foam solution to bring under control a fire associated with a
crashed helicopter within the time constraints stated in Section 6.2.2 achieving an average (theoretical) application rate
over the entire landing area (based on the D-circle) of 5.5 litres per square metre per minute for performance level ‘B’
foams and 3.75 litres per square metre per minute for performance level ‘C’ foams, for a duration, which at least meets
the minimum requirements stated in Section 6.2.8.2 above.

6.2.13 Where the FFAS consists of a DIFFS capable of delivering foam and/or seawater in a spray pattern to the
whole of the landing area (see previous paragraphs and Note below) is selected in lieu of an FMS, full scale testing has
confirmed that the provision of additional hand-controlled foam branch pipes may not be necessary to address any
residual fire situation. Instead any residual fire may be tackled with the use of hand-held extinguishers (see Part I,
Chapter 4).

6.2.14 The precise number and lay out of pop-up nozzles will be dependent on the specific landing area design,
particularly the dimensions of the landing area. However, nozzles should not be located adjacent to helideck egress
points as this may hamper quick access to the helideck by trained rescue crews and/or impede occupants of the
helicopter from escaping to a safe place away from the landing area. Notwithstanding this, the number and lay out of
nozzles should be sufficient to provide an effective spray distribution of foam over the entire landing area with a suitable
overlap of the horizontal spray component from each nozzle assuming calm wind conditions. It is recognized in meeting
the objective for the average (theoretical) application rate specified above for performance level ‘B’ or level ‘C’ foams,
there may be some parts of the landing area, particularly where the spray pattern of nozzles significantly over lap, where
the average (theoretical) application rate is exceeded in practice. Conversely for other areas the application rate in
practice may fall slightly below the average (theoretical) application rate specified in Section 6.2.12. This is acceptable
provided that the actual application rate achieved for any portion of the landing area does not fall below two-thirds of the
application rates specified.

Note — Where a DIFFS is used in tandem with a passive fire-retarding system demonstrated to be
capable of removing significant quantities of unburned fuel from the surface of the offshore heliport, in the event of a fuel
spill from a ruptured aircraft tank, it is permitted to select a seawater-only DIFFS to deal with any residual fuel burn. A
seawater-only DIFFS should meet the same application rate as specified for a performance level ‘C’ foam DIFFS in
Section 6.2.12 and duration as specified in Section 6.2.8.2. (See also Part I, Chapter 5 for not permanently attended
installations (NPAIs).)

6.2.15 In a similar way to where an FMS is provided, the performance specification for a DIFFS needs to consider
the likelihood that one or more of the pop-up nozzles may be rendered ineffective by the impact of a helicopter on the
deck surface. Any local damage to the DIFFS nozzles and distribution system, caused by a helicopter crash, should not
hinder the system’s overall ability to deal effectively with a fire situation. To this end, a DIFFS supplier should be able to
verify that a system, where at least one of the nozzles is rendered inactive, remains fit-for-purpose, and is able to bring a
fire associated with a crashed helicopter under control within one minute measured from the time the system is
producing foam at the required application rate.

6.2.16 A variation on the basic design performance level ‘B’ or level ‘C’ foam DIFFS is a DIFFS CAFS (see the
Note below Section 6.2.2).

6.2.17 If lifesaving opportunities are to be maximized, it is essential that all equipment should be ready for
immediate use on, or in the immediate vicinity of, the landing area whenever helicopter operations are being conducted.
All equipment should be located at points having immediate access to the landing area. The location of the storage
facilities should be clearly indicated.

66
 6.3 USE AND MAINTENANCE OF FOAM EQUIPMENT

6.3.1 Mixing different concentrates in the same tank, i.e. different either in make or strength, is generally
unacceptable. Many different strengths of concentrate are on the market, but the most common concentrates found
offshore are 1 per cent, 3 per cent or 6 per cent. Any decision regarding selection should take into account the design
characteristics of the foam system. It is important to ensure that foam containers and tanks are correctly labelled.

6.3.2 Induction equipment ensures that water and foam concentrate are mixed in the correct proportions. The
settings of adjustable inductors, if installed, should correspond with the strength of concentrate in use.

6.3.3 All parts of the foam production system, including the finished foam, should be tested by qualified
personnel upon commissioning and annually thereafter. The tests should assess the performance of the system against
original design expectations while ensuring compliance with any relevant pollution regulations.

6.4 COMPLEMENTARY MEDIA

6.4.1 While foam is considered the principal agent for dealing with fires involving fuel spillages, the wide variety
of fire incidents likely to be encountered during offshore helicopter operations — e.g. engine, avionic bays, transmission
areas, hydraulics — may require the provision of more than one type of complementary agent. Dry powder and gaseous
agents are generally considered acceptable for this task. The complementary agents selected should comply with the
appropriate specifications of the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). Systems should be capable of
delivering the agents through equipment which will ensure its effective application.

Note — Halon extinguishing agents are no longer specified for new installations. Gaseous agents,
including CO2, have replaced them. The effectiveness of CO2 is accepted as being half that of Halon.

6.4.2 Dry chemical powder is recommended as the primary complementary agent. For helidecks up to and
including 16.00 m (52.5 ft) the minimum total capacity should be 23 kg (50 lbs) delivered from one or two extinguishers.
For helidecks above 16.00 m (52.5 ft) and up to 24.00 m (78 ft), the minimum total capacity should be 45 kg (99 lbs)
delivered from one, two or three extinguishers. For helidecks above 24.00 m (78 ft) the minimum total capacity should be
90 kg (198 lbs) delivered from two, three or four extinguishers. The dry powder system should have the capability to
deliver the agent anywhere on the landing area and the discharge rate of the agent should be selected for optimum
effectiveness of the agent. Containers of sufficient capacity to allow continuous and sufficient application of the agent
should be provided.

6.4.3 A quantity of gaseous agent is recommended in addition to the use of dry powder as a secondary
complementary agent. A quantity of gaseous agent should be provided with a suitable applicator for use on engine fires.
The appropriate minimum quantity delivered from one or two extinguishers is 9 kg (19 lbs) for helidecks up to and
including 16.00 m (52.5 ft), 18 kg (39 lbs) for helidecks above 16.00 m (52.5 ft) and up to 24.00 m (78 ft), and 36 kg
(78 lbs) for helidecks above 24.00 m (78 ft). The discharge rate should be selected for optimum effectiveness of the
agent. Due regard should be given to the requirement to deliver gaseous agents to the seat of the fire at the
recommended discharge rate. Due to the windy conditions prevalent in many offshore sectors, complementary agents
may be adversely affected during application and training evolutions should take this into account.

6.4.4 Offshore helicopters have integral engine fire protection systems (predominantly Halon) and it is therefore
considered that the provision of foam as the principal agent, plus suitable water/foam branch lines, plus sufficient levels
of dry powder with a quantity of secondary gaseous agent, will form the core of the fire extinguishing system. It should
be borne in mind that none of the complementary agents listed will offer any post-fire security/control.

6.4.5 All applicators are to be fitted with a mechanism which allows them to be hand-controlled.

6.4.6 Dry chemical powder should be of the foam-type compatible.

6.4.7 The complementary agents should be sited so that they are readily available at all times.

6.4.8 Reserve stocks of complementary media to allow for replenishment as a result of activation of the system
during an incident, or following training or testing, should be held.

67
6.4.9 Complementary agents should be subject to annual visual inspection by qualified personnel and pressure
tested in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations.

6.5 NOT PERMANENTLY ATTENDED INSTALLATIONS (NPAI)

6.5.1 In the case of NPAIs, where RFF equipment will be unattended during certain helicopter movements, the
application of foam through a manually operated fixed monitor system is not recommended. For installations which are
at times unattended, the effective delivery of foam to the whole of the landing area, is best achieved by means of a fully-
automated DIFFS. See Sections 6.2.12 to 6.2.15 for specification.

6.5.2 For NPAIs, other combination solutions where these can be demonstrated to be effective in dealing with a
running fuel fire, may be considered. This could permit, for example, the selection of a seawater-only DIFFS used in
tandem with a passive fire-retarding system demonstrated to be capable of removing significant quantities of unburned
fuel from the surface of the landing area in the event of a fuel spill from a ruptured aircraft tank. In this case the minimum
discharge duration should meet the appropriate requirements specified in Section 6.2.8.2.

6.5.3 DIFFS on NPAIs should be integrated with platform safety systems such that pop-up nozzles are activated
automatically in the event of an impact of a helicopter where a post-crash fire (PCF) results. The overall design of a
DIFFS should incorporate a method of fire detection and be configured to avoid spurious activation and should be
capable of manual over-ride. Similar to a DIFFS provided for a PAI, a DIFFS provided on an NPAI needs to consider the
eventuality that one or more nozzles may be rendered ineffective by, for example, a crash. The basic performance
assumptions stated in Section 6.2.12 to 6.2.15 should also apply for a DIFFS located on an NPAI.

6.6 THE MANAGEMENT OF EXTINGUISHING MEDIA STOCKS

6.6.1 Consignments of extinguishing media should be used in delivery order to prevent deterioration in quality by
prolonged storage.

6.6.2 The mixing of different types of foam concentrate may cause serious density issues and result in the
possible malfunctioning of foam production systems. Unless evidence is given to the contrary it should be assumed that
different types are incompatible. In the event of mixing it is essential that the tank(s), pipe work and pump (if fitted) are
thoroughly cleaned and flushed prior to the new concentrate being introduced.

6.6.3 Consideration should be given to the provision of reserve stocks for use in training, testing and recovery
from emergency use.

6.7 RESCUE EQUIPMENT

6.7.1 In some circumstances, lives may be lost if simple ancillary rescue equipment is not readily available.

6.7.2 The provision of minimum equipment is recommended as listed in Table I-6-1. Sizes of equipment are not
detailed in this table, but should be appropriate for the types of helicopter expected to use the facility.

