Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Helicopter Pad Design Issues PDF
Helicopter Pad Design Issues PDF
GUIDELINES
Prepared by
John Burt Associates Limited / BOMEL Limited
for the Health and Safety Executive
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
ii
PREFACE
These offshore helideck design guidelines have been developed in response to an
increasing awareness within the industry that offshore helideck operations can encounter
problems that potentially affect flight safety. These problems may be caused by helideck
layout and equipment deficiencies, structure-induced turbulence, hot gas plumes generated
by turbines and flares or the effects of wind/wave-induced motions on helidecks on floating
structures and vessels. Often the problems result in operating limits being imposed by the
helicopter operators.
Recommendation 10.3 (i) in CAA Paper 99004, a joint HSE / CAA sponsored report into
offshore helideck environmental issues, was the main starting point for these guidelines
along with an increasing number of non-conformities found during helideck inspections.
HSE, with the support of the CAA and endorsement by the Offshore Industry Advisory
Committees Helicopter Liaison Group (representing industry associations, trades unions
and regulators), have commissioned the development of these guidelines. The objective is
to provide designers and helicopter operators with the means to identify and understand the
key issues that need to be addressed during design, fabrication and commissioning of
helidecks. Good helideck design and operability also requires the designer and helicopter
operator to have a clear understanding of regulatory requirements and the management
and operational aspects of offshore helicopter logistics. These guidelines should therefore
be read in conjunction with the latest editions of CAP 437 - Offshore Helicopter landing
Areas - Guidance on Standards [Ref: 40] and the UK Offshore Operators Association
Guidelines for the Management of Offshore Helideck Operations [Ref: 49]. They should
be regarded as companion documents.
The environmental research work, which is the foundation for Section 10 of these
guidelines, was performed by BMT Fluid Mechanics Limited in conjunction with other
specialists (e.g. DERA and JBAL). In addition, technical contributions from several
experienced industry professionals and the findings from several other research projects
form the substance of these guidelines.
It is HSE's intention that these guidelines be periodically updated to reflect the outcome of
ongoing industry research and advances in design and operating knowledge. Readers are
therefore requested to send in their suggestions and comments for consideration to the
HSE Hazardous Installation Directorate Offshore Division (Marine & Aviation Operations) at
Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, London, SE1 9HS and / or BOMEL Limited at Ledger
House, Forest green Road, Fifield, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 2NR.
iii
DISCLAIMER
Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the data given in this document are both
correct and up to date at the time of publication, the Health and Safety Executive and
authors will not accept any liability for any erroneous, incorrect or incomplete information
published in this document.
iv
ORGANISATIONS CONSULTED
Association of British Certification Bodies (ABCB)
British Helicopter Advisory Board (BHAB)
British Rig Owners Association (BROA)
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)
Cogent / Offshore Petroleum Industry Training Organisation (OPITO)
International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC)
International Association of Geophysical Contractors (IAGC)
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (OGP)
International Marine Contractors Association (IMCA)
Inter Union Offshore Operations Committee (IUOOC)
Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA)
Offshore Contractors Association (OCA)
United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association (UKOOA)
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
BOMEL Limited
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
vi
CONTENTS
PREFACE
III
DISCLAIMER
IV
CONTENTS
VII
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Purpose
1.2
Scope
1
2
2
2.0
5
5
5
6
7
3.0
11
11
11
4.0
17
17
18
18
4.2.2
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.4
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.4.5
4.4.6
4.4.7
19
21
21
21
22
22
22
23
23
24
25
26
5.0
vii
27
27
28
29
5.4
5.5
6.0
7.0
30
30
37
37
37
37
37
38
38
38
40
41
42
48
6.4.1
6.4.2
6.5
6.5.1
6.5.2
6.5.3
6.5.4
6.6
6.6.1
6.6.2
6.6.3
6.6.4
6.7
6.7.1
6.7.2
6.7.3
48
48
50
50
51
51
53
54
54
54
54
55
55
55
55
56
Main References
General
Helicopter Parking Facilities
Introduction
Main References
Design Considerations
Hangars
Obstacle Free Environment
Main References
Obstruction Clearances
Limited Obstacle Sector
Falling Gradient
Control, Access And Escape
Main References
Helideck Control Room
Access and Escape Routes
57
57
58
58
58
58
67
67
67
68
69
7.3.5
7.3.6
7.3.7
7.4
7.4.1
7.4.2
7.4.3
7.5
8.0
70
71
71
72
72
73
73
76
77
77
77
79
79
81
8.1.5
8.2
8.2.1
8.2.2
8.2.3
8.2.4
82
83
83
84
84
8.2.5
9.0
85
85
HELIDECK STRUCTURES
9.1
Introduction
9.2
Main References
9.3
Landing Surface
9.3.1
Wood
9.3.2
Steel
9.3.3
Aluminium
9.4
Support Structure
9.4.1
Introduction
91
91
92
93
93
93
93
95
95
9.4.2
9.4.3
9.4.4
9.4.5
9.5
9.6
9.6.1
9.6.2
9.6.3
9.6.4
95
96
96
97
97
97
97
98
99
99
Materials
Design
Interconnected Modules
Maintenance
Appurtenances
Load Combinations and Load Factors
Introduction
Emergency landing
Normal Operations and Helicopters at Rest
Design Loadings
ix
10.0
9.7
9.7.1
9.7.2
9.7.3
9.7.4
9.7.5
9.7.6
9.8
9.8.1
9.8.2
9.8.3
9.8.4
9.8.5
9.8.6
101
101
101
101
102
103
106
107
107
107
108
109
109
111
9.8.7
9.8.8
9.9
9.9.1
9.9.2
9.9.3
9.9.4
9.9.5
9.10
9.10.1
9.10.2
9.10.3
9.10.4
9.10.5
9.10.6
9.10.7
9.11
111
112
112
112
112
113
113
113
115
115
115
115
116
116
117
121
121
9.11.1
9.11.2
9.11.3
9.12
9.13
9.13.1
9.13.2
Introduction
Main References
Design Considerations
Helideck Surface Trip Hazards
Helideck Structural Maintenance
Main References
Introduction
121
121
121
124
124
124
124
127
127
127
127
11.
10.4
10.4.1
10.4.2
10.4.3
10.4.4
10.4.5
10.4.6
10.4.7
10.5
10.5.1
10.5.2
10.5.3
10.5.4
10.5.5
Design Issues
Introduction
Aerodynamic Issues and Criteria
Plan Location of the Helideck
Helideck Height and Air Gap under the Helideck
Proximity to Tall Structures
Temperature Rise due to Hot Exhausts
Cold Flaring and Rapid Blow-down Systems
Special Considerations for Floating Systems and Vessels
General
Wave Motion Characteristics and Criteria
Sea State Characterisation
Vessel Motions and Helideck Downtime
Helideck Location Dependence
129
129
130
131
132
134
136
139
140
140
141
142
142
142
10.6
10.7
10.7.1
10.7.2
10.8
10.8.1
10.8.2
10.8.3
10.8.4
10.9
10.9.1
10.9.2
10.9.3
10.9.4
10.9.5
10.9.6
10.10
145
146
146
147
148
149
150
152
153
155
155
155
161
163
164
167
169
10.10.1
10.10.2
10.10.3
10.11
10.11.1
10.12
10.12.1
10.13
General
Presentation of Flow Assessment Results for Design
Presentation of Flow Assessment Results for Operations
Wave Motion Assessment
Wave Induced Motion Estimates
Wave Climate
Limiting Motion Criteria
Estimating Helideck Downtime Due to Waves
169
169
176
179
179
180
180
182
HELIDECK SYSTEMS
11.1
Introduction
11.1.1 Hazardous Area Classification and Equipment Selection
183
183
183
xi
11.2
11.2.1
11.2.2
11.2.3
11.2.4
11.2.5
11.3
11.3.1
11.3.2
11.3.3
11.3.4
11.3.5
11.3.6
11.3.7
184
184
184
184
185
187
188
188
189
191
192
195
198
199
11.3.8
11.3.9
11.4
11.4.1
11.4.2
11.5
11.5.1
11.5.2
11.5.3
11.5.4
11.5.5
11.5.6
11.5.7
11.5.8
11.5.9
11.5.10
11.6
Windsock Lighting
Status Lights
Electrical Power Supplies
General Philosophy
Design Considerations
Fire Protection Systems
General
Main References
Firefighting Safety Goals and Objectives
Requirements of a Foam System
Design Criteria for Foam Systems
Design Considerations for Monitor Systems
Water / Foam Systems
Hydrant Systems and Equipment
Complementary Media
Helideck Fire Detection
Rescue Equipment Provisions
202
204
207
207
208
208
208
209
209
211
211
212
217
218
221
223
224
11.6.1
11.6.2
11.6.3
11.7
11.7.1
11.7.2
11.7.3
11.7.4
11.8
11.8.1
11.8.2
Main References
Rescue Equipment Cabinets
Rescue Equipment Inventory
Helicopter Refuelling
Introduction
Main References
Operational Considerations
General Design Considerations
Communications Equipment
Introduction
Main References
224
224
227
228
228
228
228
229
235
235
235
xii
11.8.3.
