Airprox: Harrier vs. Air Ambulance (again!)
I also fly the EC 135. The "rules" do not state that I shall back up to 120' when departing a confined HLS. They merely say that should an engine fail before I reach a set height, then I shall be able to land back on that landing site without injurying my passengers. If I lose an engine above that height, then I shall be able to fly away, coming no closer than 35' above any obstacles on the flight path.
The 120' has been determined by the aircraft manufacturer based on the performance limits of the aircraft. Therefore, it is an aircraft limitation,
and deviating from it WOULD be endangering the pax, and operating outside the aircraft's limitations.
Crab, I'm surprised at your disdain for a technique that is designed for the safety of your self and the aircraft. How many times have you lifted out of a confined area in your Gazelle/Lynx/Puma etc, in a peacetime/non tactical environment and thought, "If I lose an engine now, I am in the sh!t"?
The 120' has been determined by the aircraft manufacturer based on the performance limits of the aircraft. Therefore, it is an aircraft limitation,
Good pilots think about what they are doing and why rather than blindly following the 'rule book' and endangering the aircraft and pax.
Crab, I'm surprised at your disdain for a technique that is designed for the safety of your self and the aircraft. How many times have you lifted out of a confined area in your Gazelle/Lynx/Puma etc, in a peacetime/non tactical environment and thought, "If I lose an engine now, I am in the sh!t"?
Crab, Class one profiles generally result in flight paths very similar to your own "safe single engine" profiles. So the way you fly departures in the military is actually very similar in outcome to what you view with "complete distain" !
Would it be ok if I quoted your comments from this thread at the Directorate of Air Staff "Shairspace" conference tomorrow?
(earlier in this thread I asked for suggestions for the conference)
"The aims of the conference are simple:
a. Engender a safer operating environment for users of Class G airspace.
b. Provide a vehicle for communication between civilian and military operators.
c. Increase awareness and understanding of attendees in a non-confrontational environment."
Would it be ok if I quoted your comments from this thread at the Directorate of Air Staff "Shairspace" conference tomorrow?
(earlier in this thread I asked for suggestions for the conference)
"The aims of the conference are simple:
a. Engender a safer operating environment for users of Class G airspace.
b. Provide a vehicle for communication between civilian and military operators.
c. Increase awareness and understanding of attendees in a non-confrontational environment."
Last edited by Bertie Thruster; 2nd Mar 2005 at 10:07.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The interesting factor in this thread is the level of misunderstanding that civvies have of the military and vice versa. It reflects my own experience of working in a mix of civilian and ex military pilots. It is all too easy for a FJ to be perceived as an airspace hog. They do after all need loads of space, don’t always talk to local LARS units and generally seemingly act as if they own the sky. Yes, they are an easy target for frustrated civilian pilots. I don’t think the military should be surprised at this. Equally I know the military have derogatory perceptions of civilian pilots. The fact is that most of these perceptions are miss guided, but very few seem to make the effort to re-educate themselves.
We all share the same airspace and none of us want to see a mid air between any type of aircraft. It is fact that an AA when on a lifesaving mission is afforded the highest priority (Category A) and is up there with aircraft which have declared an emergency. Not even SAR flights (Category B) can get priority over AA. It might then be natural for an AA pilot to expect some form of protection from the system when on life saving ops.
The airspace system was developed sometime ago. However the airspace usage has changed dramatically since then, there are many more sports pilots flying all manners of contraptions, the multitude of GA Cessna’s and Robinson’s, IF CAT flights outside CAS plus the advent of airborne police and ambulance operations. The point I was trying to make in my last post is that it seems to me that the system has not kept up with the changing face of aviation. FJ’s need to be protected from AA as much as the other way around.
Maybe harmonisation of SAR should not be limited to SAR flights. Perhaps all airborne emergency assets should be brought under a single central control. That way the most suitable asset can be tasked to an incident (yes I am thinking of a recent thread here), but most importantly a single agency can co-ordinate low level traffic more effectively.
Slagging each other off is not going to prevent a mid air. A better understanding of other air users might.
