JAR-OPS-3, PUBLIC INTEREST SITE OPERATIONS. The above NPA is sponsored by the Operations Sectorial Team of the JAA.

Transcription

1 oint Aviation Authorities Postal Address: P.O. Box KA Hoofddorp Visiting Address: Saturnusstraat 8-10 The Netherlands Tel: 31 (0) Fax: 31 (0) Website: Our reference number: 07/ L198 Your reference number: 1 December 2002 NPA Distribution List cc: Mr G Rebender, Operations Director NPA OPS-31; JAR-OPS-3, PUBLIC INTEREST SITE OPERATIONS The above NPA is sponsored by the Operations Sectorial Team of the JAA. NPA Content Amendment 2 of JAR-OPS-3, which included the final rule of NPA OPS-27, introduced a temporary alleviation to some requirements of JAR-OPS-3 for helicopter operations at a public interest site. It was expected that within the alleviation period sites could be modified to comply with the requirements or could be phased out. Already at the commenting phase of NPA OPS-27 it became clear that phasing out of existing sites would be difficult. Therefore a permanent solution was explored and found in applying a performance delta (8% climb gradient in the first segment) which would give an acceptable safety level. The purpose of this NPA is to consult upon this new permanent solution. General The NPA is the standard JAA procedure for consultation with the aviation community. In addition to this JAA process the National Authorities may also perform their own consultation. The objective of the NPA consultation is to inform interested parties of the current position and to receive comments on the draft. This means that the draft text is not necessarily the final text. The JAA Committee expects that within the above perspective your organisation will participate efficiently in the NPA consultation. Your organisation is now invited to consider the NPA and to submit comments by 1 March If no comments from your organisation by that date agreement will be assumed. Y MORIER Regulation Director Chief Executive s Office: Resources & Development: 31 (0) (0) Regulation division: Licensing division: Operations division: 31 (0) (0) / (0) /764 Certification division: Maintenance division: 31 (0) / (0) /780

2 Please note the revised guidelines on reverse side of this form! Comment nr: (For Central JAA use only) JOINT AVIATION AUTHORITIES NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT (NPA) COMMENT FORM 1. NPA NUMBER: NPA- OPS-31 Affected Requirement paragraph: Affected ACJ/AMJ or AMC/IEM paragraph: 2. POSITION: (cross out the parts that are not applicable) Agree / Accept / No comment Propose different text / General comment Propose to delete paragraph 3. PROPOSED TEXT/COMMENT: Reason(s) for proposed text/comment: 4. ORGANISATION : Address : Phone : Fax : 5. SIGNATURE. Date: Name : JAA Form 200 February 2001

3 GUIDELINES TO COMMENT ON AN NPA 1.. For a better handling of comments we strongly recommend commentors to use this form. 2.. Please use one form per comment. 3.. If there is insufficient space on the form, use attachments and summarise your comments on the form. 4.. In case of disagreement, commentors should be aware that failure to explain the reason(s) for disagreeing may well result in the comments being laid aside for lack of understanding. For the same reason, the commentor should explain his/her position for deleting a paragraph. 5.. All comments must be sent to the NPA Administrator at Central JAA unless otherwise indicated in the NPA. 6.. Please note that, unless an extension period is granted, comments received after the stated comment date (see letter) will only be taken into account if practical. JAA Form 200 February 2001