11.8.4
11.8.5
11.8.6
11.8.7
11.8.8
11.8.9
11.9
11.9.1
11.9.2
11.9.3
11.9.4
11.9.5
11.9.6
236
237
238
238
238
239
240
240
240
241
241
242
245
246
11.9.7
11.9.8
11.9.9
11.9.10
11.10
11.10.1
11.10.2
11.11
11.12
11.12.1
11.12.2
11.12.3
11.12.4
11.12.5
247
248
248
249
250
250
251
251
254
254
254
254
255
256
APPENDIX 1 - CONTRIBUTORS
260
APPENDIX 2 - REFERENCES
262
269
273
275
277
279
281
xiii
283
285
287
289
291
xiv
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
xv
1.0
INTRODUCTION
These guidelines have been developed and published under the sponsorship of
the Health & Safety Executive supported by the Civil Aviation Authority and
endorsed by the Offshore Industry Advisory Committee Helicopter Liaison Group
(OIAC-HLG) to provide technical information about the design and operation of
helidecks and their facilities and to indicate current good practice. The OIAC-HLG
membership is comprised of HSE, CAA, BHAB, UKOOA, BROA, IADC, IMCA and
the trades unions TGWU and AMICUS (MSF).
Since oil and gas exploration activities began on the United Kingdom Continental
Shelf (UKCS), the Offshore Industry has been dependent on the efficient and safe
use of helicopters for logistics and emergency support. The primary role is moving
people to and from their workplaces on the offshore facilities. Other roles include
freight movement, emergency evacuation and search and rescue.
Over the thirty years or so since oil and gas activities commenced on the UKCS,
helicopter travel has become the norm for the workforce. A measure of the scale
of this vital activity since the early sixties is that there have been in the order of 6
million flights and 45 million passenger movements within the UKCS (1968 2002).
The introduction of helicopters in the early sixties as a routine offshore workhorse
has increasingly brought the associated operational support activities into sharper
focus. The harsh operating environment, some serious and fatal accidents and the
emergence of goal setting regulations offshore have all contributed to a greater
awareness of the problems associated with operating helicopters in a marine
environment.
However, this greater awareness of operating problems has not always been
matched by a full and clear understanding of requirements at the interfaces
between aviation, oil and gas production and processing and marine operations.
Helideck surveys carried out between 1992 and 1995 by the Civil Aviation
Authority (CAA), on behalf of the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) [Ref: 34]
revealed deficiencies concerning the physical layout of helidecks, helideck
operations, maintenance, standards of equipment and the competence and
training of helideck crews that were subsequently corrected.
It is vital that the technical requirements for helicopter operations are properly
identified during the conceptual design of an installation and given full
consideration at all subsequent stages from detailed design through to fabrication,
1.1
PURPOSE
These guidelines are intended to:
Assist those involved with the conceptual and detailed design of helideck
systems to specify the equipment on offshore installations, MODUs and
vessels, in order to provide suitable helideck arrangements that will
ensure good availability under both normal and emergency operating
conditions
1.2
SCOPE
The guidelines are intended to comprehensively address the routine and key
technical issues that are known to arise in the design and construction of offshore
helidecks and the execution of UKCS offshore and helideck operations.
In so doing, the guidelines should provide industry with advice and technical
information on good helideck design and construction practices and the acceptable
operating standards that duty holders and vessel owners are reasonably expected
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
2.0
2.1
INTRODUCTION
The offshore helicopter operating environment is viewed quite differently by the
various organisations and people that are involved in the wide range of activities,
from helideck design through to actual offshore helideck operations. The various
parties include:
Regulators.
2.2
2.3
2.
2.4
RESTRICTED HELIDECKS
96 (25.6%)
279 (74.4%)
Helideck Technical Committee for basic deficiencies on helidecks that have been
more recently installed.
In the same CAA Paper, an analysis of 18 accident reports (see following table)
taken from the CAA SI&DD, Mandatory Occurrence Reporting (MOR) database
shows that defects in Installation design can be cited as the cause for two thirds of
the occurrences. This situation clearly suggests that helideck operability was not
properly addressed during the initial design phase of the Installations concerned.
Such design deficiencies can seriously undermine operational efficiency and
compromise safety
FLIGHT PHASE AT OFFSHORE INSTALLATION
APPROACH
LANDING
TAKE-OFF
HOVER
CLIMB
5 (27.8%)
9 (50.0%)
2 (11.1%)
2 (11.1%)
0 (0%)
PRIMARY CAUSE
FLARE / BURNERS
TURBULENCE
EXHAUST PLUMES
PILOT ERROR
4 (22.2%)
7 (38.9%)
3 (16.7%)
4 (22.2%)
SECONDARY CAUSE
FLARE /
BURNERS
TURBULENCE
EXHAUST
PLUMES
PILOT ERROR
OTHER
0 (0%)
9 (50%)
2 (11.1%)
3 (33.3%)
4 (22.2%)
FAILURE CATEGORY
INSTALLATION DESIGN
AIRCRAFT OPERATION
12 (66.7%)
6 (33.3%)
Further evidence to demonstrate the need for ensuring that design and operation
of helidecks on the UKCS are properly managed, is illustrated in the following
table.
The table takes data from the CAA SI&DD, Mandatory Occurrence Reporting
(MOR) database over the period 1975 to 2001 and provides a breakdown of nonfatal reportable accident causes.
1975-1983
1984-1992
1993-2001
15
19
In addition to fatal and non-fatal reportable accidents the MOR Database also
records other occurrences.
These relatively minor occurrences take place in greater numbers but are equally
as important from an offshore flight safety viewpoint. They require appropriate
actions to be taken to prevent recurrence.
From an aviation perspective the occurrences are typified by events such as
engine and other component failures and operational shortcomings. Their effects
are generally contained within the design and operating capability of helicopters.
Other occurrences are helideck environmental issues, offshore helideck
management and operational procedure violations. Avoiding these violations is
part of the substance for these guidelines.
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10
3.0
3.1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this part of the guidance document is to identify the topics and
expand the requirements that need to be properly considered in the design and
fabrication of new helidecks and the modification of existing helidecks, regardless
of the type of facility to which they are fitted.
3.2
DESIGN
Offshore helideck and facilities design can be broken down into a sequence of
events within an overall project process. The process is illustrated in the following
figures:
Figure 3.1 Defining the Basic Requirements for a Helideck
Figure 3.2 Verification / Classification Process and Selecting Design Codes
Figure 3.3 Facility and Helideck Layout Considerations
Figure 3.4 Specifying the Helideck and Support Systems.