We all share the same airspace and none of us want to see a mid air between any type of aircraft. It is fact that an AA when on a lifesaving mission is afforded the highest priority (Category A) and is up there with aircraft which have declared an emergency. Not even SAR flights (Category B) can get priority over AA. It might then be natural for an AA pilot to expect some form of protection from the system when on life saving ops.
The airspace system was developed sometime ago. However the airspace usage has changed dramatically since then, there are many more sports pilots flying all manners of contraptions, the multitude of GA Cessna’s and Robinson’s, IF CAT flights outside CAS plus the advent of airborne police and ambulance operations. The point I was trying to make in my last post is that it seems to me that the system has not kept up with the changing face of aviation. FJ’s need to be protected from AA as much as the other way around.
Maybe harmonisation of SAR should not be limited to SAR flights. Perhaps all airborne emergency assets should be brought under a single central control. That way the most suitable asset can be tasked to an incident (yes I am thinking of a recent thread here), but most importantly a single agency can co-ordinate low level traffic more effectively.
Slagging each other off is not going to prevent a mid air. A better understanding of other air users might.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all share the same airspace and none of us want to see a mid air between any type of aircraft. It is fact that an AA when on a lifesaving mission is afforded the highest priority (Category A) and is up there with aircraft which have declared an emergency. Not even SAR flights (Category B) can get priority over AA. It might then be natural for an AA pilot to expect some form of protection from the system when on life saving ops.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,634
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
"SS I have only flown in the Military and as such have never had to comply with Cat A procedures and view them with complete disdain. We fly our own profiles to minimise exposure to not only engine failure at critical stages of flight, but also other aircraft.
Good pilots think about what they are doing and why rather than blindly following the 'rule book' and endangering the aircraft and pax."
Crab,
I am surprised and quite dismayed that someone who obviously considers himself as an expert (A2 QHI, sqn training officer etc) can show such ignorance and speak so disparagingly of civilian operations. FYI, Bertie Thruster has actually seen the situation from your side too.... because he used to fly your beloved Seaking and ............ (edited for Bertie Thruster)
Are you really saying that a licensed pilot required to comply with the performance regulations regarding departure should routinely fail to do so, because of a perceived threat of a fast jet collision? Surely not.
What if, during such a manoeuvre, the aircraft suffered an engine failure and the pilot failed to secure the aircraft and its occupants because of his non-standard take-off technique....
You have missed two very important things.
Firstly, following the AAIB investigation, the CAA would take one large step forwards and secondly, the aircraft insurers would take one large pace backwards.
Go figure.
Good pilots think about what they are doing and why rather than blindly following the 'rule book' and endangering the aircraft and pax."
Crab,
I am surprised and quite dismayed that someone who obviously considers himself as an expert (A2 QHI, sqn training officer etc) can show such ignorance and speak so disparagingly of civilian operations. FYI, Bertie Thruster has actually seen the situation from your side too.... because he used to fly your beloved Seaking and ............ (edited for Bertie Thruster)
Are you really saying that a licensed pilot required to comply with the performance regulations regarding departure should routinely fail to do so, because of a perceived threat of a fast jet collision? Surely not.
What if, during such a manoeuvre, the aircraft suffered an engine failure and the pilot failed to secure the aircraft and its occupants because of his non-standard take-off technique....
You have missed two very important things.
Firstly, following the AAIB investigation, the CAA would take one large step forwards and secondly, the aircraft insurers would take one large pace backwards.
Go figure.
Last edited by ShyTorque; 3rd Mar 2005 at 08:12.
Someone correct me if I am wrong here....our helicopter pilot friend that is whining here about a FJ whizzing by at nearly nought feet....made the statement after a long discription of a takeoff profile that sounds interesting.....he said...."...and that is a very long time not to have a good view to the rear quarter..." or words to that effect.
My question is simply....just when does one ever have a good view of the sky and traffic to your rear in a helicopter? Lord knows, in some helicopters, it limited looking anywhere but straight ahead. Set yourself in a MD-500 and try to look out to the side....or in a Bell Medium and try to look anywhere but at the 12 o'clock direction......Chinooks....forget anything past about 4 o'clock on the right side and 8 o'clock if you are in the left hand seat.