6.7.3 Appropriate personnel should be appointed to ensure that the rescue equipment is checked and
maintained regularly.

6.7.4 Rescue equipment should be stored in clearly marked and secure watertight cabinets or chests. An
inventory checklist of equipment should be held inside each equipment cabinet/chest.

68
 6.8 PERSONNEL LEVELS

6.8.1 The facility or vessel should have a sufficient number of trained fire-fighting personnel immediately
available whenever helicopter movements are taking place. A determination of what constitutes sufficient resources may
be made on a case-by-case basis use of a task resource analysis. When conducting this assessment, it is
recommended that the following be taken into account, at minimum:

a) helicopters types using the helideck, including maximum passenger seating configuration,
composition, fuel loads (and whether fuel can be uplifted on site);

b) expectations for the rescue of helicopter occupants e.g. assisted rescue model;

c) design and complexity of the fire-fighting arrangements e.g. equipment to address worse case PCF
with rescue of occupants; and

d) availability of additional emergency support personnel to assist dedicated helideck personnel.

6.8.2 Dedicated helideck personnel should be deployed to allow the appropriate, efficient operations of
fire-fighting and rescue systems and to maximum advantage, so that any helideck incident can be managed effectively.
The helicopter landing officer (HLO) should be readily identifiable to the helicopter crew as the person in charge of
operations. The preferred method of identification is a brightly coloured ‘HLO’ tabard/waistcoat.

6.9 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE)

6.9.1 All responding RFF personnel should be provided with appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE)
and respiratory protective equipment (RPE) to allow them to carry out their duties in an effective manner.

6.9.2 Sufficient personnel to operate the RFF equipment effectively should be dressed in protective clothing prior
to helicopter movements taking place. In addition, equipment should only be used by personnel who have received
adequate information, instruction and training. PPE should be accompanied by suitable safety measures e.g. protective
devices, markings and warnings. The specifications for PPE should meet one of the following international standards:

NFPA EN BS
Helmet with visor NFPA 1971 EN443 BS EN 443
Gloves NFPA 1971 EN659 BS EN 659
Boots (footwear) NFPA 1971 EN ISO 20345 EN ISO 20345
Tunic and trousers NFPA 1971 EN469 BS EN ISO 14116
Flash-hood NFPA 1971 EN 13911 BS EN 13911

6.9.3 Appropriate personnel should be appointed to ensure that all PPE is installed, stored, used, checked and
maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Facilities should be provided for the cleaning, drying and
storage of PPE when crews are off duty. Facilities should be well-ventilated and secure.

6.9.4 In addition, equipment should only be used by personnel who have received adequate information, instruction
and training. PPE should be accompanied by suitable safety measures e.g. protective devices, markings and warnings.
Appropriate PPE is included in Table I-6-1. Specific outcomes from the task-resource analysis may determine a
requirement for additional PPE, or that, given the specific rescue model employed, certain items may not be required.

6.10 TRAINING

6.10.1 If they are to effectively utilize the equipment provided, all personnel assigned to RFF duties on the
landing area should be fully trained to carry out their duties to ensure competence in role and task. It is recommended
that personnel attend an established helicopter fire-fighting course.

69
6.10.2 In addition, regular recurrent training in the use of all RFF equipment, helicopter type familiarization and
rescue tactics and techniques should be carried out. Correct selection and use of principal and complementary media for
specific types of incident should form an integral part of personnel training.

6.11 EMERGENCY PROCEDURES

6.11.1 The heliport emergency plan should specify the actions to be taken in the event of an emergency involving
a helicopter on or near the installation or vessel. The heliport emergency plan sets out the procedures for co-ordinating
the response of agencies or services that could be of assistance in responding to an emergency at an offshore heliport.

6.11.2 Details of the scope and content for heliport emergency planning are addressed in detail in Annex 14,
Volume II, Chapter 6, 6.1.

Table I-6-1. Rescue equipment

Adjustable wrench 1
Rescue axe, large (non-wedge or aircraft type) 1
Cutters, bolt 1
Crowbar, large 1
Hook, grab or salving 1
Hacksaw (heavy duty) and six spare blades 1
Blanket, fire resistant 1
Ladder (two-piece)* 1
Life line (5 mm circumference x 15 m in length) plus rescue harness 1
Pliers, side cutting (tin snips) 1
Set of assorted screwdrivers 1
Harness knife and sheath or harness cutters** **
Man-made mineral fibre (MMMF) filter masks** **
Gloves, fire resistant** **
Power cutting tool*** 1

* For access to casualties in an aircraft on its side.

** This equipment is required for each helideck crew member.
*** Requires additional approved training by competent personnel only specified for helicopters above 24 m (78 ft).

______________________

70
 Chapter 7

WINCHING AREAS ON SHIPS

7.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

INCLUDING LOCATION, PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND OBSTACLE PROTECTION

Note. — The proposed application of this chapter is to winching areas located on ships. However, States
may seek to apply the basic same criteria, but with some alleviations, for heli-hoist activities that occur, where permitted,
on fixed platforms, e.g. for a winching area located on an offshore support substation. Applying the same criteria
provides an additional degree of conservatism as fixed platforms are not subject to the same effects of motion that occur
on ships (the amount of heave, sway or surge motion can vary considerably depending on the location of the winching
area on a ship – see Chapter 3, 3.2.5.3). Therefore, for winching areas located on fixed platforms, some relaxation of the
clear zone dimension (see Section 7.1.3) and the manoeuvring zone (see Section 7.1.4) may be considered by the
appropriate authority.

7.1.1 Where practicable, the helicopter should always land rather than winch (an operation commonly referred to
as helicopter hoist operation (HHO)) because safety is enhanced when the time spent hovering is reduced. However,
certain types of ships, which need to engage helicopter support but are unable to provide the space and/or obstacle
limitation surfaces needed to meet the requirements for a shipboard heliport, may need to consider a shipboard winching
area in lieu of a shipboard heliport landing area.

7.1.2 The optimum position for a winching area will be determined primarily by the availability of a suitable space
on the ship. However, a winching operation should be located over an area to which the helicopter can safely hover
while winching to or from the ship. Its location should allow the pilot an unimpeded view of the whole of the winching
area clear zone and the ship’s topside layout. Where more than one area capable of accommodating a winching area
exists, preference should be given to the location that best minimizes aerodynamic and wave motion effects. In addition,
the winching area should preferably be clear of accommodation spaces and provide adequate deck areas adjacent to
the manoeuvring zone to allow for safe access to the winching area from at least two different directions. In selecting a
suitable winching area, the desirability for keeping the winching (hoist) height to a minimum should also be borne in
mind, such that the area chosen will allow a helicopter to hover at a safe height above the highest obstacle that may be
present in the manoeuvring zone.

7.1.3 The winching area clear zone should comprise of a circular area with a minimum diameter of 5 m (16 ft).
This clear zone should be a solid surface capable of accommodating personnel and/or stores for which the winching
area is intended. In addition the clear zone should be entirely obstacle free.

7.1.4 The manoeuvring zone, divided into an inner and outer area should encompass and extend beyond the
clear zone to a minimum overall diameter of 2 D. The inner manoeuvring zone, having a diameter of not more than
1.5 D, may contain objects which are no higher than 3 m (9 ft) above the surface of the clear zone, while the outer
manoeuvring zone, having an overall diameter of at least 2 D, may contain objects that are no higher than 6 m (20 ft)
above the surface of clear zone. It is not essential for the entire manoeuvring zone to be a solid surface, and a portion
may be located beyond the ship’s side over the water (the same obstacle height limitations would apply as for a solid
surface).

7.2 MARKING OF A WINCHING AREA

7.2.1 Winching area markings should be located in order for their origin to coincide with the centre of the clear
zone.

71
7.2.2 The clear zone of the winching area, a circle with a minimum diameter of 5 m (16 ft), should be painted in a
conspicuous colour to contrast with the surrounding deck surface of the ship. Ideally the clear zone should be painted
yellow. It is usually necessary to apply a paint scheme that provides a high friction coating to prevent personnel from
slipping in the clear zone and/or stores from sliding due to the motion of the ship.

7.2.3 The edge of the circular outer manoeuvring zone of the winching area, having a diameter of at least 2 D,
should be marked by a broken circle with a line width of at least 30 cm (1 ft) painted in a conspicuous colour to contrast
with the adjacent ship’s deck. For standardization, it is recommended wherever possible that the outer manoeuvring
zone marking is painted yellow. As a guide the mark to space ratio of the broken circle should be approximately 4:1
(80 per cent coverage of the markings).

7.2.4 Within the inner manoeuvring zone, but outside the solid clear zone, “WINCH ONLY” should be painted in
characters which are easily visible to the helicopter pilot. The size and location of the marking may be dictated by the
available surface on which to apply the marking (see 7.1.4) but the individual letters should ideally be at least 2 m (6.5 ft)
high with a line width of approximately 33 cm (13 in). “WINCH ONLY” should be painted in a conspicuous colour to
contrast with the adjacent deck. For standardization, it is recommended wherever possible that the marking is painted
white.

7.2.5 While it is not a specific requirement to mark the periphery of the inner manoeuvring zone (with a diameter
not greater than 1.5 D), it may be helpful, for the mapping of obstacles relative to the two obstruction segments in the
manoeuvring zone, to do so. In this case, it is recommended that a thin unbroken circle be painted around the periphery
of the inner manoeuvring zone in a colour which contrasts with the adjacent ship’s deck, but which is different from the
colour used to define the outer manoeuvring zone. For standardization, it is recommended wherever possible that the
inner manoeuvring zone circle, where marked, is painted white, with a line width of approximately 10 cm (4 in).