11
Fixed
?
Fixed?
(e.g.Manned
manne ord NUI)
or
(e.g.
un - manned)
Mobile ?
(e.g. FPSO,
MODU, Vessel)
What is the
Project Logistics
intent ?
Is a helicopter
landing area
required? If yes,
Under what
jurisdiction is the
facility to operate ?
Is a parking /
laydown area
required ?
W hat is the
Project Design
Helicopter ?
Is helicopter
refuelling
required ?
Decide verification /
classification process
and establish project
design codes
If yes, determine
the operational
fuel usage and fuel
storage capacity
required, including
reserves
See
See
F
Fig.
igure
3.2
1.2
See
See
Fig. 3.31.3
Figure
12
See
See
Fig.
3.4
Figure
1.4
Fixed
Installations
(incl. FPSOs)
Mobile
Installations
(incl. MODUs)
Specialist
Vessels
(DSVs, etc.)
Offshore
Health & Safety
Regulatory Requirements
Aviation
Regulatory
Requirements
Authority Jurisdictions
for the operating
location correctly
identified and advised
to project?
CAP 437
IMO MODU code
SOLAS (Ships)
Flag State Rules
Ships Rules (Class)
Industry Guidelines
13
Project design
helicopter
established
required
Determine available
helideck locations
on the installation
Determine maximum
required helideck
size and shape
YES
NO
YES
Reappraise design
layout and find
solutions
FIX
helideck design
layout
14
Helideck design,
material, surface,
access & escape
selected
(Sections 6 & 9)
Refuelling system
required?
(Section 11.7)
Fire Protection
systems requirements
identified and
capacities calculated
(Section 11.5)
Structural support
design / material
/construction
requirements identified
and satisfied
(See Section 9)
Aviation Fuel
storage and
supply systems
identified, located
and sized
(Section 11.7)
Aviation fuel
system and
equipment
properly specified
(Section 11.7)
Protective clothing
requirements identified
and specified
(Section11.6.4)
Helideck, identification,
installation side signage
and obstruction markings
properly specified
(Sections 11.2)
Lighting systems
requirements specified &
adequate electrical
power (main & UPS)
available
(Sections 11.3)
15
Communications and
meteorological
equipment requirements
identified and properly
specified
(Sections 11.8 & 11.9)
Helideck motion
recording system and
equipment identified &
specified (FPSOs,
MODUs & Vessels)
(Section 11.9)
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
16
4.0
4.1
INTRODUCTION
There are a significant number of regulations governing the use of helicopters and
the provision of facilities for their operation on the UKCS. These Guidelines
identify the regulations in force at the time of publication, but users of this
document should always ensure that they refer to the latest issue of any
regulation; particularly new or revised HSE Publications and HSE and CAA
research and development papers (See Appendix 2).
Over the years several documents have been published in the form of legal
requirements, official notices, guidance and good industry practice for offshore
helicopter operations. The essential elements of these documents will be found
referenced in the text and appendices of these Offshore Helideck Design
Guidelines.
This section deals with the legislation and enforcement with respect to helideck
design, construction and verification as two distinct subjects:
The offshore regulations do not apply to vessels that are not designated as
Offshore Installations, UK or Flag State Marine Law applies to these vessels.
Aeronautical operations regulations and guidelines make no such distinction on the
UKCS: Aviation Rules always apply.
It is, however, recommended that owners and builders of vessels with helidecks
that will operate on the UKCS, in support of oil and gas operations, seriously
consider the advantages of complying fully with the UK offshore and aviation
regulatory requirements. There is considerable operational and commercial
benefit to be obtained by employing the most rigorous design standards. This
design guide is written with these standards in mind.
17
4.2
REGULATIONS
4.2.1
18
4.2.2
19
20
4.3
4.3.1
Fixed Installations
Generally, selection of appropriate regulations, guidance and design codes for
design and construction of a fixed installation to be placed on the UKCS is a
straightforward matter.
These guidelines address many of the current
requirements throughout the text and should therefore provide designers with a
good appreciation of the standards to be adopted.
4.3.2
Lighting systems
21
The above areas where potential MODU and vessel design and construction
requirements may conflict are covered in more detail in Section 7.
4.4
VERIFICATION
4.4.1
Introduction
The Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and Construction, etc.) Regulations
1996 (SI 1996/913) (DCR) have amended the Offshore Installations (Safety
Case) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/2885) (SCR) to replace the Certification
regime established by the, now revoked, Offshore Installations (Construction and
Survey) Regulations 1974.
The Safety Case centred Regulations dispensed with the concept of a Certifying
Authority and place sole responsibility for the development and ongoing
maintenance of a safe Installation onto the Operator or Owner (Duty Holder).
It is recommended that vessel owners operating in UK waters adopt a similar
approach to that described below where they have an operational helideck
installed. There is close correlation between the fundamental requirements of
classification and that of verification. There is also the basic requirement to
comply with CAP 437. For legal and practical reasons, therefore, it makes good
sense to apply this design guidance to all helidecks.
4.4.2
Safety-Critical Elements
Operators / Owners are required to list the Safety-Critical Elements (SCEs), have
them subject to independent review and develop a scheme for verification of their
performance throughout the life cycle of the installation.
UKOOA Guidelines for the Management of Safety-Critical Elements [Ref: 51]
provide further detailed information.
An Offshore Installation helideck is a collection of systems, some of which are
safety-critical or have safety-critical sub-systems or components. This means that
a failure in any part of its operation could cause, or substantially contribute to, a
major accident at the installation with potentially serious consequences for
installation, helicopters and workforce.
22
Power
Drainage
Emergency Lighting
This list of items arises from the helideck function as a means for evacuating the
installation / vessel in an emergency (where possible under certain defined
scenarios). Also, failure of helideck safety systems (e.g. firefighting system) may
prevent the on-board capability from limiting the effects of a helicopter accident on
the helideck.
4.4.3
Performance Standards
Performance standards should be set by the Installation Operator, MODU or
vessel owner to measure or assess the suitability and effectiveness of the helideck
and to assure and verify that the helideck structure, systems and equipment are fit
for purpose. Meeting the installation integrity requirements of DCR and PFEER
performance standards also contribute to assuring the SCEs for the helideck.
In setting the performance standards to comply with offshore legislation, it should
also be recognised that the requirements of CAP 437 must be met in order to
obtain BHAB Helidecks clearance for routine flight operations. Therefore, CAP
437 should be used as the basis for setting the relevant SCE performance
standards.
SCE performance standards do not cover the auditing of helideck operational
aspects. These should be covered in the installation Safety Management System
(SMS). However, they are equally important.
4.4.4
The Process
Having set the performance standards, independent and competent persons
should be selected by the operator / owner to prepare, or be consulted on the
verification scheme and to implement it. It is for the operator / owner to decide
how this is to be achieved. The prime requirement of the verifying body is an
adequate capability to assess the importance of defects.
Independent in this context may include employees of the installation operator,
MODU or vessel owner, provided they have not been involved technically in the
design and planning of the relevant parts of the installation and that their
management lines should be separate from those whose work they are checking.
23
4.4.5
lighting
markings
friction surface
tiedowns
refuelling facilities
24
During the helideck design verification process, the appropriate design documents
including drawings, wind tunnel test reports, etc. should be reviewed and verified
by an independent competent person (ICP).
BHAB Helidecks should also be notified at the commencement of new helideck
designs or modifications to existing helidecks and, when appropriate, consulted on
issues concerning potential non-compliances with CAP 437 requirements. At the
conclusion of the helideck design and fabrication, a set of up to date design
documents including drawings, wind tunnel test reports, etc. should be passed to
BHAB Helidecks for their review, comment and retention. It should be clearly
understood that modifications on installations, MODUs and vessels in areas off the
actual helideck and some distance away can adversely affect helideck operations
(e.g. the addition of new modules, repositioning of gas turbine exhausts and vent
systems, etc.).