Me thinks he doth protest too much.
My question is simply....just when does one ever have a good view of the sky and traffic to your rear in a helicopter? Lord knows, in some helicopters, it limited looking anywhere but straight ahead. Set yourself in a MD-500 and try to look out to the side....or in a Bell Medium and try to look anywhere but at the 12 o'clock direction......Chinooks....forget anything past about 4 o'clock on the right side and 8 o'clock if you are in the left hand seat.
Me thinks he doth protest too much.
ShyTorque! Don't blow my cover too much then!
Back to the subject; I presume your machine has TCAS? (the owners having a bit of spare cash!) To what degree do you find TCAS helps lookout during landings/takeoffs at your various private sites in the mil LL areas?
Back to the subject; I presume your machine has TCAS? (the owners having a bit of spare cash!) To what degree do you find TCAS helps lookout during landings/takeoffs at your various private sites in the mil LL areas?
MightyGem, Bertie, ShyTorque etc - let's get this straight; I was commenting on Siloe Sids assertion that he should climb backwards to 120' above obstacles before transitioning to comply with legislation - He said it was his required flight profile not me. And he was only trying to bait me about my suggestion that a curving approach and departure profile would give better 6 o'clock lookout for FJ (which is what this thread is about not Cat A performance).
Yes I have been in many positions where an engine failure would have resulted in a broken aircraft or worse but I would not have been able to do the job required of me if I had insisted on being safe single engine - it is a risk assessment that has to be weighed up as all ex mil pilots know against the need to perform the duty.
In civvy strasse you are compelled by legislation to treat AA and Police work as public transport (ridiculous as it may be) and as such are hamstrung by performance limitations that, in the context of this thread can put you more at risk from a mid air than they do from the consequences of a very unlikely engine failure. When was the last time a twin squirrel or EC135 had a donk stop during a transition?
I do not consider myself an expert in this field or any other - people just love taking my comments out of the context in which they are given eg this thread. Any one that good at jumping to conclusions based on minimal information should be a Daily Mail journalist.
Yes I have been in many positions where an engine failure would have resulted in a broken aircraft or worse but I would not have been able to do the job required of me if I had insisted on being safe single engine - it is a risk assessment that has to be weighed up as all ex mil pilots know against the need to perform the duty.
In civvy strasse you are compelled by legislation to treat AA and Police work as public transport (ridiculous as it may be) and as such are hamstrung by performance limitations that, in the context of this thread can put you more at risk from a mid air than they do from the consequences of a very unlikely engine failure. When was the last time a twin squirrel or EC135 had a donk stop during a transition?
I do not consider myself an expert in this field or any other - people just love taking my comments out of the context in which they are given eg this thread. Any one that good at jumping to conclusions based on minimal information should be a Daily Mail journalist.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,634
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
Sorry, BT, I presumed you were just being your usual modest self .. post edited 
In my opinion TCAS is an essential piece of kit. It has its limitations, such as inaccuracy in azimuth and lack of altitiude readout on some targets due to no mode C. Also, dare I say it, some military aircraft do NOT appear on it for some reason....possibly not squawking?). Those who criticise it have almost invariably not flown with it.
Some critics think it keeps the pilots eyes inside the cockpit, but the opposite tends to be true - it often makes the pilot realise just how many aircraft are nearby but not easily seen.
We include the TCAS screen as a complementary part of our lookout scan. One of our more commonly used HLSs is in the LFA which is also Class G and used by civiliian aircraft from the largest UK flying school as a training area.
In my opinion TCAS is an essential piece of kit. It has its limitations, such as inaccuracy in azimuth and lack of altitiude readout on some targets due to no mode C. Also, dare I say it, some military aircraft do NOT appear on it for some reason....possibly not squawking?). Those who criticise it have almost invariably not flown with it.
Some critics think it keeps the pilots eyes inside the cockpit, but the opposite tends to be true - it often makes the pilot realise just how many aircraft are nearby but not easily seen.