7.2.6 Obstructions within or immediately adjacent to, the manoeuvring zone which may present a hazard to the
helicopter, need to be readily visible from the air and should be conspicuously marked. There is a scheme for marking of
obstacles described in Annex 14 — Aerodromes, Volume II — Heliports , Chapter 6. However, a protocol also exists
internationally which ship’s Masters may find helpful to adopt particularly as it harmonizes with colour schemes being
proposed for a ship’s helicopter landing area plan in this manual (see Chapter 4, 4.5 for details of how to complete a
helicopter landing area/operating area plan). For objects within the height constraints specified for the two segments of
the manoeuvring zone, to which it is necessary to draw the attention of the helicopter pilot, it is recommended that a
yellow paint scheme be applied to highlight the position of these objects. Where, exceptionally, objects within the
manoeuvring zone exceed the height constraints specified in Section 7.1.4, it is suggested that a paint scheme
consisting of red and white stripes, in lieu of yellow, be applied to the object. In all cases it is necessary that the marking
of objects contrasts effectively with the surface of the ship and therefore, some latitude may be required for precise
colour schemes to be used. The suggestions given in this paragraph are intended to achieve standardization of
markings wherever possible.

7.2.7 The marking scheme for a shipboard winching area is shown in Figure I-7-1.

7.3 LIGHTING OF A WINCHING AREA FOR NIGHT HELI-HOIST OPERATIONS

7.3.1 Where winching area operations are required to be conducted at night, winching area floodlighting should
be provided to illuminate the clear zone and the manoeuvring zone areas. Floodlights should be arranged and
adequately shielded so as to avoid glare to pilots operating in the hover and to personnel who may be working on the
area during periods of non-operation. For a winching area, with its associated obstacle limitation surfaces, it is most
likely that this will be achieved using a system of area (high-mounted) floodlighting, rather than a dedicated
surface-mounted floodlighting system.

7.3.2 However illumination of the winching area is achieved, it is important to ensure that the spectral distribution
of winching area floodlights is such that the surface markings and obstacle markings can be clearly identified. The
floodlighting arrangement should ensure that shadows are kept to a minimum.

7.3.3 Obstructions within or immediately adjacent to the manoeuvring zone which may present a hazard to the
helicopter conducting winching operations at night, need to be made readily visible from the air during night operations
and should be conspicuously illuminated.

72
 7.4 ADDITIONAL OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

7.4.1 To reduce the risk of a hoist hook or cable becoming fouled, all guard rails, awnings, stanchions, antennae
and other obstructions within the vicinity of the manoeuvring zone should, as far as possible, be either removed, lowered
or securely stowed. In addition, personnel should be kept well clear of any space immediately beneath the operating
area. All doors, portholes, skylights, hatch-covers etc. in the vicinity of the operating area should be closed. This may
also apply to deck levels that are below the operating area.

7.4.2 RFF personnel should be deployed in a ready state but sheltered from the helicopter operating area. RFF
service requirements for landing areas are addressed in Part I, Chapter 6 of this manual. Winching areas should comply
with the relevant SOLAS regulation for winching areas.

Figure I-7-1 Marking scheme for a shipboard winching area

______________________

73
 CHAPTER 8

MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS

8.1 CRITERIA FOR PARKING AREAS AND PUSH-IN PARKING AREAS

8.1.1. The ability to park a helicopter on an offshore facility or vessel and still be able to use the landing area for
other helicopter operations provides greater operational flexibility. A parking area, where provided, should be located
within the 150 degree limited obstacle sector (LOS) equipped with markings to provide effective visual cues for flight
crews needing to use the parking area.

8.1.2. It is therefore necessary for a parking area to be clearly distinguishable from the touchdown and lift-off
area (TLOF). By day, this is achieved by ensuring a good contrast between the surface markings of the landing area and
the surface markings of the parking area. For a standard dark green helideck, as described in Chapter 5, 5.10.1, a
parking area which is painted a light grey colour utilising a high friction coating, will provide suitable contrast (an
aluminium surface may be left untreated). For an untreated aluminium landing area, as described in Chapter 5, 5.1.3
and 5.10.2, it will be necessary to select a different colour finish for the parking area (preferably a darker colour than the
landing area but avoiding dark green) to achieve a good contrast. (The Figures in this chapter assume that a dark green
minimum 1 D final approach and take-off area (FATO) is provided. When an untreated aluminium landing area is
selected the underlying colour of the parking area will need to be varied to achieve good contrast).

8.1.3. Ideally, the dimensions of the parking area should accommodate a circle with a minimum diameter of 1 x
the D-value of the design helicopter. A minimum clearance between the edge of the parking area and the edge of the
landing area of 1/3 (0.33 D) based on the design helicopter should be provided. The 1/3 D clearance area represents
the parking transition area (PTA) (see Section 8.1.6) and should be kept free of obstacles when a helicopter is located in
the parking area. Figure I-8-1 defines the basic scheme for a 1 D FATO/TLOF with associated 1 D parking area:

Figure I-8-1. General arrangement — 1 D helideck landing area with associated 1 D parking area —
separated by a parking transition area (PTA)

74
8.1.4. Markings should be incorporated on the parking area surface to provide visual cues to the flight crew to
enhance safe operations. Where space (the physical surface) is limited for the parking area, it is permissible to reduce
the parking area to be no less than the rotor diameter (RD) of the design helicopter. In this case the
touchdown/positioning marking (TD/PM) circle is offset away from the landing area to ensure a parked helicopter is a
safe distance away from the landing area and is contained in the parking area within an imaginary circle of dimension D.
With a reduction in the load bearing surface of the parking area from D to RD, it is accepted that parts of the helicopter
e.g. the tail rotor or main rotor, may overhang the physical parking area (inboard). The general arrangement for a
helideck parking area with offset TD/PM circle is shown in Figure I-8-2.

Figure I-8-2. General arrangement for a helideck parking area with offset TD/PM circle

8.1.5. For some offshore facilities, it may not be practical to accommodate a full helideck parking area adjacent to
the landing area. In this case, consideration may be given to providing an extension to the landing area, known as a
limited parking area (LPA) or push-in parking area (PIPA), separated from the landing area by a PTA (see Section 8.1.6)
and designed to accommodate only a fully shutdown helicopter. In this case it is intended helicopters should be shut
down on the landing area and ground handled to and from the LPA/ PIPA. The arrangement for an LPA/PIPA is shown
in Figure I-8-3. Similar to a parking area, the LPA/PIPA is bounded by a solid white edge buffer line, and should be
painted in a colour that contrasts effectively with the landing area (and the PTA).

75
 Figure I-8-3. General arrangement for a helideck limited parking area (LPA)/ push-in parking area (PIPA)

8.1.6. In all cases, the PTA provides a sterile area between the edge of the TLOF and the edge of the parking
area or LPA/PIPA, and is used to transition the helicopter to and from the parking or LPA/PIPA, whether performing an
air taxiing or ground taxiing manoeuvre to the parking area or, in the case of a disabled helicopter, towing or pushing the
helicopter clear of the landing area (for an LPA/PIPA the helicopter will always be pushed-in). The PTA provides a
minimum 1/3 (0.33) D clearance between a static (parked) helicopter and a helicopter taking off or landing at the TLOF,
and should be painted in black for the area between the TLOF perimeter marking and the inboard perimeter of the
parking (or push-in parking) area (both defined with 30 cm (1 ft) white lines). During normal operations no part of either
helicopter, whether parked in the parking or LPA/push-in parking area, or operating into the landing area, should intrude
into the PTA. Assuming the parking area can accommodate the same size (design) helicopter as is assumed for the
landing area, there will be no requirement to provide additional markings in the PTA. The parking transition area is
shown in Figure I-8-4.

Figure I-8-4. Parking transition area (PTA)

8.1.7. To provide illumination to a parking area at night, and to ensure a pilot is able to differentiate between the
parking area and the landing area, it is recommended that deck-mounted floodlights, with louvers, be arranged along
either side of the parking area (for guidance on the number and use of floodlighting see Part I, Chapter 5, 5.13).
Alternatively, where point source (coloured) lights are preferred, or are utilized in addition to floodlights, then the colour
green should be avoided for the parking area and the associated PTA — instead blue lights are preferred. The perimeter
lights on the parking area do not need to be viewed at range, as do the TLOF perimeter lights (see Part I, Chapter 5,
5.12) and therefore parking area perimeter lights should be a blue low intensity light — no less than 5 cd at any angle of

76
elevation (and subject to a maximum of 60 cd at any angle of elevation). Lighting arrangements for parking areas and
PIPAs are illustrated in Figures I-8-5 and I-8-6 respectively.

Note. — For parking areas and limited parking areas (LPA) where hover taxi and/or ground taxi is
authorized, blue lights shall extend along the transition area and the (L)PA.

Figure I-8-5. Landing and parking area deck lighting scheme

Note. — The PIPA shall be provided with flood lighting. If hover taxi and/or ground taxi is still
allowed in the transition area (TA), the TA perimeter lights should be in a blue colour. If no taxiing is allowed in the TA,
then flood lights would also be recommended.

Figure I-8-6. Floodlighting scheme for a helideck push-in parking area (PIPA) connected via a PTA to a 0.83 D
TLOF

77
8.1.8. The following sections, supported by Figures I-8-7 and I-8-8, address how a helicopter may be taxied from
the landing area to the parking area, by reference to the 15 cm (6 in) yellow taxiway alignment line (see Figures I-8-7
and I-8-8) and then shut down on a heading which keeps the tail clear of any obstructions that may be present in the
vicinity of the parking area. Where an obstacle is in close proximity to, or infringes the parking protection area, a no nose
marking may be necessary to prevent the helicopter tail rotor from coming into line with an object as illustrated by Figure
I-8-8.