Upon satisfactory completion of the helideck Hook Up and Commissioning, BHAB
Helidecks should be notified in order for them to undertake an initial inspection of
the helideck and its systems prior to the commencement of flight operations. The
inspection will follow the approved Offshore Helideck Inspection Report (OHIR)
format.
This initial inspection, along with an appraisal of the relevant design documents,
will highlight non-compliances and thus assist BHAB Helidecks with determining
whether operational limitations should be applied.
4.4.6
25
Vendor information, data sheets, operating instructions and maintenance and test
manuals should also be obtained for each piece of procured equipment and
provided for use on the facility.
4.4.7
26
5.0
5.1
INTRODUCTION
The Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 1992 (SCR) (SI 1992/2885),
among other things require installation owners and duty holders to identify all
hazards which could cause a major accident, including helicopter accidents, and to
take measures to reduce the risks to as low as is reasonably practicable
(Regulation 8).
The approach taken when making these Regulations was to set objectives. The
objectives were then expanded further in guidance on the regulations.
However, it is noted that, with respect to helicopter operations, the guidance on
Safety Case Regulations is focused mainly on the hazards and risks to an
installation and its personnel from impacts by aircraft. It does not specifically
encompass the hazards and risks to a helicopter and its passengers from the
installation and its processes.
Duty Holders, including Designers, should adequately address the potential effects
on helicopter flight operations caused by adverse operating environments created
on and around offshore installations. These adverse effects may result from
production and power generation processes and structures on the installation or
from adjacent installations and vessels. When combined with local weather
conditions the resultant effects can place helicopters in jeopardy, particularly
during critical flight phases. Duty Holders including Designers should, in particular,
assess any hazards due to hydrocarbon gas release, exhaust emissions, physical
turbulence generation and lit flares. Failure modes of installation, MODU or vessel
systems that have the potential to affect the safety of helicopters should also be
assessed (e.g. loss of heading control on a vessel whilst a helicopter is located on
the helideck). References to these studies should be made in the Design and
Operations Safety Cases.
HSE has recognised the need to consider the hazards to helicopters created by an
installation, MODU or vessel. The joint HSE / CAA research project resulting in
CAA Paper 99004 [Ref: 41] concluded (Conclusion No: 29) that guidance in the
past has been solely and erroneously concentrated on the risk to the installation
and has not explicitly encompassed the hazards the installation may pose to the
helicopter. HSE Safety Notice 4/99 [Ref: 23] draws duty holders attention to the
need to consider installation or vessel induced hazards for helicopters.
27
5.2
Poorly controlled activities which could adversely affect the wind flow over
the helideck, such as design modifications to the topside layout or
blocking air gaps under the helideck (where these are provided) thereby
reducing the effectiveness of the design air gap.
2.
3.
Lack of awareness on the part of the OIM of the impact of routine platform
activities on helicopter operations can also be important. Gas turbine
exhaust plumes are largely invisible to a helicopter pilot but can be
detrimental to helicopter handling and performance. Information on the
operational status of such equipment should be made available to pilots.
4.
5.
28
5.3
The maintenance of unobstructed air flow over and under the helideck
The operation of gas turbine units in situations where hot exhaust gasses
may be emitted into the path of a helicopter
involving the installation. The scope of Regulation 8 of MAR is, therefore, very
wide and includes operators, owners, concession owners, employers, employees,
managers and people in charge of visiting vessels or aircraft.
5.4
5.5
5.5.1
Report Objectives
The objectives of a Design and Operability Report are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
To provide a document that interfaces with the Safety Case and provides
relevant operating information for helicopter crews and helideck teams.
30
5.5.2
Section 3 Documentation
Provide listings of key helideck project and vendor design drawings, design
specifications, data sheets and reports (e.g. helideck wind tunnel testing). The
information that is provided for each document should include the Document
number, Originator, Title, Revision and Approval status and date.
which introduce the need to observe international conventions that may conflict
with established UK offshore requirements.
Verification meetings and the initial BHAB Helidecks review and inspection should
be noted. Reference to the outcomes and outstanding work lists should be
included.
Overall helideck size (if larger than the basic safe landing area)
Helideck drainage.
6. Visual Aids
It should be demonstrated that helideck and obstruction markings fully meet CAP
437 requirements. Any deviation must be justified and accepted by a competent
agency.
This section should also address helideck and other associated lighting systems,
their power sources and control.
The lighting systems will include perimeter and surface lights, floodlights, general
helideck and installation / vessel lighting, status lights, etc. Information should be
provided on system design, equipment selection and lighting performance.
Finally, statements should be made to demonstrate that the design and location of
installation / vessel identification markings / signs have been properly addressed in
33
order to eliminate the potential for wrong deck landings. Reference should be
made to CAP 437 (side signage) and HSE Operations Notices 14 and 39 [Refs: 24
& 26].
storage requirements
Meteorological equipment
Communications equipment
Aircraft chocks
Windsocks
34
APPENDICES
Appendices should be used where considered appropriate to assist document
readability.
As a minimum, an A3 sized general arrangement drawing should be included
clearly illustrating the installation / vessel plan and an elevation (showing the
helideck arrangements), details of the helideck and its helicopter operating criteria
and equipment layout.
35
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
36
6.0
6.1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to identify the topics that should be considered in the
design and fabrication of new helidecks and in the modification of existing
helidecks.
It also identifies experience-based practical requirements for the operation and
maintenance of a helideck, regardless of the type of facility to which it is fitted.
6.2
6.2.1
General
At the conceptual stage of an installation, MODU or vessel design, a firm
commitment is required from the owner or operator to ensure that a good operating
environment is obtained for safe and efficient helicopter operations. A positive
management commitment at this stage should ensure that, at each stage in the
design process, proper consideration is made for the future helicopter operations,
alongside other competing priorities.
The ideal helideck design can rarely be achieved due to an offshore installation,
MODU or vessel's other activities and priorities (e.g. process, drilling, power
generation, and diving operations), the working environment including vessel
motions in the case of floating installations and vessels. Inevitably, the outcome
will always be a compromise with the other activities. However, the designer
should make every effort to ensure that the helideck is truly Fit for Purpose.
6.2.2
37
6.3
6.3.1
Main References
CAP 437, Chapter 2 is the starting point for helideck and facilities design in the
UKCS.
6.3.2
General
The helideck is a vital support system for all offshore operations. Failure during
design to maximise helideck operability may have far reaching implications during
operations. These implications are typified by flight restrictions (sometimes
severe), and have the potential for increased operating expense that may later
lead to costly modifications.
It s important that the design of the helideck is regarded as a key component of the
structure, allowing for the safe transportation of personnel and equipment, as well
as a primary escape route in an emergency. The design therefore needs to be
integrated and not regarded as an appendage to the main structure.
On fixed installations and some floating structures, helidecks are generally placed
on top of an accommodation module. Vessels tend to vary quite a lot with bow
helidecks either mounted above bridge level or above the foredeck, positioned aft
and elevated above the main deck or accommodation block level and, in some
cases, offset outboard.
Layouts are invariably established following the basic published landing area
dimensional minima (i.e. CAP 437). It is recommended the designer also give
careful thought and attention to operational criteria.
It is therefore essential whilst developing a specification and obtaining approval for
construction to:
1.
2.
38
The potential for personnel contact with main or tail rotors whilst on
deck
The potential for loose items of equipment being sucked into rotors
or air intakes by structure induced turbulent airflow or rotor
downwash
4.
39
6.3.3
The safe landing area (SLA) should be positioned for optimum operational
efficiency and clearance from obstructions (See Section 6.4). Also, the
SLA should be positioned toward an appropriate outboard edge of the
main structure so that overflying installation structures is avoided, and
there are adequate clear landing and take-off sectors available
40
Doing this exercise properly will help to determine the overall helideck dimensions
that are required, over and above the safe landing area.