We include the TCAS screen as a complementary part of our lookout scan. One of our more commonly used HLSs is in the LFA which is also Class G and used by civiliian aircraft from the largest UK flying school as a training area.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
"Back to the basic issue" required here I think crab!
SS is on the pad at Strensham. (Site of airprox)
Because of the location and surroundings a helipad departure is required.
This requires me to lift into the hover, climb until I gain the correct sight picture, then commence a backwards moving climb to 100' HAT and approximately 300' behind the pad. This is my TDP. (Take-off Descision Point)
This must be done within 30 deg of the wind.
(I did not mention 120' above obstacles, but I can understand your confusion, much like when you said, "I do not consider myself an expert in this field or any other", but you were more than happy to tell us you were an A2 QHI & Sqn trg off.
)
As has been mentioned previously, Strensham seems to be a magnet for FJ for some reason and as you can see, the take off profile for the site does not allow for any downwind look out or 'curving flightpath' until the 'climb at Vy' stage.
As Mighty Gem said it is an aircraft limitation.... and deviating from it WOULD be endangering the pax, and operating outside the aircraft's limitations.
crab,
I would suggest that an engine problem (as unlikely as it is), is more likely than a FJ up the chuff, and as such would still fly the helipad profile at this site.
However, there is no excuse for a FJ to low fly over a marked HLS as described thus earlier, "When I was last at Strensham they didn't just flyby they very often overflew and on one occasion came rather to close to HV as it was lifting on a job...".
I'm not quite sure what crab and 2Ss camp are after here apart from supporting the 'bullies in the playground'.
SS is on the pad at Strensham. (Site of airprox)
Because of the location and surroundings a helipad departure is required.
This requires me to lift into the hover, climb until I gain the correct sight picture, then commence a backwards moving climb to 100' HAT and approximately 300' behind the pad. This is my TDP. (Take-off Descision Point)
This must be done within 30 deg of the wind.
(I did not mention 120' above obstacles, but I can understand your confusion, much like when you said, "I do not consider myself an expert in this field or any other", but you were more than happy to tell us you were an A2 QHI & Sqn trg off.
)As has been mentioned previously, Strensham seems to be a magnet for FJ for some reason and as you can see, the take off profile for the site does not allow for any downwind look out or 'curving flightpath' until the 'climb at Vy' stage.
As Mighty Gem said it is an aircraft limitation.... and deviating from it WOULD be endangering the pax, and operating outside the aircraft's limitations.
crab,
Good pilots think about what they are doing and why rather than blindly following the 'rule book' and endangering the aircraft and pax.
However, there is no excuse for a FJ to low fly over a marked HLS as described thus earlier, "When I was last at Strensham they didn't just flyby they very often overflew and on one occasion came rather to close to HV as it was lifting on a job...".
I'm not quite sure what crab and 2Ss camp are after here apart from supporting the 'bullies in the playground'.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS
So you agree that Strensham is a poor choice for an AA helicopter site.
1. The area is crowded so you have to do a class 1 departure.
2. It is on the edge of a HIRTA so traffic is funneled past it
3. It is on a major motorway used by all and sundry as a line feature.
4. It is by a major motorway interchange used as a turning point.
So which bright spark chose this as an AA site?
Why not use Staverton the home of BAS? It is only 10nm away
Your Class 1 departure still allows you to do a curving departure once you have reached Vtoss as you accel towards Vy and beyond.
You must also learn to grow up if you want to be a professional helicopter pilot as slinging quotes about bullies is rather immature
2S
So you agree that Strensham is a poor choice for an AA helicopter site.
1. The area is crowded so you have to do a class 1 departure.
2. It is on the edge of a HIRTA so traffic is funneled past it
3. It is on a major motorway used by all and sundry as a line feature.
4. It is by a major motorway interchange used as a turning point.
So which bright spark chose this as an AA site?
Why not use Staverton the home of BAS? It is only 10nm away
Your Class 1 departure still allows you to do a curving departure once you have reached Vtoss as you accel towards Vy and beyond.