4 JAR-OPS 3 - NPA-OPS 31 PUBLIC INTEREST SITES EXPLANATORY NOTE INTRODUCTION When JAR-OPS 3 was initially adopted it was accepted that further amplification of the document in detail would be necessary, and it was expected that user experience would also indicate areas of the document that needed alteration or improvement. At the time of adoption of JAR-OPS Part 3, the Helicopter Sub-Committee (HSC) of the Operations Committee had a number of outstanding issues for further consideration, and both Authority and Industry representatives have since then promoted additional tasks. Thus inevitably JAR-OPS Part 3 will be the subject of continuing evolution and development. This paper is divided into two parts: a. The explanatory text which provides an overall view and an explanation of the proposals and/or the reason for the proposal; and b. The proposed amendments, some of which amend existing text and some of which are new. As is common with NPA proposals, the proposed changes to the current text are shown by strikeout for deleted material and by bold italics for new material indicating the intended new wording. EXPLANATORY TEXT 1. General Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(i) - containing alleviations for public interest sites - was introduced in January 2002 to address problems that had been encountered by member States at hospital (and lighthouse) sites due to the applicable performance requirements of Subparts G and H. These problems were enumerated in ACJ to Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d) paragraph 8, part of which is reproduced below....8problems with hospital sites During implementation of JAR-OPS 3, it was established that a number of States had encountered problems with the impact of performance rules where helicopters were operated for HEMS. Although States accept that progress should be made towards operations where risks associated with a critical power unit failure are eliminated, or limited by the exposure time concept, a number of landing sites exist which do not (or never can) allow operations to Performance Class 1 or 2 requirements. These sites are generally found in a congested hostile environment: - in the grounds of hospitals; or - on hospital buildings; The problem of hospital sites is mainly historical and, whilst the Authority could insist that such sites not be used - or used at such a low weight that critical power unit failure performance is assured, it would seriously curtail a number of existing operations. Even though the rule for the use of such sites in hospital grounds for HEMS operations (Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d) sub-paragraph (c)(2)(i)(a)) attracts alleviation until 2005, it is only partial and will still impact upon present operations. Because such operations are performed in the public interest, it was felt that the Authority should be able to exercise its discretion so as to allow continued use of such sites provided that it is satisfied that an adequate level of safety can be maintained - notwithstanding that the site does not allow operations to Performance Class 1 or 2 standards. However, it is in the Explanatory Note - 1 NPA-OPS 31

5 interest of continuing improvements in safety that the alleviation of such operations be constrained to existing sites, and for a limited period. As stated in this ACJ and embodied in the text of the appendix, the solution was short term (until 31 st December 2004). During the comment period of NPA 18, representations were made to the JAA that the alleviation should be extended to The review committee, in not accepting this request, had in mind that this was a short-term solution to address an immediate problem, and a permanent solution should be sought. 2. Public Interest Sites after 1 st January 2005 Although elimination of such sites would remove the problem, it is recognized that phasing out, or rebuilding existing hospital and lighthouse heliports, is a long-term goal which may not be costeffective, or even possible, in some States. It should be noted however that existing paragraph (c) of the appendix limits the problem by confining approvals to public interest sites established before 1 st July 2002 (established in this context means either: built before that date; or brought into service before that date this precise wording was used to avoid problems associated with a ground level heliport where no building would be required). Thus the problem of these sites is contained and reducing in severity. This date was set approximately 6 months after the intended implementation of this original appendix. From 1 st January 2005 the approval of a public interest site will be confined to those sites where a Cat A procedure alone cannot solve the problem. However, in order to reduce the risk at those sites, the application of the requirements contained in paragraph (d)(2) of the appendix will be required. Additionally and In order to promote understanding of the problem, the text contained in paragraph (e) of the appendix has been amended to refer to Subpart G of JAR-OPS 3 and not to Annex 14 as in the original appendix. Thus Part C of the Operations Manual should reflect the non-conformance with that Subpart. The following paragraphs discuss the problem and solutions. 3. Problems associated with public interest sites There are a number of problems: some of which can be solved with the use of appropriate helicopters and procedures; and others which, because of the size of the heliport or the obstacle environment, cannot. They consist of: a. Helicopters that cannot meet the performance criteria required by Subpart G; b. The size of the FATO of the heliport (smaller than that required by the manufacturers procedure); c. An obstacle environment that prevents the use of the manufacturers procedure (obstacles in the back-up area) d. An obstacle environment that does not allow recovery following a power unit failure in the critical phase of take-off (a line of buildings requiring a demanding gradient of climb). e. A ground level heliport (exposure is not permitted); 3.1 Problems associated with a; it was recognised at the time of the adoption of the original appendix that, although the number of helicopters not meeting the absolute performance criteria of a. above were dwindling, existing HEMS and lighthouse fleets could not be replaced until (There is still a possibility that limited production will not allow the complete replacement of such limited power helicopters before the 2004 date; it is therefore suggested that Authorities should, providing an order position can be established by the operator, allow the continued use of such helicopters for a limited period, without the additional mitigation required by paragraph (d)(2) of the appendix.) 3.2 Problems associated with b.; the inability to climb and conduct a rejected landing back to the heliport following an engine failure before the Decision Point (DP) Explanatory Note - 2 NPA-OPS 31