Simple examples for developing helideck configurations are given in Section 6.6
and a selection of actual helideck arrangements is illustrated in the following
plates.
The actual helideck arrangements shown are not necessarily optimum helideck
designs without any operating restrictions.
Figure 6.4
Figure 6.5
Figure 6.6
Figure 6.7
Figure 6.8
Figure 6.9
Figure 6.10
6.3.4
Helideck Orientation
41
6.3.5
6.3.5.1 Introduction
Having decided upon the initial layout and before proceeding further with detailed
design, the designer should examine operational effectiveness of the proposed
arrangements with respect to both physical (space and other material aspects) and
with respect to potential environmental effects.
6.3.5.2 New Designs and Modifications to Existing Installations
The following sections of these design guidelines address in detail operational
considerations, helideck systems and support equipment. The designer may draw
on this information for new installations in order to achieve a detailed design that
follows good industry practice based on practical considerations that are supported
by field experience.
For existing installations that are being modified, a review may be necessary to
assess the effects of any new plant and equipment on the operability of the
helideck. Examples of modifications that could affect operability include the
construction of an additional accommodation or other module and provision of
satellite dish nearby.
42
43
Figure 6.2 Accommodation vessel with helideck above buoyancy legs and anchor winches
(note the provision of two helidecks and large hangar facility between)
44
45
Figure 6.6 Seismic vessel with aft mounted helideck (note: the streamers are deployed and
the helideck perimeter safety net is raised to act as handrailing with the handrailing in
raised position the helideck is inoperative)
46
Figure 6.7 Mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) with helideck inboard of the buoyancy legs
and anchor winches (Note: this is a poor arrangement due to the significant 5:1 infringement,
which will incur operating restrictions).
47
6.4
6.4.1
Main References
CAP 437, Chapter 2.
6.4.2
General
The safe landing area (SLA) must be big enough to accommodate the largest
helicopter that the landing area is intended to serve. The SLA is the area of a
helideck that is contained within the WHITE Perimeter Line. This does not
necessarily mean that the SLA will be the largest possible D circle that can be
accommodated within the overall structural dimensions of a helideck. Examples of
helidecks with various Safe Landing Area arrangements are shown in the following
figures 6.10 to 6.12 (see also previous sections that address the need to optimise
helideck layout). The SLA should be given full and proper consideration from an
operational perspective whilst laying out the helideck arrangement during the
conceptual design phase of an installation or vessel.
D is the largest dimension of the helicopter when the rotors are turning and in a
conventional helicopter with an exposed tail rotor; it is the distance from the front of
the main rotor tip path to the rear of the tail rotor tip path. The parameter D
(overall length) for the chosen helicopter is found in CAP 437 D Value and
Helicopter Type Criteria along with the aircraft weight data.
Importantly, the SLA should be carefully positioned on the helideck to give an
obstruction free environment (see Section 4.7 for details), which will provide
adequate landing, overshoot and take-off paths, ample clearance from structures,
etc. during helicopter manoeuvres and sufficient space for the helideck crew to
operate and passengers to embark and disembark safely.
Where the overall size of the helideck structure can be made larger than the SLA
the designer is strongly recommended to take full advantage of any extra space
that is available to maximise separation of the SLA from any adjacent structures
and possibly to create a run-off (parking) area.
Helideck enlargement is particularly important on vessels with forward mounted
helidecks where any additional space gained to create more forward visual cues
for landing is a highly desirable feature.
Where helideck space is limited and the windflow is over the bow, the helicopter
will land on the helideck with its tail rotor towards the Limited Obstacle Sector (e.g.
48
vessel superstructure) and the flight crew will be unable to see the helideck
surface in front of the nose of the helicopter.
Therefore, with more space behind the helicopter and thus, the provision of greater
separation, there is less likelihood for an inadvertent tail rotor strike. This topic is
covered in more detail in Section 7.
NOT TO SCALE
Boundary of Helideck
Structure (excluding
Perimeter Safety Net)
H
D Circle (= SLA)
Chevron located
at this point
Limited
Obstacle
Sector
Figure 6.9 Example of a coincident safe landing area and D circle extending to the
boundary of the helideck structure. Note: 'H' offset 0.1D towards outboard edge.
NOT TO SCALE
SLA =
Whole
Helideck
Boundary of
Helideck Structure
(excluding Perimeter
Safety Net)
Chevron located
at this point
Limited
Obstacle
Sector
D Circle
Figure 6.10 Example of a safe landing area extending to the boundary of the whole helideck
structure. Note D circle only covers part of the helideck and 'H' offset 0.1D towards
outboard edge.
49
Chevron located
at this point
NOT TO SCALE
SLA is the
area within
white
Perimeter
Line
Boundary of
Helideck
Structure
(excluding
Perimeter
Safety Net /
Handrailing)
Limited
Obstacle
Sector
D Circle
Figure 6.11 Example of a helideck where the structure is larger than the safe landing area
thus providing additional clearance from obstructions and greater scope for personnel
movement, etc. outside the rotor disc area. Note: 'H' offset 0.1D towards outboard edge.
6.5
6.5.1
Introduction
In certain instances, helicopters visiting offshore installations may become
unserviceable and have to shutdown. A helicopter transiting the general area
offshore may have an in-flight emergency and be seeking an offshore diversion.
Therefore, there may be good operational reasons for wanting to park a helicopter
on a helideck but still be able to allow other helicopters to use the safe landing
area (SLA).
The ability to park a helicopter on an offshore installation and still be able to use
the helideck for other helicopter movements gives much greater operational
flexibility. For this reason a parking or run-off area should be seriously
considered at the outset of conceptual installation / helideck design.
Factors that may assist with decision-making on the benefit of providing a parking
area are:
The type of facility being designed (i.e. a small vessel or NUI may not be
able to accommodate a parking area)
50
There may only be limited structural capacity and space options with the
intended installation design and layout
6.5.2
Main References
CAP 437, Chapter 3.
6.5.3
Design Considerations
A parking area should be regarded as an integral part of the helideck layout
regardless of whether it is adjacent to the SLA or located some distance away with
ready made access to and from the SLA.
The parking area size, dimensions and layout will be entirely dependent upon the
space that can be made available. Also, there is a need to ensure that:
1.
A parked helicopter does not infringe the obstacle protected surfaces for
the helicopter landing area (e.g. create an unacceptable obstacle
environment for the helideck).
2.
The parking area can be clearly distinguished from the SLA. This is best
achieved by painting the parking area in a contrasting light colour. In
addition, the perimeter line marking and perimeter lights should clearly
delineate the SLA boundary from the parking area. For night operations,
perimeter lighting may be installed around the parking area outboard
boundary but it should be a different colour (e.g. blue) to the SLA
perimeter lighting. Similarly, the parking area should ideally be floodlit.
However, it is important to note that all parking area floodlighting should
be adequately shielded to avoid overspill onto the SLA with the potential
to affect pilot's night vision. See also Section 11.3
51
NOT TO SCALE
PARKING
AREA
Limited Obstacle
Sector
NOT TO SCALE
PARKING
AREA
Limited Obstacle
Sector
3.
52
6.5.4
4.
The positioning of a parked helicopter does not impair access and escape
routes, operation of firefighting equipment, etc
5.
6.
Parked helicopter clearances (for each type likely to use the helideck) can
be properly demonstrated and verified.
7.
8.
Hangars
On occasion there may be a requirement to install a hangar offshore to
accommodate permanently offshore-based helicopters (e.g. in-field shuttle
helicopters and offshore-based rescue and recovery [OBRR] helicopters).
Hangar structures will normally be associated with either a second helideck or an
adjacent parking area. They should therefore be considered a functional part of an
integrated helideck design. Consideration should also be given to providing two
helidecks when hangar operations are planned so that one helideck can always be
used in any weather scenario (See Figure 6.3).