Figure I-8-7 Touchdown parking circle (TDPC) and parking circle orientation marking (PCOM)

8.1.9. Manoeuvring (360 degrees) in the PA as a hover or ground taxi operation is acceptable. The nose of the
helicopter should be located over the yellow portion of the PCOM when shutdown i.e. the nose of the helicopter should
not be located over the white portion of the PCOM circle during or while shutdown.

8.1.10 A PCOM marking can be used to avoid the tail rotor being positioned in the vicinity of an exit or emergency
exit.

8.1.11 The coverage of the white portion of the PCOM will depend on the size of the obstacle to be avoided but,
when used, it is recommended the minimum (angular) size should be no less than 30 degrees.

Figure I-8-8. No nose marking

78
8.1.12. A ‘no nose’ marking should be used to avoid the tail rotor being positioned in the vicinity of an obstacle that
is very near to, or infringes the 0.33 D parking protection area.
8.1.13 A ‘no nose’ marking provides visual cues for aircrew indicating that the ‘helicopters nose’ should not be
manoeuvred or parked in a particular direction. Figure I-8-8 shows a helicopter manoeuvring and parking orientation
restriction, to avoid infringement of a tail rotor hazard.

8.1.14 A “no nose” marking should be on a white background with a red border and the words ‘no nose’ located
on the touchdown parking circle (TDPC) as shown in (Figure I-8-8). The “no nose” marking size will depend on the size
of the area or obstacle to be avoided by the tail rotor/tail boom. It is recommended that the minimum (angular) size
should not be less than 30 degrees. One or multiple obstacles may be covered by this sector.

Note. — Consistent with the arrangements for the landing area (see Part I, Chapter 3, 3.5 for helidecks
and Part I, Chapter 3, 3.6 for shipboard heliports) provisions should be put in place for parking or limited parking/ push-in
areas/parking transition areas to ensure adequate surface drainage arrangements and a skid-resistant surface for
helicopters and persons operating on the parking or limited parking /push-in parking areas/parking transition areas.
When tying down helicopters in the parking area, it is prudent to ensure sufficient tie-down points are located about the
touchdown/positioning marking circle (see Part I, Chapter 3, 3.5.5 and 3.6.5). A method to secure a helicopter in the
push-in area should also be considered. Where necessary a safety device, whether netting or shelving, should be
located around the perimeter of the parking area or limited parking/push-in area (and the parking transition area).
Parking areas may be provided with one or more access points to allow personnel to move to and from the parking area
without having to pass through the PTA to the landing area.

8.2 METEOROLOGICAL EQUIPMENT PROVISION

8.2.1. Accurate, timely and complete meteorological observations are necessary to support safe and efficient
helicopter operations. It is recommended that manned, fixed and floating facilities and vessels are provided with an
automated means of ascertaining the following meteorological information at all times:

a) wind speed and direction (including variations in direction);

b) air temperature and dew point temperature;

c) QNH and, where applicable, QFE;

d) cloud amount and height of cloud base (above mean sea level (AMSL));

e) visibility and;

f) present weather.

8.2.2. Where a fixed, manned facility is in close proximity to another fixed, manned facility, close as determined
by the competent authority, it may not be deemed necessary for every facility to provide the above equipment, providing
those facilities which are equipped are given to make their information routinely available to the others. For other
facilities, a manual means of verifying and updating the visual elements of an observation, i.e. cloud amount and height
of base, visibility and present weather, may be used. For not permanently attended installations (NPAIs) and for those
fixed and floating facilities and vessels deemed to have a low movement rate, as determined by the competent authority,
it may be acceptable just to provide the basic elements of wind, pressure, air temperature and dew point temperature
information.

8.2.3 Contingency meteorological observing equipment providing manual measurements of air and dew point
temperatures, wind speed direction and pressure is recommended to be provided in case of the failure or unavailability
of the automated sensors. It is recommended that personnel who carry out meteorological observations undergo
appropriate training for the role and complete periodic refresher training to maintain competency.

79
8.2.4. Equipment sensors used to provide the data listed in Section 8.2.1. a) to f) should be periodically
calibrated in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations in order to demonstrate continuing adequacy for
purpose.

8.2.5. Additional guidance relating to the provision of meteorological information from offshore facilities and
vessels may be contained in Annex 3 — Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation.

8.3 DECK MOTIONS REPORTING AND RECORDING

8.3.1. Floating facilities and vessels experience dynamic motions due to wave action, which represent a potential
hazard to helicopter operations. Although the ability of a floating facility or vessel to sometimes manoeuvre may be
helpful in providing an acceptable wind direction in relation to the helideck/shipboard heliport location, it is likely that
floating facilities and vessels will still suffer downtime due to excessive deck motions. Downtime can be minimized by
careful consideration of the location of the landing area at the design stage (see Part I, Chapter 3, 3.2.5). However, to a
greater or lesser degree floating facilities and vessels remain subject to movement at the helideck/heliport in pitch and
roll, in deck inclination and in heave (usually measured as rate of heave).

8.3.2. It is necessary for these motions to be recorded by the use of an electronic helideck motion system (HMS)
and reported as part of the overall offshore weather report (see Section 8.2.5), prior to landing and during helicopter
movements. An HMS should be equipped with a colour-coded display which allows a trained operative to easily
determine whether the landing area is in-limits, or is out of limits; or is moving towards a condition where it may soon be
out-of-limits. Motions at the helideck/heliport should be reported to the helicopter operator to an accuracy of one decimal
place. The helicopter pilot, in order to make vital safety decisions, is concerned with the degree of inclination on and the
rate of movement of the helideck surface. It is therefore important that reported values are only related to the true
vertical and do not relate to any false datum created, for example, by a list created by anchor patterns or displacement.

8.3.3. Research indicates that the likelihood of a helicopter tipping or sliding while touched down on a helideck or
shipboard heliport (especially with rotors running, turning and burning on the landing area) is directly related to
helideck/heliport accelerations and to the prevailing wind conditions. Ideally an HMS should incorporate additional
software which allows for on-deck motion severity and wind severity index limits to be recorded and communicated to
aircrew; in a similar way that pre-landing limits are disseminated to a pilot.

8.3.4. To provide aircrew with a visual indication of the current status of a helideck/shipboard heliport it may be
helpful to employ a traffic light system consisting of three lights mounted at three to four locations around the edge of a
helideck/heliport. These lights should avoid the use of the colour green (green is used for TLOF perimeter lights), but
could consist of blue/amber and red, where blue is safe within limits, amber is moving out of limits towards an unsafe
condition and red is out of limits: unsafe condition.

8.4 COMMUNICATIONS AND NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT

8.4.1. On most facilities, fixed and floating, and on vessels, the radio operator (RO) is the initial and final point of
contact between flight crew and the facility/vessel. However, as continuous line of sight to the landing area is often not
possible to provide from the radio room, it is advisable to equip helideck/heliport personnel (e.g. HLOs and helideck
assistants (HDAs)) with portable aeronautical headsets, the use in which they should be suitably trained.

8.4.2. A major advantage of having a radio-equipped person on the helideck/heliport is that they can maintain
visual as well as radio communication during the circuit, final approach and landing, therefore providing the helicopter
crew with further positive identification of the facility (or vessel) and thereby reducing the incidence for a wrong deck
landing (see also Part I, Chapter 5, 5.1.5). A radio-equipped person is also in a good position to warn of any developing
issues while the helicopter is on deck.

8.4.3. Hand-over and general R/T procedures employed should be standard R/T phrases and vocabulary only, to
avoid misunderstandings. Communications should be kept brief avoiding any unnecessary chatter on the selected
aeronautical frequency and should be confined to essential dialogue between flight crew and the HLO.

80
8.4.4. Offshore fixed and floating facilities and vessels which have aeronautical radio equipment and/or
aeronautical non-directional beacons (NDBs) on them, should hold a valid approval issued by the State in which they
operate.

8.5 HELICOPTER REFUELLING OPERATIONS

8.5.1. It is essential to ensure at all times that aviation fuel delivered to helicopters from offshore facilities and
vessels is of the highest quality. A major contributor towards ensuring that fuel quality is maintained, and contamination
prevented, is to provide clear unambiguous product identification on all system components and pipelines denoting the
fuel type (e.g. Jet A-1) following the standard aviation convention for markings and colour code. Markings should be
applied initially during systems manufacture and routinely checked for clarity during subsequent maintenance
inspections.

8.5.2. It should be noted that an offshore fuelling system may vary according to the particular application for
which it was designed. Nevertheless the elements of all offshore fuelling systems are similar and will include:

a) storage tanks;

b) static storage facilities, and if installed, a sample reclaim tank;

c) a pumping system; and

d) a delivery system.

8.5.3. When preparing a layout design for aviation fuelling systems on offshore facilities and vessels it is
important to make provisions for suitable segregation and bunding of the areas set aside for the tankage and delivery
system. Facilities for containing possible fuel leakage and providing fire control should be given full and proper
consideration, along with adequate protection from potential dropped objects. The design of the elements of an offshore
fuelling system is not addressed in detail in this manual. For detailed guidance refer to the Air Transport Association
Specification 103 (Standard for Jet Fuel Quality Control at Airports).

8.5.4. Fuel storage, handling and quality control are key elements for ensuring, at all times, the safety of aircraft
in flight. For this reason, personnel assigned refuelling responsibilities should be certified as properly trained and
competent to undertake systems maintenance, inspection and fuelling of helicopters.

8.5.5. Throughout the critical processes of aviation fuel system maintenance and fuelling operations, routine fuel
sampling is required to ensure delivered fuel is scrupulously clean and free from contamination that may otherwise enter
helicopter fuel tanks and could ultimately result in engine malfunctions.

8.5.6. Fuel samples drawn from transit/static storage tanks and the fuel delivery system should be retained in
appropriate containers for a specified period. The containers should be kept in a secure light-excluding store and kept
away from sunlight until they are disposed of.