6 3.3 Problems associated with c.; as in b. 3.4 Problems associated with d; climb into an obstacle following an engine failure after DP. 3.5 Problems associated with e.; may be related to; - the size of the FATO which is too small for the manufacturers procedure; - no room for back-up; - an obstacle in the take-off path; or - a mixture of all three. With the exception of case a., problems cannot be solved in the immediate future but can, when mitigated with the use of the latest generation of helicopters (operated at a weight that can allow useful payloads and endurance), minimise exposure to risk. 4. A Long Term Solution Although not offering a complete solution, it was felt that a significant increase in safety could be achieved by applying a performance delta to such operations. This solution could also be seen as mitigation proportional to the problem and would allow the time restriction of 2004 to be removed. The performance delta, which is set at 8% climb gradient in the first segment, reflects ICAO Annex 14 Volume II in Table 4-3 Dimensions and slopes of obstacle limitations surfaces for Performance Class 2. The performance delta is achieved without the provision of further manufacturers data by using existing graphs to provide the RTOM. If we examine the solution in relation to the original problem the effects can be seen. 4.1 Solution with relation to 3.a.; from January 1 st 2005, where the heliport size and environment does not prevent the use of a CAT A procedure to meet the requirements of Subpart G, there is no justification for the continuation of an approval (for a particular Public Interest Site and type(s) of helicopter). (See discussion on temporary alleviations in 3.1 above.) 4.2 Solution with relation to 3.b.; although the problem still exists, the safest procedure is a dynamic take-off reducing the time taken to achieve Vstayup and thus allowing VFR recovery if the failure occurs at or after Vy and 200 feet, an IFR recovery is possible. 4.3 Solution with relation to 3.c.; as in b. above. 4.4 Solution with relation to 3.d.; once again this does not give a complete solution, however the performance delta minimise the time during which a one-engine inoperative climb over the obstacle cannot be achieved. 4.5 Solution with relation to e.; as in 4.1 to 4.3 above. 5. Significant Changes to the Appendix 5.1 Revised paragraph (c) Applicability; now contains the complete description of helicopters that can take advantage of this Appendix (parts of which were in the original alleviation paragraph). The limiting date for sites that could be included within the scope of this Appendix has been hard coded into the text to remove any confusion that might arise over which amendment was referred to. There has been representation from a Major Authority requesting that the approval process be dependent upon an improvement program by the local Authority that owns the site thus gradually reducing the number of these sites. Comments are requested on whether such text should be included in the Appendix. This text could be appended to (c) Applicability and might say and where a compliance program with all regulations regarding heliport design, accepted by the authority, is in place. 5.2 Revised paragraph (d) Alleviation; has been divided into two parts: the first containing the original alleviation - slightly amended to address it at the conduct of operations rather than at the Explanatory Note - 3 NPA-OPS 31

7 helicopter; and the second which extends the alleviation beyond 31 st December The whole text has been repeated to provide clarity. 5.3 Revised paragraph (e); has a small amendment that addresses non-compliance with Subpart G (Performance Class 1) and not Annex 14 as in the original text. It is considered that, with particular regard to these sites (e.g. hospitals and lighthouses), providing the helicopter can be operated in Performance Class 1 it is not necessary to comply with all of the Standards contained in Annex 14 (some of which may be overly prescriptive in these particular cases). 5.4 Proposed ACJ to sub-paragraph (d)(2); contains guidance for the application of the 8% climb gradient. 5.5 Proposed ACJ-2 to the Appendix: contains the explanatory text of this NPA. It is felt that unless the concept and philosophy of Public Interest Sites is carried within the covers of JAR- OPS 3, the rational for the inclusion of the Appendix will be lost and future application might not be in line with the stated policy. 6. Assessment of a Helicopter to meet the Requirement As this is an extremely technical subject, the helicopter sub-committee has produced an Excel file containing, for each of a selection of affected helicopters, a performance assessment of the ability of the helicopter to meet the 8% climb requirement in the first segment. Each file contained within the Excel file contains the following disclaimer: Disclaimer: The data shown in the following file is for information purpose only, and is derived from generic Helicopter Flight Manual performance data and generic helicopter characteristics. An operator shall check all values and replace them as necessary with individual helicopter characteristics and individual Helicopter Flight Manual performance data, taking into account all optional equipments fitted on the individual helicopter serial number. This file, which is on the JAA web site, can be downloaded from the JAA and used for this assessment.hsc-wp examples.xls 7. Consequential amendment of Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d) HEMS The amendment to the Public Interest Site Appendix proposes, from 2005, to permit permanent alleviation for specific and mitigated procedures to hospital sites located in a hostile environment (as well as sites used for other Public Interest activities). However, paragraph (c)(2)(i)(a) of the HEMS Appendix already contains alleviation from Subpart G (Performance Class 1) permitting deck edge strike to be discounted. This alleviation is more conservative than that provided in the Public Interest Site Appendix as it does not allow the exposure to extend beyond the deck edge. This alleviation is also due to expire on the 1 st January The HEMS alleviation is based upon three cases that have already been described in paragraph 3 a. to c. above - briefly they are: the underpowered helicopter; the undersized helipad; or the lack of space to perform a suitable procedure. The Public Interest Site alleviation already provides solutions to the cases described above but is less conservative, as it allows exposure to extend beyond the deck edge. The anomaly of similar alleviations contained in separate Appendices has to be addressed. We have three options: 1. We could leave the text in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(a), allow the alleviation to expire in January 2005, and expect that, from that date, the operator will apply for an Approval to operate in accordance with the Public Interest Site Appendix. 2. We could leave the text in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(a) but append text to indicate that from 2005 the operator could apply for an Approval to operate in accordance with the Public Interest Site Appendix Explanatory Note - 4 NPA-OPS 31