You must also learn to grow up if you want to be a professional helicopter pilot as slinging quotes about bullies is rather immature
2S
SS - 2 strops beat me to the point about poor location for a police site - the Tornado and Harrier HIRTA clearances are only at LOW in the D band so the Defford transmitter doesn't protect you - now if you can get them to change it to B band then things will be different.
Since all performance figures for single engine flyaways have a height figure - it must be above obstacles that you would have to clear so that is why I mention 120' above obstacles - you used the 120' figure in the first place.
I only mentioned my quals because you assumed (wrongly as usual) that I knew little of civilian ops - I have held an ATPLH since 1991, what about you?
Whilst on the subject of clearing up incorrect facts - up until Dec 04 the Strensham site was marked as a blue circle with a blue H inside it - just like every other HLS whether it be a private site (JCB, Ferranti etc) or a busy AA site. Police sites that are notified to AIDU are indicated by a red circle with a red H (the same as a MRT pick-up site) and that is how Strensham is annotated on 1/4 and 1/2 mil low flying charts - not as a purple diamond.
As such the police sites are not afforded any protection beyond see and avoid so I suggest that you and others lobby AIDU and the MOD for some different map markings so that A. they stand out as being different from a hotel LS and B. they could be protected with a mandatory avoidance margin like gliding sites (2nm/2000').
Any FJ mate looking through the low flying part of the planning doc in conjunction with the low flying chart will not register Strensham as a police site because it is just another HLS in the planning doc and the red marking on the chart is overlayed with a purple HIRTA circle making almost illegible.
The same regulations that force you into Cat A transitions also preclude civvy SAR from winching when not safe single engine - possibly why they don't do mountains. My disdain for Cat A performance is in it's application to helicopter operations which really shouldn't come under public transport regs since they are emergency services and should be exempt. It is like preventing police cars and ambulances from exceeding the speed limit because it is the law of the land and someone might get hurt if the law is broken.
PS if saying that due to the location and nature of the site you have to carry out a cat A departure isn't agreeing that the site selection is poor then I don't know what is.
Since all performance figures for single engine flyaways have a height figure - it must be above obstacles that you would have to clear so that is why I mention 120' above obstacles - you used the 120' figure in the first place.
I only mentioned my quals because you assumed (wrongly as usual) that I knew little of civilian ops - I have held an ATPLH since 1991, what about you?
Whilst on the subject of clearing up incorrect facts - up until Dec 04 the Strensham site was marked as a blue circle with a blue H inside it - just like every other HLS whether it be a private site (JCB, Ferranti etc) or a busy AA site. Police sites that are notified to AIDU are indicated by a red circle with a red H (the same as a MRT pick-up site) and that is how Strensham is annotated on 1/4 and 1/2 mil low flying charts - not as a purple diamond.
As such the police sites are not afforded any protection beyond see and avoid so I suggest that you and others lobby AIDU and the MOD for some different map markings so that A. they stand out as being different from a hotel LS and B. they could be protected with a mandatory avoidance margin like gliding sites (2nm/2000').
Any FJ mate looking through the low flying part of the planning doc in conjunction with the low flying chart will not register Strensham as a police site because it is just another HLS in the planning doc and the red marking on the chart is overlayed with a purple HIRTA circle making almost illegible.
The same regulations that force you into Cat A transitions also preclude civvy SAR from winching when not safe single engine - possibly why they don't do mountains. My disdain for Cat A performance is in it's application to helicopter operations which really shouldn't come under public transport regs since they are emergency services and should be exempt. It is like preventing police cars and ambulances from exceeding the speed limit because it is the law of the land and someone might get hurt if the law is broken.
PS if saying that due to the location and nature of the site you have to carry out a cat A departure isn't agreeing that the site selection is poor then I don't know what is.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
2S,
I haven't agreed with anything reference HLS selection. I'm sure there are those higher up the food chain than I, that made the relevant descisions on that one. Far be it for me to comment on your observations as you lay them down. (ok later.)
As far as Cat A operations are concerned on my type, VToss is only applicable in the clear area, continued take off, engine failure after TDP scenario.
So your curving departure statement is incorrect in the Strensham take off situation.