8.5.7. Guidance on the design of containers is provided by the International Air Transport Association (IATA).
The IATA fuel guidelines provide an essential set of standards designed to ensure safe and efficient aircraft fuel
handling and contribute to training of fuelling operatives for oil companies or into-plane service providers.

8.6 BIRD CONTROL AT NORMALLY UNATTENDED OFFSHORE FACILITIES

8.6.1. Bird guano infestations may be routinely encountered, particularly at NPAIs, and especially at certain times
of the year for facilities located in proximity to bird migratory routes. (The problem is most severe at not permanently
attended facilities since, at attended facilities, on-board activities will tend to scare the birds away). The effects of bird

81
guano infestation are many and include threats to safe flight operations (e.g. potential for a bird strike during an
approach), the obliteration of essential markings (so making touchdown/positioning inaccuracies more likely), a
reduction in the friction qualities of the surface (leading to a helicopter sliding over the deck surface) and effects on
personnel health and safety due to the highly toxic and slippery-when-wet nature of guano (e.g. effect on the lungs due
to inhalation of dried guano dust, slips and trips on wet-guano surfaces). Also to consider are the additional costs
incurred through a requirement for more regular maintenance of static equipment on a facility, of damage caused to the
interior of the helicopter (guano is trodden into floor surfaces) and the need to perform high-pressure cleaning on a
regular basis to restore the integrity of markings, etc.

8.6.2 Problems caused by the presence of sea birds and guano infestation on or around the landing area should
be noted and reported by flight crews. Significant surface contamination is likely to incur flight restrictions where, for
example, the build-up of guano has a detrimental effect on the interpretation of surface markings and an inability to
maintain an adequate friction surface. Routinely, for affected facilities, flight crew should be encouraged to complete and
file helideck condition reports that indicate the current condition of the surface, of helideck lighting (including any
outages) and of the windsock (including illumination).

8.6.3 Experience over time in various sectors would suggest that finding permanent solutions to the guano/bird
problem can be challenging, such are the forces of nature. Consequently, determining an optimum solution to the
problem has proven elusive. In the past, active measures taken to discourage sea birds from roosting on helidecks has
included visual deterrents, different audio deterrents (e.g. distress calls) and even combined audio/visual deterrents that
build-in random changes such as to the distress call. However, over a passage of time, birds have tended to habituate to
any of these solutions that involve audio and/or visual deterrents, even where these incorporate random changes.

8.6.4. One possible solution that has been found to be more effective than most of the aforementioned, is the
application of pressurised water-spray systems, to which birds do not appear to readily habituate (pressurized water
could be delivered from an automated fire-fighting deck integrated fire-fighting system (DIFFS) or a ring-main system
(RMS) where bird activities are being monitored, at the beach or on a normally attended platform, via a remotely
operated TV system (ROTS). When water combined with an effective bird scaring device is activated automatically as
birds are detected around the landing area, these combinations have proven to be relatively effective in dispersing birds
that may have encroached onto the helideck. However, in general, it is fair to conclude that current bird-exclusion
methods have, at best, been only partially successful; so there would seem to be room for more innovative approaches
to bird control measures at helidecks.

______________________

82
 APPENDIX I-A

Sample risk assessment

for helicopter operations to helidecks and shipboard heliports
which are sub-1 D
Table I-A-1 could form the basis of an aeronautical study (risk assessment) conducted by, or on behalf of, an offshore
helicopter operator when intending to service helidecks or shipboard heliports with limited touchdown directions using
helicopters with an overall length (D) greater than the design D of the touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF) (referred to in this
document as a sub-1 D operation). The assumption is made that sub-1 D operations will only be considered in the following
circumstances and when applying the following conditions:

a) for a helideck that provides a load bearing surface (represented by the TLOF) of between 0.83 D and 1 D,
a minimum 1 D circle (representing the final approach and take-off area (FATO)) should be assured for the
containment of the helicopter. From the periphery of the FATO (not the TLOF) the limited obstacle sector
(LOS) extends; the non-load-bearing area between the TLOF perimeter and the FATO perimeter should be
entirely free of ‘non-permitted’ obstacles, while ensuring that any permitted objects present for the safety of
operation, that are located on or around the TLOF perimeter, should not exceed the obstruction height
criteria set out in e) below;

b) this assessment may be considered for any helideck on a fixed offshore installation. A floating installation
or vessel that is subject to dynamic motions may be considered provided deck motions are maintained
within benign limits as determined by the State of operation, e.g. stable deck conditions – specified criteria
in pitch roll and heave;

c) this assessment when applied to helidecks completed on or before 1 January 2012, or shipboard heliports
completed on or before 1 January 2015, may take advantage of an Annex 14 Volume II alleviation
permitting the outboard edge of the (approximately) 1.5 m (5 ft) helideck perimeter netting to extend above
the level of the landing area by no more than 25 cm (10 in). However, for helidecks completed on or after 1
January 2012 and shipboard heliports completed on or after 1 January 2015, Annex 14 — Aerodromes,
Volume II — Heliports requires that the height of the helideck safety net should be no greater than the
adjacent helideck load-bearing surface (TLOF);

c) for helidecks that are less than 1 D and/or having a D-value which is 16.00 m (52.5 ft) or less, Annex 14
Volume II prescribes the height limit for essential objects around the edge of the TLOF, and in the 1st
segment of the LOS, to be 5 cm (2 in). “Essential objects” permitted around the edge of the TLOF are
notified in Part I, Chapter 3 of this manual and include helideck guttering with raised kerb, helideck lighting
systems and foam monitors (or ring-main system) where provided;

d) Figure I-A-1 illustrates a 0.83 D minimum size TLOF. The inner circle bounded by the octagonal-shaped
helideck represents the sub-1 D TLOF (in the illustration a 0.83 D load bearing surface). The outer circle
illustrates the 1 D FATO which provides containment of the helicopter and from which is derived the origin
of the LOS. Where practical, the chevron denoting the origin of the LOS should be physically marked at the
periphery of the FATO, (see Part I, Chapter 5, 5.9.5 and Figure I-5-8). The diameter of the FATO is the
declared D-value, marked at the chevron;

e) operations to sub-1 D helidecks and shipboard heliports should not be considered below 0.83 D.

83
 Issues to be addressed Considerations/mitigations accounting for compromise

Reduction of the distance from helideck It is essential that clearance from obstacles in the LOS is maintained; for this reason, the sub-1 D TLOF should be surrounded
(TLOF) centre to the limited obstacle by a 1 D circle (the FATO) that is (with the exception of permitted objects) free of any obstacles. To ensure that obstacle
sector (LOS) (denoting the origin of the clearances are maintained for the helicopter, the touchdown and positioning marking circle (TD/PM) should be 0.5 of the
1st and 2nd segments) notional 1 D FATO (not of the TLOF), and located at the centre of the TLOF; never offset.

Reduction of suitable and sufficient Adequate visual cues provided for aircrew are essential for the conduct of safe operations to helidecks. On a sub-1 D helideck,
visual references required for the pilot or shipboard heliport with limited touchdown directions, these will, to some degree, be compromised. An aeronautical study
during all flight phases. should ensure that visual cues, within the field of view (FOV] are adequate for aircrew to perform the following visual tasks:

a) identification of helideck location early on in the approach;

b) visual cues to help maintain the sight picture during approach;
c) visual cues on final approach to hover position;
d) visual cues for landing; and
e) visual references on lift-off and hover

It is important that helideck markings and deck mounted lighting (where provided) remain uncontaminated at all times (e.g.
deposits of guano on the surface of a helideck, or shipboard heliport, may compromise markings and/or deck-mounted
lighting). A windsock should be provided to facilitate an accurate indication of wind direction and strength over the helideck.
For night operations, lighting systems should include effective obstruction lighting in addition to helideck lighting and an
illuminated windsock.

Reduction of the space available for A reduction of the operating area entails that clearances between passengers/crew moving around the helideck or shipboard
passengers and crew to safely alight and heliport, avoiding the helicopter’s rotor systems by a safe margin are reduced. This reduction should be considered on a
embark the helicopter and to transit to helicopter-type specific basis. It should be ensured that sufficient access points are available to avoid the situation where
and from the operating area safely. passengers and crew have to pass close to helicopter ‘no-go’ areas (e.g. in relation to main and tail rotor systems). Where
personnel are required to transit close to the deck edge, procedures should be considered to assure the safe movement of
passengers.

Reduction of the space available for The surface area available should accommodate a sufficient tie-down pattern arrangement to allow the most critical
securing helicopters, for the conduct of helicopter(s) to be tied-down (where required). Where refuelling operations are required, the area available around the
safe and efficient refuelling operations helicopter should allow this to occur safely and efficiently at all times. Sufficient access points should be provided to allow
(where provided) and for post-crash helideck fire and rescue teams to move to the scene of an incident or accident from an upwind location and to allow
teams to provide effective fire and passengers to escape downwind to safety.
rescue intervention in the event of an
incident or accident occurring.

Helicopter elements will be over According to Annex 14 Volume II, the permitted height for essential objects located around the TLOF in the 210° obstacle-free
permitted essential objects at the edge sector and in the 1st segment of the 150° limited obstacle sector was reduced from 25 cm (10 in) to 5 cm (2 in) for a TLOF
of the TLOF. which is less than 1 D and/or 16.00 m (52.5 ft) or less. For new builds this is regarded as adequate mitigation for the reduction
of the dimension of the load bearing area to address the presence of non-frangible objects which because of their function are
required to be located immediately around the TLOF.