In addition to the general considerations to be taken into account when designing
helidecks and hangars (see also Figure 6.3), it is essential to consider the potential
for these combined structures to create adverse aerodynamic effects over the
designated SLA. There is likely to be increased turbulent windflows in some
sectors and these may seriously affect the overall aerodynamic performance of the
helideck. Potential turbulence should be modelled and quantified to establish the
full extent and effects of any adverse windflows from the structure.
restrictions may have to be applied.
53
Flight
6.6
6.6.1
Main References
CAP 437, Chapter 3.
6.6.2
Obstruction Clearances
Viewed in plan and all elevations, the helideck location and orientation in relation
to the topsides configuration including modules and structures / appendages such
as cranes, flare booms, turbine exhausts, radio antenna, lifeboats, etc. should
maximise the obstruction free sectors available.
A minimum 210 obstacle free sector is required. Its Point of Origin (PO) on the
inboard side of the deck is the apex of the chevron (see CAP 437 Visual Aids).
On an existing helideck that, by unusual exception, does not meet the normal
obstacle free sector of 210, the accepted angle (less than 210) should be clearly
shown. In this case, operability may be compromised. Where the minimum 210
obstacle free sector can be exceeded (e.g. on a NUI), the increased angle may be
declared. In this case operability may be improved.
By extending a line out from each leg of the chevron, a check is required to ensure
freedom from obstructions within the 210 sector by identifying items that are
above deck level. Such items may not exceed 250 mm in height, and even then
must be restricted to specified essentials such as lighting fittings, safety net rails,
etc. as specified in CAP 437. Generally, no obstructions of greater height are
permitted within 1000 metres of the PO.
However, in some operational
circumstances it may be acceptable to permit obstacles within 250 metres of the
PO, subject to CAA / BHAB Helidecks assessment and approval.
Achieving the obstruction clearances can be a problem, particularly with floating
installations (e.g. floatels), vessels operating adjacent to fixed platforms and during
shuttle tanker operations to FPSOs. Where uninfringed obstacle protection cannot
be achieved this is likely to restrict or preclude operations to that helideck. See
also Section 8.1 - Combined Operations.
6.6.3
54
6.6.4
Falling Gradient
Strict control is required over the size of obstructions projecting from the side
profile of the installation / vessel below the helideck. These obstructions are
typified by lifeboat arrangements, communications antenna, laydown platforms,
exhaust systems, buoyancy tanks and windlasses and anchor systems (on
MODUs).
Within an outboard arc of minimum 180 (preferably 210) centred on the centre
of the landing area, and lying centrally within the 210 unobstructed arc, such
obstructions must not penetrate an imaginary surface which extends downwards
and outwards from the edge of the helideck at a gradient of 1 unit outwards for
every 5 units of vertical fall. This is shown in CAP 437 Size and Obstacle Free
Environment.
This unobstructed space permits the helicopter to descend safely after take off in
the event of engine failure, so as to pick up climbing speed.
The 5 to 1 gradient is measured from the outer edge of the 1.5 metre helideck
perimeter safety net.
6.7
6.7.1
Main References
CAP 437, Chapter 3.
6.7.2
To be effective, the control room should have good all round visibility of the
helideck and potential helicopter landing and take-off flight paths. The control
room construction should take full account of potential exposure of the occupants
(e.g. Helicopter Landing Officer) in the event of a serious helicopter incident on the
helideck.
Care is required when designing the control room to ensure that it does not
encroach into the obstruction free sectors and that the height is within the height
limitations in the limited obstacle sectors.
6.7.3
56
7.0
7.1
INTRODUCTION
Floating Structures and Vessels account for a large proportion of the day to day
offshore activities in UK waters.
Floating structures comprise of the following:
Specialist Vessels.
Shuttle Tankers
Seismic Vessels
Many of these units will have helidecks where the design and construction of such
helidecks (particularly on some vessels) tend to be less prescriptive than for fixed
installations; the ships main functional purpose will sometimes inhibit helideck
design. However, they are required to meet the standards set out in the relevant
regulations, codes and guidance in order to undertake helicopter operations
routinely in UK waters. Failure to meet the required UK standards will either
exclude helicopter operations, or incur severe limitations requiring expensive
rework to comply fully.
Many MODUs and specialist vessels are foreign flagged and are certificated to
operate on a worldwide basis. When they enter UK waters on contract they should
meet the UK standards required for helidecks and helicopter operations otherwise
they are likely to be severely restricted, until such time as they do. They will
require inspection by the BHAB Helidecks before helicopter operations can
commence on the UKCS.
57
Often there is a failure to comply fully with UK standards. This has the effect of
reducing commercial value in the worldwide marketplace because many other
countries are also applying the same or very similar standards.
The following sections deal with the variations to helideck layout and systems that
will be encountered when specifying the design requirements for floating
structures, MODUs and vessels. These requirements (over and above those
generally applied to a fixed installation) should be fully taken into account when the
floating structure, MODU or specialist vessel is intended to operate in UK waters.
7.2
7.2.1
Introduction
Invariably a MODU (a semi-submersible, jack-up on the move, or drill ship) will
initially be specified using the IMO MODU Code [Ref: 70] as the basis for design.
It should be noted that helidecks are covered in Chapter 13 of that code, and the
basic deck specified is smaller than that required by ICAO Annex 14 Volume 2 and
CAP 437 standards. However, where adverse climatic conditions are prevalent,
as in the North Sea, the Coastal State may[specify a larger helideck] (MODU
Code 13.2.3). The MODU Code specifications are still very brief and relying
exclusively on Chapter 13 of the IMO MODU Code, could easily mislead a
designer into producing an inadequate helideck facility for UK operations.
Therefore, it is imperative that UK national codes and guidance for helidecks and
helicopter operations are referenced alongside the IMO MODU Code.
7.2.2
Main References
CAP 437, Chapter 6.
IMO MODU Code.
7.2.3
58
59
Apart from spurious DP changes potentially causing severe problems for the
vessel whilst performing its primary operating task, even small changes to vessel
heading, etc. can induce increased helideck motions. These increased helideck
motions may suddenly put the helideck out-of-limits for a safe helicopter landing
and / or create serious stability problems for a helicopter parked on the helideck.
7.2.3.4 Drainage
Semi-Submersibles
Despite the best efforts of the builders, steel plated helidecks rarely remain flat
enough to be reliably drained by rig motion alone. Normal practice on such
helidecks is to camber the deck about a centreline knuckle. Camber is generally
between 1:100 and 1:50 (0.57 and 1.15).
Vessels
As a result of vessel trim and motions the helideck should drain naturally toward
the drain holes and scuppers.
Therefore the helideck does not need a built-in fall, as is the case with fixed
installations.
If a fall is built into a vessel helideck this effectively introduces a pre-fixed list
onto the helideck relative to the vessel datum. This list has the effect of reducing
motion tolerance at the helideck for helicopter landings and the degree of list must
therefore be added to the recorded motion measurement in the relevant axis (e.g.
roll or pitch).
7.2.3.5 Helideck Location, Size and Obstacle Environment
Helideck location on MODUs will largely depend upon the type of hull structure
employed (e.g. Semi-submersible, Jack-up or Ship). Size is not normally a
problem other than the structural and weight considerations associated for
example with very large, elevated helidecks that may have an adverse effect on
vessel stability.
Fundamental to any helideck design on a floating structure is the achievement of
an optimum safety performance for a moving helideck.
A moving helideck requires the designer and the operator to take full account of a
number of key issues that require proper resolution during design if the helideck is
to offer good operability and safety. Depending on the helideck location, these
issues involve providing:
60
Increased space around the landing area to allow safe passenger and
helideck crew movements
Proper provisions for safe personnel access and egress from the helideck
irrespective of the rate of helideck movement
Semi-Submersibles
The helideck is typically located at one corner of the main deck (forward or aft)
directly above one of the buoyancy columns and adjacent to the bridge /
accommodation. In this location, the windlasses and winches for controlling the
anchoring system will be directly below the helideck.