As far as your numbered points are concerned,
1. Go visit some units.
2. Avoid HIRTA, avoid HLS aswell perhaps!
3. Most traffic using the line feature will be aware of the HLS.
4. So the turning point circle will be marked on the map next to the HLS circle during the planning phase then?
Calling someone immature, well that's a really mature thing to do.
crab,
Once more for the hard of reading, " I did not mention 120\' above anything"! It was someone else on the last page.
Clearing up incorrect facts.........The only \'120\' I mentioned was the, \'What happens when the FJ comes up from the rear 120 degrees?\', comment on page 4.
The height figure you are after that I use is calculated pre flight and is the \'Distance Required to Clear a 35 ft Obstacle\' on take off – Clear Airfield / Heliport/Elevated Helipad.
Another qualification, well done in feeling you have to justify yourself to me. Since 1991, before me, well done again.
As Sqn trg off, do/did you run discussions in your unit as SOP, (Statement of the Oldest Person?)
You obviously wouldn\'t take time to listen to any young boys on the block.
Mainly because Strensham isn\'t a police site, 
, however, what strikes me is you are saying that either the maps are at fault, or the FJs are not paying attention to detail.
Cat A departure = public transport flight, whether clear area or helipad.
Even taking off from Rwy 27L at Heathrow would require a Cat A departure. Thought you may have grasped that by now. In addition, I refer to my reply to 2Ss point 1 previously.
By the way, does the turning point have to be as big as a major motorway junction? I thought IPs of that nature were so the ABFACS knew where to look before the run in!
Perhaps a Gliding Avoidance Area, (sounds as if it\'s designed to keep gliders away! ) type restriction is needed in this case.
How much would that disrupt LL flying training?
I haven't agreed with anything reference HLS selection. I'm sure there are those higher up the food chain than I, that made the relevant descisions on that one. Far be it for me to comment on your observations as you lay them down. (ok later.)
As far as Cat A operations are concerned on my type, VToss is only applicable in the clear area, continued take off, engine failure after TDP scenario.
So your curving departure statement is incorrect in the Strensham take off situation.
As far as your numbered points are concerned,
1. Go visit some units.
2. Avoid HIRTA, avoid HLS aswell perhaps!
3. Most traffic using the line feature will be aware of the HLS.
4. So the turning point circle will be marked on the map next to the HLS circle during the planning phase then?
Calling someone immature, well that's a really mature thing to do.
crab,
Once more for the hard of reading, " I did not mention 120\' above anything"! It was someone else on the last page.
Clearing up incorrect facts.........The only \'120\' I mentioned was the, \'What happens when the FJ comes up from the rear 120 degrees?\', comment on page 4.
The height figure you are after that I use is calculated pre flight and is the \'Distance Required to Clear a 35 ft Obstacle\' on take off – Clear Airfield / Heliport/Elevated Helipad.
Another qualification, well done in feeling you have to justify yourself to me. Since 1991, before me, well done again.
As Sqn trg off, do/did you run discussions in your unit as SOP, (Statement of the Oldest Person?)
You obviously wouldn\'t take time to listen to any young boys on the block.
Any FJ mate looking through the low flying part of the planning doc in conjunction with the low flying chart will not register Strensham as a police site because it is just another HLS in the planning doc and the red marking on the chart is overlayed with a purple HIRTA circle making almost illegible.
, however, what strikes me is you are saying that either the maps are at fault, or the FJs are not paying attention to detail.
PS if saying that due to the location and nature of the site you have to carry out a cat A departure isn\'t agreeing that the site selection is poor then I don\'t know what is.
Even taking off from Rwy 27L at Heathrow would require a Cat A departure. Thought you may have grasped that by now. In addition, I refer to my reply to 2Ss point 1 previously.
By the way, does the turning point have to be as big as a major motorway junction? I thought IPs of that nature were so the ABFACS knew where to look before the run in!
Perhaps a Gliding Avoidance Area, (sounds as if it\'s designed to keep gliders away! ) type restriction is needed in this case.
How much would that disrupt LL flying training?
Last edited by SilsoeSid; 3rd Mar 2005 at 21:28.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS
You say
"Even taking off from Rwy 27L at Heathrow would require a Cat A departure."