84
 Issues to be addressed Considerations/mitigations accounting for compromise

Reduction of built-in margin to allow for It should be assumed that even amongst experienced, well trained aircrew there will inevitably be some degree of variability in
touchdown/positioning inaccuracies the actual point of touchdown within the landing area. The TD/PM circle provides an effective visual reference to guide the
during landing. handling pilot to the point of touchdown but scatter has potential to occur, particularly when external factors beyond a pilot’s
control come into play. This may include the influences of prevailing meteorological conditions at the time of landing (e.g. wind,
precipitation etc.), and/or any helideck environmental effects encountered (e.g. turbulence, thermal effects). It is essential that
a good visual means of assessing wind strength and direction is always provided for the pilot by day and by night. Markings
should be kept free of contamination which may reduce a pilot’s ability to touchdown accurately. The TD/PM circle and “H”
should be lit (or adequately illuminated) for night operations.

Reduction of helpful ground cushion It is a condition of Annex 14 Volume II that the TLOF should provide ground effect. A reduction of the load bearing area
effect from rotor downwash (TLOF) for sub-1 D operations means that the beneficial effect of ground cushion will likely suffer some reduction. The
reduction of helpful ground cushion needs to be considered particularly when operating to a sub-1D helideck with a perforated
surface i.e. helideck designs that incorporate a passive fire-retarding feature which allows unburned fuel to drain away through
specially manufactured holes, forming a drain-hole pattern over the surface of the TLOF.

85
Figure I-A-1. Obstacle limitation surface and sectors for a 0.83 D TLOF

______________________

86
 APPENDIX I-B

Specification for helideck lighting scheme comprising:

perimeter lights, lit touchdown/positioning marking and
lit heliport identification marking

1. OVERALL OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT

0
1.1 The lighting configuration should be designed to be visible over a range of 360 in azimuth. It is possible,
however, that on some offshore installations the lighting may be obscured from the pilots’ view by topsides structure when
viewed from some directions. The design of the helideck lighting is not required to address any such obscuration.

1.2 The visibility of the lighting configuration should be compatible with the normal range of helicopter vertical
approach paths from a range of 2 NM.

1.3 The purpose of the lighting configuration is to aid the helicopter pilot perform the necessary visual tasks during
approach and landing as stated in Table I-B-1.

Table I-B-1 Visual tasks during approach and landing

Desired Range (NM)
Phase of
Visual Task Visual Cues/ Aids 5 000 m 1 400 m
Approach
met. vis. met. vis.
Helideck location Search within platform - shape of helideck;
and identification structure. - colour of helideck; 1.5 0.75
- luminance of helideck; and (2.8 km) (1.4 km)
- perimeter lighting.
Final approach Detect helicopter position in - apparent size/shape and
three axes. change of size/shape of
helideck; and 1.0 0.5
Detect rate of change of - orientation and change of (1.8 km) (900 m)
position. orientation of known features/
markings/lights.
Hover and landing Detect helicopter attitude - known features/markings/
position and rate of change lights; and 0.03 0.03
of position in three axes - helideck texture. (50 m) (50 m)
(six degrees of freedom).

1.4 The minimum intensities of the lighting configuration should be adequate to ensure that, for a minimum
-6.1
meteorological visibility (met. vis.) of 1 400 m and an illuminance threshold of 10 lux, each feature of the system is visible
and useable at night from ranges in accordance with the following:

a) the perimeter lights are to be visible and usable at night from a minimum range of 0.75 NM;

b) the touchdown/positioning marking (TD/PM) circle on the helideck is to be visible and usable at night from
a range of 0.5 NM; and

c) the heliport identification marking (‘H’) is visible and usable at night from a range of 0.25 NM.

1.5 The minimum ranges at which the TD/PM Circle and ‘H’ are visible and useable should still be achieved even
where a correctly fitted landing net covers the lighting.

87
1.6 The design of the perimeter lights, TD/PM Circle and ‘H’ should be such that the luminance of the perimeter
lights is equal to or greater than that of the TD/PM circle segments, and the luminance of the TD/PM circle segments equal to
or greater than that of the ‘H’.

1.7 The design of the TD/PM Circle and ‘H’ should include a facility to enable their intensity to be increased by up
to approximately two times the figures given in this specification to permit a once-off (tamper proof) adjustment at installation;
0
the average intensity over 360 in azimuth at each elevation should not exceed the maximum figures. The purpose of this
facility is to ensure adequate performance at installations with high levels of background lighting without risking glare at less
well-lit installations. The TD/PM Circle and ‘H’ should be adjusted together using a single control to ensure that the balance
of the overall lighting system is maintained in both the ‘standard’ and ‘bright’ settings.

2. DEFINITIONS

2.1 The following definitions should apply:

2.1.1 Lighting Element. A lighting element is a light source within a segment or sub-section and may be discrete (e.g.
a Light Emitting Diode (LED)) or continuous (e.g. fibre optic cable, electro luminescent panel). An individual lighting element
may consist of a single light source or multiple light sources arranged in a group or cluster and may include a lens/diffuser.

2.1.2 Segment. A segment is a section of the TD/PM circle lighting. For the purposes of this specification, the
dimensions of a segment are the length and width of the smallest possible rectangular area that is defined by the outer edges
of the lighting elements, including any lenses/diffusers.

2.1.3 Sub-section. A sub-section is an individual section of the ‘H’ lighting. For the purposes of this specification, the
dimensions of a sub-section are the length and width of the smallest possible rectangular area that is defined by the outer
edges of the lighting elements, including any lenses/diffusers.

3. THE PERIMETER LIGHT REQUIREMENT

3.1 Configuration

3.1.1 Perimeter lights, spaced at intervals of not more than 3 m, should be fitted around the perimeter of the landing
area.

3.2 Mechanical Constraints

3.2.1 For any helideck 1 D or greater, where also the D-value is greater than 16.00 m (52.5 ft), the perimeter lights
should not exceed a height of 25 cm (10 in), but ideally 15 cm (6 in), above the surface of the helideck. Where a helideck has
a D-value of 16.00 m (52.5 ft) or less and/or is less than 1 D the perimeter lights should not exceed a height of 5 cm above
the surface of the helideck.

3.3 Light Intensity

3.3.1 The minimum light intensity profile is given in Table I-B-2 below:

Table I-B-2 Minimum light intensity profile for perimeter lights

Elevation Azimuth Intensity (min)
0 0 0 0
0 to 10 -180 to +180 30 cd
0 0 0 0
>10 to 20 -180 to +180 15 cd
0 0 0 0
> 20 to 90 -180 to +180 3 cd

3.3.2 No perimeter light should have an intensity of greater than 60 cd at any angle of elevation. Note that the design
of the perimeter lights should be such that the luminance of the perimeter lights is equal to or greater than that of the TD/PM
Circle segments.

3.4 Colour

3.4.1 The colour of the light emitted by the perimeter lights should be green, as defined in Annex 14, Volume 1
Appendix 1, paragraph 2.3.1(c), whose chromaticity lies within the following boundaries:

88
 Yellow boundary x = 0.310
White boundary x = 0.625 y – 0.041
Blue boundary y = 0.400

3.4.2 The above assumes that solid state light sources are used. Annex 14 Volume 1, Appendix 1, paragraph 2.1.1
(c) should be applied if filament light sources are used.

3.5 Serviceability

3.5.1 The perimeter lighting is considered serviceable provided that at least 90 per cent of the lights are serviceable,
and providing that any unserviceable lights are not adjacent to each other.

4. THE TOUCHDOWN/POSITIONING MARKING CIRCLE REQUIREMENT

4.1 Configuration

4.1.1 The lit TD/PM circle should be superimposed on the yellow painted marking, such that it is concentric with the
painted circle and contained within it. It should comprise one or more concentric circles of at least sixteen discrete lighting
segments, of at least 40 mm (1.5 in) minimum width. The segments should either be straight or curve in sympathy with the
painted circle. A single circle should be positioned such that the radius of the circle formed by the centre line of the lighting
segments is within 10 cm (4 in) of the mean radius of the painted circle. Multiple circles should be symmetrically disposed
about the mean radius of the painted circle, each circle individually meeting the specification contained in this appendix. The
lighting segments should be of such a length as to provide coverage of between 50 per cent and 75 per cent of the
circumference and be equidistantly placed with the gaps between them not less than 0.5 m (1.6 ft). A single non-standard
gap up to 25 per cent larger or smaller than the remainder of the circle is permitted at one location to facilitate cable entry.
The mechanical housing should be coloured yellow.

4.2 Mechanical constraints

4.2.1 The height of the lit TD/PM circle fixtures (e.g. segments) and any associated cabling should be as low as
possible and should not exceed 25 mm (1 in). The overall height of the system, taking account of any mounting
arrangements, should be kept to a minimum. So as not to present a trip hazard, the segments should not present any vertical
0
outside edge greater than 6 mm (0.2 in) without chamfering at an angle not exceeding 30 from the horizontal.

4.2.2 The overall effect of the lighting segments and cabling on deck friction should be minimised. Wherever
practical, the surfaces of the lighting segments should meet the minimum deck friction limit coefficient () of 0.65, e.g. on
non-illuminated surfaces.

4.2.3 The TD/PM circle lighting components, fitments and cabling should be able to withstand a pressure of at least
2 2
1 655 kPa (240 lbs/in ) and ideally 3 250 kPa (471 lbs/in ) without damage.

4.3 Intensity

4.3.1 The light intensity for each of the lighting segments, when viewed at angles of azimuth over the range + 80° to -
80° from the normal to the longitudinal axis of the strip (see Figure I-B-1), should be as defined in Table I-B-3.

Table I-B-3 Light intensity for lighting segments on the TD/PM circle
Intensity
Elevation
Min Max
0 0
0 to 10 As a function of segment length as 60 cd
defined in Figure I-B-2.
0 0 0 0
> 10 to 20 25% of min intensity > 0 to 10 45 cd
0 0 0 0
> 20 to 90 5% of min intensity > 0 to 10 15 cd

4.3.2 For the remaining angles of azimuth on either side of the longitudinal axis of the segment, the maximum
intensity should be as defined in Table I-B-3.