It is therefore important to ensure there is sufficient cantilever of the helideck
structure over the column and windlasses to avoid infringing the 5:1 falling gradient
below the helideck surface. It is also essential to provide sufficient air gap below
the helideck structure and above the winches and housings to avoid unfavourable
aerodynamic effects over the helideck.
NOT TO SCALE
Helideck
Overall Size
D Circle
H
Additional
1500mm
working space
all round
White
Perimeter Line
(= SLA)
Figure 7.1 Recommended dimensions for increasing helideck size to provide additional
space for helicopter manoeuvring and personnel movement on moving helidecks.
61
Normally, the position of the helideck relative to the topside structure, potential
obstructions and potential flight paths will provide adequate visual cues for flight
crews and sufficient clearances for landing and take-off.
Additional space around the helicopter landing area for safe passenger and
helideck crew movements and during manoeuvring a helicopter for landing onto
the moving helideck, is a prime consideration.
As a guide, irrespective of the helicopter type for which the helideck is designed, it
is recommended, where practicable, that the overall helideck size be increased by
at least 1500mm around the perimeter of the D circle in order to provide additional
working space (see Figure 7.1).
In the case of small helidecks with a 'D' circle of 16 metres or less, the provision of
increased working space around the perimeter becomes a necessity. This is
because small helicopters (e.g. Sikorsky S76) generally have low rotor disc heights
and in some wind conditions blade sailing below the height of an average person
can easily occur. The provision of this extra perimeter space and with markings
based on deck centre along with a minimum of three escape points from the
helideck surface will facilitate safer personnel movements.
Jack-Ups
Helidecks on jack-ups, when on location, do not need special consideration for
vessel movements because they are in effect fixed structures. However, when
under tow they are effectively a vessel, and helicopters landing on the helideck
(routinely or in an emergency) will require the same design considerations and
operational aids as a mobile unit.
In particular when under tow, the legs will be elevated to their maximum height
and, as a result, they will be the dominant obstructions. This should be taken fully
into account during helideck design.
Vessels
Similar to semi-submersibles, vessels require their helideck designs to take fully
into account the additional measures needed to accommodate vessel movements,
as noted previously. Much will depend on the location of the helideck on the
vessel and the ability of the vessel to manoeuvre in order to gain favourable wind
flows over the helideck during helicopter operations.
A Drill Ship featuring a vessel type hull may be typically moored using a
conventional widely spread anchor system. Alternatively, it may be dynamically
positioned (DP).
62
Conventional anchoring means there is little, if any, scope for changing the
helideck position relative to favourable windflows once the anchor pattern is set.
DP may allow the vessel some heading adjustment into the prevailing wind, wave
and current conditions, dependent entirely on drilling and marine safety priorities.
A forward mounted helideck, either mounted on the foredeck or elevated above the
bridge, presents the biggest problems for a helicopter pilot. This is because there
are very few, if any, visual cues available to assist the pilot in making a safe
approach and landing. Taking-off is less of a problem.
The lack of visual cues means that manoeuvring space provided for the helicopter
has to take greater account of the proximity of all likely obstructions. To do this,
and in order to prevent inadvertent tail rotor strikes, the helideck and safe landing
area layout should be very carefully designed to obtain maximum operating
clearances see Figure 7.2. (See also CAP 437).
NOT TO SCALE
Helideck
Overall Size
Additional
obstruction
clearance
= 0.5 D
H
Additional
1500mm
working space
all round
D Circle
Limited Obstruction Sector
Figure 7.2 Recommended dimensions for increasing overall helideck size on a vessel with
forward mounted helideck to provide additional space for safe helicopter manoeuvring and
personnel movement.
63
A large and therefore heavy helideck structure elevated above the bridge
may adversely affect vessel stability
A helideck integral with the Foredeck may have the advantage of two
access and escape routes toward the rear of the helideck past the natural
protection afforded by the bridge structure. However, providing a third
means of escape forward will invariably require a forward hatch to below
deck. This hatch may constitute a structural soft spot and should be
regarded as a restricted approach and landing sector which will then
require suitable markings to inform the helicopter pilot.
64
Where crew numbers may be at a minimum, yet consistent with safe helideck
operations, having fire systems available that can be simply operated will be an
overriding requirement.
For example, when designing a foam system it should be ensured that the system
can be operated from a single control point without having to set or actuate a lot of
valves.
MODUs and specialist vessels will, at times, operate in remote locations with
infrequent vessel and / or helicopter support. This situation may mean that resupply of foam concentrate cannot be speedily undertaken.
Also, it is probable that the storage of large quantities of foam concentrate is
undesirable, with space at a premium. Therefore, the foam system(s) should be
designed to ensure that it has maximum flexibility for foam sampling and systems
testing without contaminating or using a full charge of foam concentrate.
Specifying a one-shot system should be avoided at all costs.
On vessels, particularly those with forward mounted helidecks (e.g. on the
Foredeck), the design of fire protection systems should take into account the
exposure of equipment to the effects of operating in heavy seas. All permanently
fixed exposed piping systems, valves and supports, etc. should be robust. Where
possible, equipment such as hoses and nozzles should be stored in cabinets that
are adequately protected and preferably not placed in exposed locations.
For example, equipment and hose cabinets may be located behind the bridge
wings for protection, provided they are easily accessible during helicopter
operations.
7.2.3.8 Helicopter Fuelling
Vessel motions constantly agitate liquids in storage tanks. If the owner specifies
helicopter fuelling, the system will require proper consideration during design
otherwise the fuel quality may be seriously affected during operations.
Where aviation fuel storage tanks (fixed or portable) are installed on vessels and
they are unlikely to be completely emptied it is highly recommended that the tanks
be equipped with floating suction systems. This arrangement is designed to
enable fuel to be decanted from the tanks above a level where disturbed
sediments and other impurities may be present.
65
Figure 7.3 - Example of damage to the floating suction system during transportable
tank transit when empty
The locations for aviation fuel storage tanks, pumping and dispensing equipment
should be selected to ensure that ingress of sea water into the aviation fuel system
does not occur. Also, the system components (e.g. Tote Tanks) should be well
secured to prevent damage in heavy seas.
7.2.3.9 Air Gap on MODUs
Too large an air gap under the helidecks of a MODU can be critical to vessel
stability. This is due to the potential for airflows under a helideck to generate
forces that may significantly increase the overturning moment of the structure for
certain wind and ballast conditions. Therefore, when determining the optimum air
gap for a MODU, the likely effect on vessel stability must be fully taken into
account. Refer to Section 10.
66
Figure 7.4 Example of a fully clad drilling derrick with bluff sided module below.
Note: there is little or no air gap beneath the helideck
7.3
7.3.1
Introduction
Floating Production Systems (FPS), which include Floating Production, and
Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessels, are classed, when on location in UK
waters, as offshore installations.
A FPS featuring a vessel hull (e.g. VLCC tanker) will be typically moored using a
permanent, widely spread anchor system that is fixed to a turret arrangement
situated forward of amidships. This arrangement tends to allow the vessel heading
to weathervane naturally into the prevailing wind, wave and current conditions.
(See Figure 7.5)
A FPS based on a semi-submersible hull is moored using traditional anchor
winches and chains located at each corner of the hull. The unit is generally held at
the location on a fixed heading within the anchor pattern. (See Figure 7.6)
7.3.2
Main References
Lloyds Register of Shipping Rules for the Design, Construction and Classification
of Floating Production Systems. [Ref: 72]
67
7.3.3
Operating environment
Anchoring
Dynamic positioning
Drainage
Materials of construction
Helicopter fuelling
Firefighting.