8 3. We could remove the alleviation contained in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(a) and instead point to the Public Interest Site Appendix. Option 1 is a do nothing proposal which could cause confusion among Authorities and operators as similar alleviations would exist in two locations of JAR-OPS 3. Option 2 is much clearer but would still leave both alleviations in place (one of which would be redundant within less than two years). Option 3 is the simplest of the options, as it would merely provide a pointer to a single extant, and continuing, alleviation. If Option 1 or 2 were preferred, justification would have to be given to explain why a risk acceptable as low as reasonably practical (ALARP) from 2005 would not be so in For this reason, and for the simplicity of the solution, only the text of option 3 is shown in the proposed amendment. Although only option 3 is shown, comments are sought on the preference of one of the other two options Explanatory Note - 5 NPA-OPS 31

9 Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(i) Helicopter operations at a public interest site (a) Approval - An operator wishing to conduct operations in accordance with this Appendix must have the prior approval of the Authority issuing the AOC and the Authority of the State in which it is intended to conduct such operations. Such an approval shall specify: (1) The public interest site(s); (2) The type(s) of helicopter; and (3) The type of operation. (b) Terminology (1) Public interest site: A ground level or elevated site, other than a HEMS operating base or a HEMS operating site, specified by the operator and used exclusively for operations in the public interest such as, but not limited to, HEMS and lighthouse operations. (c) Applicability: This Appendix shall only be applicable to turbine powered helicopter types operating to/from public interest sites which were established no later than six months after the effective date of this amendment. (c) Applicability: This Appendix shall only be applicable to multi-turbine powered helicopter types, with a maximum approved passenger seating configuration (MAPSC) of six or less, operating to/from public interest sites which were established before the 1 st of July (d) Public interest site alleviation: Helicopters, with a maximum approved passenger seating configuration (MAPSC) of six or less, conducting operations to/from a public interest site which is located in a hostile environment may be operated in accordance with Subpart H (Performance Class 2) and are exempt from the following requirements: (1) the requirement of JAR-OPS 3.520(a)(2); and (2) the requirement of JAR-OPS 3.535(a)(2); until 31 December 2004, provided that the operator has been granted a relevant approval by the Authority (See Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.517(a) subparagraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (v) and (b)(2) and (b)(5)). (d) Alleviation: (1) Operations to/from a public interest site, may be conducted in accordance with Subpart H (Performance Class 2) and are exempt from the following requirements: (i) the requirement of JAR- OPS 3.520(a)(2); and (ii) the requirement of JAR- OPS 3.535(a)(2); until 31st December 2004, provided that the operator has been granted a relevant approval by the Authority (See Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.517(a) subparagraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (v) and (b)(2) and (b)(5)). (2) From 1 st January 2005, where the size of the public interest site or its obstacle environment does not allow the helicopter to be operated in accordance with Subpart G (Performance Class 1), the exemption specified in subparagraph (d)(1) above may be approved by the Authority, provided the helicopter mass does not exceed the maximum mass specified in the Helicopter Flight Manual for a climb gradient of 8% in still air; at the appropriate take-off safety speed (Vtoss) with the critical power unit inoperative and the remaining power units operating at an appropriate power rating (See ACJ to Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(i) sub-paragraph (d)(2)). (e) Operation. Site specific procedures must be established in the Operations Manual to minimise the period during which there would be danger to helicopter occupants and persons on the surface in the event of a power unit failure during take-off and landing at a public interest site. Part C of the Operations Manual shall contain for each public interest site; a diagram or annotated photograph showing the main aspects, the dimensions, any the non-conformance with Subpart G (Performance Class 1) Annex 14, the main risks and the contingency plan should an incident occur B - 1 NPA-OPS 31