4.3.3 The intensity of each lighting segment should be nominally symmetrical about its longitudinal axis. The design
of the TD/PM circle should be such that the luminance of the TD/PM circle segments is equal to or greater than the sub-
sections of the ‘H’.

89
 Figure I-B-1. TD/PM segment measurement axis system

20
18
Segment intensity (cd)

16
14
12
10
8
6
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Segment length (m)

Figure I-B-2. TD/PM Segment intensity versus segment length

Note.— Given the minimum gap size of 0.5 m (1.6 ft) and the minimum coverage of 50 per cent, the minimum
segment length is 0.5 m (1.6 ft). The maximum segment length depends on deck size but is given by selecting the minimum
number of segments (16) and the maximum coverage (75 per cent).

4.3.4 If a segment is made up of a number of individual lighting elements (e.g. LED’s) then they should be of the
same nominal performance (i.e. within manufacturing tolerances) and be equidistantly spaced throughout the segment to aid
textural cueing. Minimum spacing between the illuminated areas of the lighting elements should be 3 cm (1.2 in) and
maximum spacing 10 cm (4 in).

4.3.5 On the assumption that the intensities of the lighting elements will add linearly at longer viewing ranges where
intensity is more important, the minimum intensity of each lighting element (i) should be given by the formula:
i=I/n
where: I = required minimum intensity of segment at the ‘look down’
(elevation) angle (see Table I-B-3).
n = the number of lighting elements within the segment.

Note.—The maximum intensity of a lighting element at each angle of elevation should also be divided by the
number of lighting elements within the segment.
90
4.3.6 If the segment comprises a continuous lighting element (e.g. fibre optic cable, electro luminescent panel), then
to achieve textural cueing at short range, the element should be masked at 3 cm (1.2 in) intervals on a 1:1 mark-space ratio.

4.4 Colour

4.4.1 The colour of the light emitted by the TD/PM circle should be yellow, as defined in Annex 14, Volume 1
Appendix 1, paragraph 2.3.1(b), whose chromaticity is within the following boundaries:

Red boundary y = 0.387

White boundary y = 0.980 – x
Green boundary y = 0.727x + 0.054

4.4.2 The above assumes that solid state light sources are used. Annex 14 Volume 1, Appendix 1, paragraph 2.1.1
(c) should be applied if filament light sources are used.

4.5 Serviceability

4.5.1 The TD/PM circle: At least 90 per cent of the lighting elements should be operating for the TD/PM circle to be
considered serviceable.

5. THE HELIPORT IDENTIFICATION MARKING REQUIREMENT

5.1 Configuration

5.1.1 The lit heliport identification marking (‘H’) should be superimposed on the 4 m x 3 m (13 ft x 10 ft) white painted
‘H’ (limb width 0.75 m (2.5 ft)). The lit ‘H’ should be 3.9 m to 4.1 m (13 ft x 13.5 ft) high, 2.9 to 3.1 m (9.5 ft x 10 ft) wide and
have a stroke width of 0.7 m to 0.8 m (2.3 ft x 2.6 ft). The centre point of the lit ‘H’ may be offset from the centre point of the
painted ‘H’ in any direction by up to 10 cm (4 in) in order to facilitate installation (e.g. avoid a DIFFS nozzle on the helideck
surface). The limbs should be lit in outline form as shown in Figure I-B-3.

Figure I-B-3. Configuration and nominal dimensions of heliport identification marking ‘H’

5.1.2 An outline lit ‘H’ should comprise sub-sections of between 80 mm (3 in) and 100 mm (4 in) wide around the
outer edge of the painted ‘H’ (see Figure I-B-3). There are no restrictions on the length of the sub-sections, but the gaps
between them should not be greater than 10 cm (4 in). The mechanical housing should be coloured white.

5.2 Mechanical constraints

5.2.1 The height of the lit ‘H’ fixtures (e.g. subsections) and any associated cabling should be as low as possible and
should not exceed 25 mm (1 in). The overall height of the system, taking account of any mounting arrangements, should be
kept to a minimum. So as not to present a trip hazard, the lighting strips should not present any vertical outside edge greater
0
than 6 mm (0.2 in) without chamfering at an angle not exceeding 30 from the horizontal.

91
5.2.2 The overall effect of the lighting sub-sections and cabling on deck friction should be minimised. Wherever
practical, the surfaces of the lighting sub-sections should meet the minimum deck friction limit coefficient () of 0.65, e.g. on
non-illuminated surfaces.

5.2.3 The ’H’ lighting components, fitments and cabling should be able to withstand a pressure of at least 1 655 kPa
2 2
(240 lbs/in ) and ideally 3 250 kPa (471 lbs/in ) without damage.

5.3 Intensity
5.3.1 The intensity of the lighting along the 4 m (13 ft) edge of an outline ‘H’ over all angles of azimuth is given in
Table I-B-4 below.

Table I-B-4. Light Intensity of the 4 m edge of the ‘H’

Elevation Intensity
Min Max
0 0
2 to 12 3.5 cd 60 cd
0 0
>12 to 20 0.5 cd 30 cd
0 0
>20 to 90 0.2 cd 10 cd

Note.—For the purposes of demonstrating compliance with this specification, a sub-section of the lighting forming
the 4 m (13 ft)edge of the ‘H’ may be used. The minimum length of the sub-section should be 0.5 m (1.6 ft). When testing a
0
sub-section, the light intensities defined in Table I-B-4 apply only when viewed at angles of azimuth over the range +80 to -
0
80 from the normal to the longitudinal axis of the strip (see Figure 1). For the remaining angles of azimuth on either side of
the longitudinal axis of the sub-section, the maximum intensity should be as defined in Table I-B-4.

5.3.2 The outline of the H should be formed using the same lighting elements throughout.

5.3.3 If a sub-section is made up of individual lighting elements (e.g. LED’s) then they should be of nominally
identical performance (i.e. within manufacturing tolerances) and be equidistantly spaced within the sub-section to aid textural
cueing. Minimum spacing between the illuminated areas of the lighting elements should be 3 cm (1.2 in) and maximum
spacing 10 cm (4 in).

5.3.4 With reference to paragraph 4.3.5, due to the shorter viewing ranges for the ‘H’ and the low intensities involved,
0 0
the minimum intensity of each lighting element (i) for all angles of elevation (i.e. 2 to 90 ) should be given by the formula:

i=I/n
where: I = required minimum intensity of sub-section at the ‘look down’
0 0
(elevation) angle between 2 and 12 (see Table I-B-4).
n = the number of lighting elements within the sub-section

Note.—The maximum intensity of each lighting element at any angle of elevation should be the maximum between
0 0
2 and 12 (see Table 4) divided by the number of lighting elements within the sub-section.

5.3.5 If the ‘H’ is constructed from a continuous light element (e.g. fibre optic cables or panels, electroluminescent
panels), the luminance (B) of the 4 m (13 ft) edge of the outline ‘H’ should be given by the formula:

B= I / A
where:I = intensity of the limb (see Table I-B-4).
A = the projected lit area at the ‘look down’ (elevation) angle

5.3.6 If the sub-section comprises a continuous lighting element (e.g. fibre optic cable, electro luminescent panel),
then to achieve textural cueing at short range, the element should be masked at 3 cm (1.2 in) intervals on a 1:1 mark space
ratio.

5.4 Colour

5.4.1 The colour of the ‘H’ should be green, as defined in Annex 14 Volume 1 Appendix 1, paragraph 2.3.1(c), whose
chromaticity is within the following boundaries:

Yellow boundary x = 0.310

White boundary x = 0.625y – 0.041
Blue boundary y = 0.400

5.4.2 The above assumes that solid state light sources are used. Annex 14 Volume 1, Appendix 1, paragraph 2.1.1
(c) should be applied if filament light sources are used.

92
5.5 Serviceability

5.5.1 The ‘H’: At least 90 per cent of the lighting elements should be operating for the ‘H’ to be considered
serviceable.

6. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

6.1 The general characteristics detailed in below apply to perimeter lighting as well as the TD/PM circle and ‘H’
lighting except where otherwise stated.

6.2 Requirements

6.2.1 The following items are fully defined and form firm requirements.

6.1.1 All lighting components should be tested by an independent test house. The photometrical and colour
measurements performed in the optical department of this test house should be accredited according to the version of EN
0 0
ISO/IEC 17025 current at the time of the testing. The angular sampling intervals should be: every 10 in azimuth; every 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
from 0 to 10 ; every 2 from 10 to 20 and every 5 from 20 to 90 in elevation.

6.1.2 As regards, the attachment of the TD/PM circle and ‘H’ to the helideck, the failure mode requiring consideration
is detachment of components of the TD/PM circle and ‘H’ lighting due to shear loads generated during helicopter landings.
The maximum horizontal load may be assumed to be the maximum take-off mass (MTOM) of the largest helicopter for which
the helideck is designed multiplied by 0.5, distributed equally between the main undercarriage legs. This requirement applies
to components of the circle and H lighting having an installed height greater than 6 mm (0.2 in) and a plan view area greater
2 2
than or equal to 200 cm (6.6 ft ).

Note. 1—Example – for a helicopter MTOM of 14 600 kg (32 187 lbs), a horizontal load of 35.8 kN should be
assumed.
2 2
Note. 2—For components having plan areas up to and including 1 000 cm (33 ft ), the horizontal load may be
assumed to be shared equally between all fasteners providing they are approximately equally spaced. For larger
components, the distribution of horizontal loads should be considered.

6.1.3 Provision should be included in the design and installation of the system to allow for the effective drainage of
the helideck areas inside the TD/PM circle and the ‘H’ lighting. The design of the lighting and its installation should be such
that, when mounted on a smooth flat plate with a slope of 1:100, a fluid spill of 200 litres inside the ‘H’ lighting will drain from
the circle within 2 minutes. The maximum drainage time applies primarily to aviation fuel, but water may be used for test
purposes. The maximum drainage time does not apply to fire-fighting agents.