It is not quite right. It would require a Class 1 departure but with 27L having a TORA/TODA of12,0001ft I hope you wouldn't be doing a helipad departure To get max payload I presume you would use a V1 of Vy + 10kts assuming your Vtoss is V1-10.
You haven't answered my question about why the AA operation is not moved to Staverton where it would get far more protection and allow heavier weight take offs
2S
You say
"Even taking off from Rwy 27L at Heathrow would require a Cat A departure."
It is not quite right. It would require a Class 1 departure but with 27L having a TORA/TODA of12,0001ft I hope you wouldn't be doing a helipad departure
To get max payload I presume you would use a V1 of Vy + 10kts assuming your Vtoss is V1-10.You haven't answered my question about why the AA operation is not moved to Staverton where it would get far more protection and allow heavier weight take offs
2S
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
2S,
What don't you understand about.......
CATEGORY A OPERATIONS
Category A Take-off:.
The take-off must be performed in such a manner that in the event of a single engine failure the helicopter must be able to:
Prior to TDP, return to, and stop safely on the take-off area (rejected take-off).
After TDP, continue the take-off and climbout, and attain a configuration and airspeed that allows continued flight.
So wherever I take off, Strensham, Heathrow, Battersea or Dartmoor, I will comply with Cat A Operations.
If I choose to do a helipad departure, that would be up to me, what's your problem with that?
No, I would use my standard take off profile with V1 @ the 8 sec point 
Ok, Staverton, (I am not in any position to comment officially), and the moving of the air ambulance there to.
I have to agree that it would afford some protection for the landing/taking off stages of flight at the operating base, however it must have been sited there for a reason don't you think?
Wouldn't this then be a case of them being bullied out of Strensham? "My playground, you get back indoors." Even crab has said that the HLS is marked on the maps, but is obscured/not noticed.
The issue of heavier take off weights is surely not an issue, as those on board would be departing for the scene.
What don't you understand about.......
CATEGORY A OPERATIONS
Category A Take-off:.
The take-off must be performed in such a manner that in the event of a single engine failure the helicopter must be able to:
Prior to TDP, return to, and stop safely on the take-off area (rejected take-off).
After TDP, continue the take-off and climbout, and attain a configuration and airspeed that allows continued flight.
So wherever I take off, Strensham, Heathrow, Battersea or Dartmoor, I will comply with Cat A Operations.
If I choose to do a helipad departure, that would be up to me, what's your problem with that?
To get max payload I presume you would use a V1 of Vy + 10kts assuming your Vtoss is V1-10.
Ok, Staverton, (I am not in any position to comment officially), and the moving of the air ambulance there to.
I have to agree that it would afford some protection for the landing/taking off stages of flight at the operating base, however it must have been sited there for a reason don't you think?
Wouldn't this then be a case of them being bullied out of Strensham? "My playground, you get back indoors." Even crab has said that the HLS is marked on the maps, but is obscured/not noticed.
The issue of heavier take off weights is surely not an issue, as those on board would be departing for the scene.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS
Your ops manual must differ from ours then as ours talks about the helicopter being certified as Catergory A in JAROPS 3.480(a)(1).
This allows it to conduct Performance Class 1 and Performance Class 2 operations. i.e public transport. It is the helicopter that is certified as Catergory A not the procedure.
We do Performance Class 1 operations with a Catergory A helicopter.
2S
Your ops manual must differ from ours then as ours talks about the helicopter being certified as Catergory A in JAROPS 3.480(a)(1).
This allows it to conduct Performance Class 1 and Performance Class 2 operations. i.e public transport. It is the helicopter that is certified as Catergory A not the procedure.
We do Performance Class 1 operations with a Catergory A helicopter.
2S
PS if saying that due to the location and nature of the site you have to carry out a cat A departure isn't agreeing that the site selection is poor then I don't know what is.
To carry out a normal transition and fly away, I need to have a minimum of 250m of clear area in front of me. Ideally that would put the pad in the middle of a field of 250m radius, to allow for all wind directions. Unfortunately, that would cost a lot of money, and for an Air Ambulance, funded by public donation, could not even be considered.