10 Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d) Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (a) to (c)(2)(i) unchanged (A) Helicopters conducting operations to/from a heliport at a hospital which is located in a hostile environment, shall be operated in accordance with Subpart G (Performance Class 1); except when the operator holds an Approval to operate under Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(i). except that helicopters first issued with an individual C of A before 1 January 2000 are exempt from: (A1) The requirements of JAR-OPS 3.490(a)(3)(i); (A2) The requirement of clearing the elevated heliport prescribed in JAR- OPS 3.490(a)(3)(ii); (A3) The requirement of clearing the elevated heliport prescribed in JAR- OPS 3.510(a)(3)(i); and (A4) The requirements of JAR-OPS 3.510(a)(3)(ii) until 31 December 2004, provided the operator has been granted a relevant approval by the Authority (See Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.517(a), sub-paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (v), (b)(2) and (b)(5) B - 2 NPA-OPS 31

11 ACJ to Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(i) sub-paragraph (d)(2) The helicopter mass limitation at take-off or landing specified in Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(i) sub-paragraph (d)(2) should be determined using the climb performance data from 35 ft to 200 ft at Vtoss (First segment of the take-off flight path) contained in the Category A supplement of the Helicopter Flight Manual (or equivalent manufacturer data acceptable to the JAA according to IEM OPS 3.480(a)(1) and (a)(2)). The first segment climb data to be considered is established for a climb at the take-off safety speed Vtoss, with the landing gear extended (when the landing gear is retractable), with the critical power unit inoperative and the remaining power units operating at an appropriate power rating (the 2 min 30 sec or 2 min One Engine Inoperative power rating, depending on the helicopter type certification). The appropriate Vtoss, is the value specified in the Category A performance section of the Helicopter Flight Manual for vertical take-off and landing procedures (VTOL or Helipad or equivalent). The ambient conditions at the heliport (pressure-altitude and temperature) should be taken into account. The data is usually provided in charts one of the following ways: - Height gain in ft over a horizontal distance of 100 ft in the first segment configuration (35 ft to 200 ft, Vtoss, 2 min 30 sec / 2 min OEI power rating). This chart should be entered with a height gain of 8 ft per 100 ft horizontally travelled, resulting in a mass value for every pressure-altitude/temperature combination considered. - Horizontal distance to climb from 35 ft to 200 ft in the first segment configuration (Vtoss, 2 min 30 sec / 2 min OEI power rating). This chart should be entered with a horizontally distance of 628 m (2 062 ft), resulting in a mass value for every pressure-altitude/temperature combination considered. - Rate of climb in the first segment configuration (35 ft to 200 ft, Vtoss, 2 min 30 sec / 2 min OEI power rating). This chart can be entered with a rate of climb equal to the climb speed (Vtoss) value in knots multiplied by 8.07, resulting in a mass value for every pressurealtitude/temperature combination considered. ACJ-2 to Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(i) Helicopter operations to/from a public interest site 1 General Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(i) - containing alleviations for public interest sites - was introduced in January 2002 to address problems that had been encountered by member States at hospital (and lighthouse) sites due to the applicable performance requirements of Subparts G and H. These problems were enumerated in ACJ to Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d) paragraph 8, part of which is reproduced below....8 Problems with hospital sites During implementation of JAR-OPS 3, it was established that a number of States had encountered problems with the impact of performance rules where helicopters were operated for HEMS. Although States accept that progress should be made towards operations where risks associated with a critical power unit failure are eliminated, or limited by the exposure time concept, a number of landing sites exist which do not (or never can) allow operations to Performance Class 1 or 2 requirements. These sites are generally found in a congested hostile environment: - in the grounds of hospitals; or B - 3 NPA-OPS 31