Note.— Drainage may be demonstrated using a mock-up of a one quarter segment of a helideck of D-value at
least 20.00 m, configured as shown in Figure I-B-4, and a fluid quantity of 100 litres. The surface of the test helideck should
have a white or light-coloured finish and the water (or other fluid used for the test) should be of a contrasting colour (e.g. by
use of a suitable dye) to assist the detection of fluid remaining after 2 minutes.

Figure I-B-4. Configuration of quarter segment drainage test mock-up

93
6.2 Other considerations

6.2.1 The considerations detailed in this section are presented to make equipment designers aware of the operating
environment and customer expectations during the design of products or systems. They do not represent formal
requirements but are desirable design considerations of a good lighting system.

6.2.2 All lighting components and fitments should meet safety regulations relevant to a helideck environment such as
explosion proofing (Zone 1 or 2 as appropriate) and flammability and be tested by a notified body in accordance with the
equipment for potentially explosive atmospheres (ATEX) directive or equivalent locally applicable hazardous area certification
standards.

6.2.3 All lighting components and fitments installed on the surface of the helideck should be resistant to attack by
fluids that they will likely or inevitably be exposed to such as: fuel, hydraulic fluid, helicopter engine and gearbox oils; those
used for de-icing, cleaning and fire-fighting; any fluids used in the assembly or installation of the lighting e.g. thread locking
fluid. In addition, they should be resistant to ultraviolet (UV) light, rain, sea spray, guano, snow and ice. Components should
be immersed in each of the fluids individually for a period representative of the likely exposure in-service and then checked to
ensure no degradation of mechanical properties (i.e. surface friction and resistance to contact pressure), any discolouration,
or any clouding of lenses/diffusers. Any other substances that may come into contact with the system, that may cause
damage, should be identified in the installation and maintenance documentation.

6.2.4 All lighting components and fitments that are mounted on the surface of the helideck should be able to operate
within a temperature range appropriate for the local ambient conditions.

6.2.5 All cabling should utilise low smoke/toxicity, flame retardant cable. Any through-the-deck cable routing and
connections should use sealed glands, type approved for helideck use.

6.2.6 All lighting components and fitments should meet International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) International
Protection (IP) standards according to the version of IEC 60529 current at the time of testing appropriate to their location, use
and recommended cleaning procedures. The intent is that the equipment should be compatible with deck cleaning activities
using pressure washers and local floodlight (i.e. puddling) on the surface of the helideck. It is expected that this will entail
meeting at least IP66 (dust tight and resistant to powerful water jetting), IP67,(dust tight and temporary submersion in water)
and/or IP69 (dust tight and resistant to close range high pressure, high temperature jetting) should also be considered and
applied where appropriate.

Note.— Except where flush mounted (e.g. where used to delineate the landing area from an adjacent parking
area), perimeter lights need only to meet IP66. Lighting equipment mounted on the surface of the helideck (e.g. circle and ‘H’
lighting) should also meet IP67. Any lighting equipment that is to be subject to high pressure cleaning should also meet IP69.

6.2.7 Control panels that may be required for helideck lighting systems are not covered by this appendix. It is the
responsibility of the duty holder/engineering contractor to select and integrate control panels into the installation safety and
control systems and to ensure that all such equipment complies with the relevant engineering standards for design and
operation.

______________________

94
 APPENDIX I-C

Helideck Drainage Capacity Check and Calculation

For 20.88m Octagonal Helideck

The following calculation is performed to check on the adequacy of the gutters and drainage header pipes when the fire-fighting equipment is activated.
The calculation is based on ICAO requirements of a minimum 5.5 litres per minute per m2 application rate.
This calculation is based on a typical regular octagon helideck encompassing a 20.88m D-value diameter designed for the Sikorsky S-92A Helicopter.
The calculation considers the worst case scenario of combined fuel leakage, rainfall and firewater.

HELIDECK SIZE: 20.88 m Octagonal Helicopter

Item
DESIGN HELICOPTER: Sikorsky S-92A Unit S92A
ASSUMED FUEL CAPACITY: 1130 US Gallons ltrs 4278
Assumed Fuel Load
= 4.28 m3 US Galls 1130
= 4278 Litres Min.Foam/ Water
ltrs/min 1883
application rate

A) CONVERSION:
1 Gallon = 0.00379 m3
1 Hectare = 10,000 m2
3
1m = 1000 Litres

B) NOTATIONS:
Qr = run off of fluid in m3/sec Qd = gutter uniform flow in m3/sec
C = run off coefficient based on the Rational Method. n = roughness coefficient
I = average rainfall intensity in mm/hr p = wetted perimeter of gutter
A = Helideck octagonal surface catchment area in m2 S = bed gradient
A1 = Sectional area of gutter R = Hydraulic radius
Q = Vertical pipe discharge capacity g = Specific wt. of water
c = Coefficient of contraction from orifice h = Water head
H = sectional height of gutter W = sectional width of gutter

C) DUE TO RAINFALL RUN OFF FOR HELIDECK SURFACE AREA :

Rational formula: Qr = C * I * A

C= 0.65
I= 120 mm/hr (rainfall intensity = 120mm/hr)
= 3.278E-05 m/s
Area of Helideck = S * S - a * a where S is he span of the octagon and a the length of one of the sides.
361.17 m2

3
Therefore, Qr = 0.0077 m / sec.
= 462 Litres/min

D) COMPUTATION OF DISCHARGE CAPACITY OF THE GUTTER HEADER PIPES (SCUPPERS):

No. of perimeter pipe for the scuppers = 6 nos. Considering 6 nos. of pipe effective,

Considering 6 nos. of pipe effective and taking the gutter header pipe as an Orifice,
Discharge Q = c * Ap * sqrt (2 * g * h)

c= 0.5 (Value achieved when the area of choke is divided by the area of the pipe)
g= 9.81 m/s2
h= 0.180 m (The total height of gutter is 0.2m. Consider 90% full, h =0.18mm)
Pipe dia. (Inside) = 0.146 m (φ152mm aluminium pipe having thickness of 3mm)
No. of eff. Pipe, N = 6 (Assumed effective pipe nos)
Area of one pipe, Ap = 0.017 m2
Therefore, Q = 0.01573 m3/sec (for 1 pipe)
3
Total discharge, Qt = (Q*N) 0.09 m /sec
= 5663 Litres/min

Page 1 of 3
 APPENDIX I-C

E) VERIFICATION THAT DISCHARGE OF GUTTER HEADER PIPES SUFFICIENT FOR RAINFALL OF 120MM/HR:

Since discharge for one gutter

header pipe, Q = 0.01573 m3/sec (discharge for one pipe)
Therefore, for discharge of 3
0.0472 m3/sec (discharge for 3 pipes)
pipes will be, Q3 =
Q3 = 2832 Litres/min
Q3 > Qr satisfactory

This shows that 3 gutter header pipes is already satisfactory to cater for the rainfall intensity flow, Qr
Note: Vertical pipes considered for design = 6 nos. See below for the locations of each scuppers.

Alum. Gutter Scupper

(φ152.4mm pipe, 6 locations)

Extruded Alum. Gutter

(204x207x3.5mm)

Aluminium Gutter Layout

Page 2 of 3
 APPENDIX I-C

F) COMPUTATION OF DISCHARGE CAPACITY OF THE GUTTER DRAINS:

Use Manning formula for steady uniform flow: Qd = (1/n) * (A * R^(2/3) * S^(1/2))

H= 0.20 m (cross sectional height of the gutter drains)

W= 0.20 m (internal width of the gutter drains)
A1 = 0.036 m2 (assumed only 90% of sectional area is full)
m (wetted perimeter of the cross sectional area of gutter, assumed only
p= 0.56
90% effective)
R = A1/p = 0.064 m
n= 0.015 (aluminium material roughness based on Manning's roughness coefficient)
S1 = 0.01 (Slope 1:100)
3
Qd1 = 0.038 m /sec (for one way flow direction)
S2 = 0.001 (assumed to be almost flat)
3
Qd2 = 0.024 m /sec (for two way flow direction)

By considering 3 Gutters effective at each flow side of decking edge, the total discharge, Qdt, will be;
Qdt = (Qd1)*(2 gutters) + (Qd2)*(1 gutter)
3
= 0.101 m /sec.
= 6078 Litres/min

G) TIME REQUIRED TO DISCHARGE ANY SPILT FUEL IN THE HELICOPTER TANK:

V, Fuel capacity = 4.28 m3

Time = (V/Qt) = 0.70 mins. (Time required to discharge the fuel from tank)

H) DISCHARGE CAPACITY REQUIRED TO FIRE FIGHTING APPLICATION RATE OF 5.5 LITRES PER MIN PER SQ:

Helideck surface area, As = 361.17 m2

Min. application rate, Qa = 5.5 litres per min per sq. m
(ICAO Heliport Design & Operations Manual, Level B foam)
Min. discharge required per min, Qm = (As*Qa) = 1986 litres/min.

Qdt and Qt > Qm, Satisfactory!

I) WORST CASE SCENARIO - COMBINATION OF RAINFALL, FUEL SPILLAGE & FIRE FIGHTING APPLICATION:

Min. discharge required per min, Qr+Qm = 2448 litres/min

Qdt and Qt > Qr+Qm, Satisfactory!

The available discharge capacity for the fuel spillage,

Qa=min(Qdt,Qt)-(Qr+Qm) = 3215 litres/min

Time taken to discharge the fuel, V/Qa = 1.33 min

In conclusion, based on the calculations above, the gutters and downcomer are sized for their intended use.

Page 3 of 3
 PART II

ONSHORE HELIPORTS