So, you could have the best sited helipad in the world, but if it's not big enough, then you're reversing out.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
We do Performance Class 1 operations with a Catergory A helicopter.
"JAR–OPS 3.485 General
An operator shall ensure that helicopters operated in Performance Class 1 are certificated in Category A."
Likewise, and 'our' manual talks about "CATEGORY A OPERATIONS."
So we come back to the problem of money and that people perceive a need for air ambulances (fair enough) but then procure and operate them on a shoestring taking what operating sites are available (and cheapest) and then making the operations fit the site. As a result - instead of having nice clear take-off and arrival paths which would allow more fuel/pax etc to be carried and give you options for departure profiles, you end up limiting your operation simply because the site requires helideck departures.
On top of this your flight profile is made more hazardous because you are operating in class G airspace with no airspace protection and run the risk of taking a low flying aircraft up the jacksie because you can't manoeuvre during departure.
Then, no-one bothers to get the authorities (CAA or MOD) to highlight or protect AA or Police sites in class G airspace and no-one bothers to check how their sites are portrayed on military maps because no-one will pay for one to look at.
And finally because the charities are cash-strapped they balk at the cost of TCAS or UHF radios (I would definitely have UHF if I was operating in the vicinity of a military airfield).
You only get as much Flight Safety as you are prepared to pay for so talk to your operators if you are unhappy with the status quo.
The Cornwall AA operates out of St Mawgan with full ATC and crash cover, the protection of a MATZ, a massive hangar courtesy of the RAF and a huge, clear airfield to depart and arrive from. That would be called a good site in my book and it works extremely well even if he is only on VHF.
SS you didn't mention 120' (your figure is 100' - big difference!)- EC135 driver did but since you insist on insulting people and then claiming you were laying bait then I can be forgiven for ignoring your protestations. You talked on one post about dropping off bobbies so I assumed that Strensham was a police site (well outside my area of ops) and someone must have asked AIDU to notify it as such since that is how it now appears on the maps. If this is not the case then please inform AIDU and have it changed back.
Since it now becomes clear that it is an AA site then see all the comments above re poor site selection.
As someone else pointed out Strensham is on a big line feature with HIRTAs either side which funnel the FJ traffic. A basic student looking at a map would work than one out, check the planning doc and see nothing other than an HLS that he just needs to see and avoid and crack on.
If you don't tell anyone you are there you won't get noticed.
On top of this your flight profile is made more hazardous because you are operating in class G airspace with no airspace protection and run the risk of taking a low flying aircraft up the jacksie because you can't manoeuvre during departure.
Then, no-one bothers to get the authorities (CAA or MOD) to highlight or protect AA or Police sites in class G airspace and no-one bothers to check how their sites are portrayed on military maps because no-one will pay for one to look at.
And finally because the charities are cash-strapped they balk at the cost of TCAS or UHF radios (I would definitely have UHF if I was operating in the vicinity of a military airfield).
You only get as much Flight Safety as you are prepared to pay for so talk to your operators if you are unhappy with the status quo.
The Cornwall AA operates out of St Mawgan with full ATC and crash cover, the protection of a MATZ, a massive hangar courtesy of the RAF and a huge, clear airfield to depart and arrive from. That would be called a good site in my book and it works extremely well even if he is only on VHF.
SS you didn't mention 120' (your figure is 100' - big difference!)- EC135 driver did but since you insist on insulting people and then claiming you were laying bait then I can be forgiven for ignoring your protestations. You talked on one post about dropping off bobbies so I assumed that Strensham was a police site (well outside my area of ops) and someone must have asked AIDU to notify it as such since that is how it now appears on the maps. If this is not the case then please inform AIDU and have it changed back.
Since it now becomes clear that it is an AA site then see all the comments above re poor site selection.
As someone else pointed out Strensham is on a big line feature with HIRTAs either side which funnel the FJ traffic. A basic student looking at a map would work than one out, check the planning doc and see nothing other than an HLS that he just needs to see and avoid and crack on.
If you don't tell anyone you are there you won't get noticed.