12 - on hospital buildings; The problem of hospital sites is mainly historical and, whilst the Authority could insist that such sites not be used - or used at such a low weight that critical power unit failure performance is assured, it would seriously curtail a number of existing operations. Even though the rule for the use of such sites in hospital grounds for HEMS operations (Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d) sub-paragraph (c)(2)(i)(a)) attracts alleviation until 2005, it is only partial and will still impact upon present operations. Because such operations are performed in the public interest, it was felt that the Authority should be able to exercise its discretion so as to allow continued use of such sites provided that it is satisfied that an adequate level of safety can be maintained - notwithstanding that the site does not allow operations to Performance Class 1 or 2 standards. However, it is in the interest of continuing improvements in safety that the alleviation of such operations be constrained to existing sites, and for a limited period... As stated in this ACJ and embodied in the text of the appendix, the solution was short term (until 31 st December 2004). During the comment period of NPA 18, representations were made to the JAA that the alleviation should be extended to The review committee, in not accepting this request, had in mind that this was a short-term solution to address an immediate problem, and a permanent solution should be sought. 2. Public Interest Sites after 1 st January 2005 Although elimination of such sites would remove the problem, it is recognized that phasing out, or rebuilding existing hospital and lighthouse heliports, is a long-term goal which may not be costeffective, or even possible, in some States. It should be noted however that existing paragraph (c) of the appendix limits the problem by confining approvals to public interest sites established before 1 st July 2002 (established in this context means either: built before that date; or brought into service before that date this precise wording was used to avoid problems associated with a ground level heliport where no building would be required). Thus the problem of these sites is contained and reducing in severity. This date was set approximately 6 months after the intended implementation of this original appendix. From 1 st January 2005 the approval of a public interest site will be confined to those sites where a Cat A procedure alone cannot solve the problem. However, in order to reduce the risk at those sites, the application of the requirements contained in paragraph (d)(2) of the appendix will be required. Additionally and In order to promote understanding of the problem, the text contained in paragraph (e) of the appendix has been amended to refer to Subpart G of JAR-OPS 3 and not to Annex 14 as in the original appendix. Thus Part C of the Operations Manual should reflect the non-conformance with that Subpart. The following paragraphs discuss the problem and solutions. 3. The problem associated with public interest sites There are a number of problems: some of which can be solved with the use of appropriate helicopters and procedures; and others which, because of the size of the heliport or the obstacle environment, cannot. They consist of: f. Helicopters that cannot meet the performance criteria required by Subpart G; g. The size of the FATO of the heliport (smaller than that required by the manufacturers procedure); h. An obstacle environment that prevents the use of the manufacturers procedure (obstacles in the back-up area) i. An obstacle environment that does not allow recovery following a power unit failure in the critical phase of take-off (a line of buildings requiring a demanding gradient of climb) B - 4 NPA-OPS 31

13 j. A ground level heliport (exposure is not permitted); 3.1 Problems associated with a; it was recognised at the time of the adoption of the original appendix that, although the number of helicopters not meeting the absolute performance criteria of a. above were dwindling, existing HEMS and lighthouse fleets could not be replaced until (There is still a possibility that limited production will not allow the complete replacement of such limited power helicopters before the 2004 date; it is therefore suggested that Authorities should, providing an order position can be established by the operator, allow the continued use of such helicopters for a limited period, without the additional mitigation required by paragraph (d)(2) of the appendix.) 3.2 Problems associated with b.; the inability to climb and conduct a rejected landing back to the heliport following an engine failure before the Decision Point (DP). 3.3 Problems associated with c.; as in b. 3.4 Problems associated with d; climb into an obstacle following an engine failure after DP. 3.5 Problems associated with e.; may be related to; - the size of the FATO which is too small for the manufacturers procedure; - no room for back-up; - an obstacle in the take-off path; or - a mixture of all three. With the exception of case a., problems cannot be solved in the immediate future but can, when mitigated with the use of the latest generation of helicopters (operated at a weight that can allow useful payloads and endurance), minimise exposure to risk. 4. Long Term Solution Although not offering a complete solution, it was felt that a significant increase in safety could be achieved by applying a performance delta to such operations. This solution could also be seen as mitigation proportional to the problem and would allow the time restriction of 2004 to be removed. The performance delta, which is set at 8% climb gradient in the first segment, reflects ICAO Annex 14 Volume II in Table 4-3 Dimensions and slopes of obstacle limitations surfaces for Performance Class 2. The performance delta is achieved without the provision of further manufacturers data by using existing graphs to provide the RTOM. If we examine the solution in relation to the original problem the effects can be seen. 4.1 Solution with relation to b.; although the problem still exists, the safest procedure is a dynamic take-off reducing the time taken to achieve Vstayup and thus allowing VFR recovery if the failure occurs at or after Vy and 200 feet, an IFR recovery is possible. 4.2 Solution with relation to c.; as in b. above. 4.3 Solution with relation to d.; once again this does not give a complete solution, however the performance delta minimise the time during which a climb over the obstacle cannot be achieved. 4.4 Solution with relation to e.; as in 4.1 to 4.3 above B - 5 NPA-OPS 31