Parameters for the design of MODU helidecks that are specific to Floating
Production Systems, and should be considered by the designer, are set out in the
following sections.
68
7.3.4
7.3.4.1 Semi-submersibles
The marine operating environment of a semi-submersible is similar to a fixed
installation insofar as the helideck heading is generally fixed as a result of the
anchoring system. However, it differs from a fixed installation in that the helideck
has a dynamic movement in roll and pitch axes, heave, surge and sway due to the
vessels dynamic characteristics.
In addition to wind speed and direction, the normal helideck movement (velocity
and accelerations) induced by the floating structure must be fully accounted for
during both helideck and system design and helicopter operations. See Section
10.
69
7.3.4.2 Vessels
Taking advantage of the natural weathervaning characteristics of a turret moored
vessel can help helicopter operations by keeping windflows at favourable angles
over the helideck. This may not be the case for all wind, wave and current
combinations.
However, advantages with wind speed and direction across the helideck should
normally be obtainable as a result of the natural weathervaning that usually holds
the vessel heading within a few degrees either side of the vessels mean position
centreline. This feature should be fully exploited by the designer during design,
when optimising helideck location and orientation, so as to achieve the best
available landing and take-off sectors.
Additionally, where sufficient thruster power is available to move the vessel off
head, the ships crew may be able to further improve helideck orientation into the
most favourable winds for given approach and take-off sectors. This situation only
applies where it can be clearly demonstrated that moving the vessel off head does
not induce excessive adverse helideck motions (roll, pitch and heave), or
compromise vessel stability. Such capability may also be useful in minimising
potential hazards due to emissions and turbulence generators.
As in the case of semi-submersibles, normal helideck movement (velocity and
accelerations) induced by the floating structure must be fully accounted for during
both helideck and system design and helicopter operations. See Section 10.
7.3.5
70
Rules (e.g. IMO and SOLAS) that have been included in the owners specification
for the FPSO.
When designing an FPSO that will be operated in UK waters, helideck certification
will require compliance with CAP 437 and not the IMO or other national codes.
Because there are currently some differences between UK and international
maritime and offshore requirements, anomalies in the overall certification /
verification processes may arise. These anomalies will need to be resolved with
the appointed Classification Society and Verification Body, early in design.
7.3.6
7.3.7
71
Figure 7.7 Shuttle tanker activity with an example of helideck approach paths
impeded by the tanker, mooring line, loading hose and FPSO flare / exhaust plumes.
7.4
SPECIALIST VESSELS
7.4.1
Introduction
A whole range of specialist vessels of varying type, design, size, displacement and
function work in the offshore oil and gas industry. Many are equipped with
helidecks. These vessels include:
Seismic vessels
Each of these vessel types will have unique capabilities depending on their primary
function. Additionally, there may be overriding constraints placed on the helideck
design and its operation.
72
Depending on vessel size, basic hull and superstructure design, it is normally the
primary function of the vessel (in addition to maintaining good vessel stability at all
times) that will dictate the vessel layout and thus the helideck location, size, shape
and elevation. Space and weight considerations will also dictate the locations (and
sometimes capacities) of the associated helideck support systems.
The earlier, in conceptual design, these features are given proper consideration,
the more likely the ship designer will be able to provide an efficient and operable
helideck.
7.4.2
Main References
CAP 437, Chapter 9.
7.4.3
Operating environment
Anchoring
Dynamic positioning
Drainage
Materials of construction
Helicopter fuelling
Firefighting.
74
The location of the assembly (when stowed) relative to the safe landing
area
The size and extent of the surface obstruction and potential structural soft
spot to be avoided by a landing helicopter
75
7.5
76
8.0
8.1
COMBINED OPERATIONS
8.1.1
Introduction
Combined operations can take several different forms. Essentially, they are a
situation offshore where there are two or more installations / vessels working
alongside each other. Generally this will mean that, to some extent, the
operational clearances and aerodynamics of the helidecks on each of the
installations / vessels may be impeded in some way by positioning the additional
structures alongside. In turn, this means that specific considerations have to be
taken into account during helicopter operations.
Consideration of the full implications of combined operations and the potential
adverse effects on safe helideck operations will be required during design where it
is intended to install (permanently or temporarily) an offshore structure (fixed or
mobile) in close proximity to another. The operating aspects of combined
operations are covered in detail in the UKOOA Guidelines for the Management of
Offshore Helideck Operations [Ref: 49].
1000 metres is the required horizontal distance to provide a clear unimpeded 210
Obstruction Free Sector for any operational helideck. Therefore, any structure
located closer than 1000 metres in this sector will present an obstruction to
potential flight paths.
A structure located within approximately 250 metres of another installation with an
operational helideck, and not necessarily within the obstruction free sector, also
has the potential to create adverse turbulent and thermal conditions. These
conditions can seriously affect helicopter handling, increase pilots workload and
may impact on safe helicopter operations to that helideck. Adverse turbulent
conditions caused by adjacent structures normally emanate from windflows over
the structure, gas turbine exhausts thermal effects and process flares.
Additionally, adjacent structures and vessels (e.g. shuttle tankers) may also cause
hazardous flying conditions due to gas releases during process venting.
The arrangements and configurations defined as Combined Operations can vary
considerably and are typified by:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
In all the above cases where there is a helideck intended to be used for routine
operations, all potential effects on the helicopter operating environment shall be
closely examined and the effects quantified and recorded.
Notes about Figure 8.1: The Jack-Up and Floatel are temporarily located as part
of production / drilling operations. Both the Jack-Up and Floatel helidecks are
78
8.1.2
Main References
CAP 437, Chapter 6.
8.1.3
Design Considerations
79
HOST
Bridge Link
INSTALLATION
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 8.2 Example of Bridge Link avoiding 210 sector physical obstructions.
NOT TO SCALE
MOBILE
UNIT
HOST
INSTALLATION
Bridge Link
Figure 8.3 Example of Bridge Link causing a 210 sector obstruction. In this
case the mobile unit would be designated the active helideck
80
8.1.4
Safety Cases
81
restrictions or limitations that should be applied. Flight Crews will use the
information for flight planning and flight management purposes.
8.1.5
2.
82
3.
4.
5.
6.
8.2
8.2.1
Introduction
NUIs are a unique type of facility that require considerable and proper thought
when designing the installation for helicopter operations.
To a large extent the design of the basic NUI helideck facility is little different from
a manned installation and the sections dealing with structures, systems, etc.
should be referred to. However, some readily accepted features that are provided
on manned platforms to support routine helicopter operations are often not
available on NUIs.
The lack of, or severe limitation to, some of the services available to the flight
crews and intervention teams on NUI operations should be fully investigated and
accounted for during design. Where it is possible and economically viable to
improve these features, it should be done. Common deficiencies include:
1.
2.
are impaired, there is increased potential for bird strikes during helicopter
movements and increased personnel exposure to guano raising health
issues
8.2.2
3.
Limited water available at the helideck for efficient guano washdown and
disposal to retain efficiency of visual aids
4.
Main References
CAP 437, Chapter 3.
8.2.3
Definitions
84
routine crew changes, etc. the installation should no longer be considered normally
unattended. Therefore, the CAP 437 requirements for a normally attended
helideck operation should be met in full.
8.2.4
Seeking the Safest and Most Efficient Helideck Design Options for
Operations to NUIs
The helideck design for a NUI should adopt a similar approach to that used for a
manned installation as noted in the general sections of these guidelines.
Design considerations that are specific to NUIs, that normally have minimal
facilities, are detailed in the following sections.
8.2.5
8.2.5.1 General
The following are specific design considerations that need to be addressed when
specifying systems and equipment for NUIs. The listed topics are in addition to or
supplement the more detailed requirements covered in the general sections of
these guidelines.
85
A dry powder fire extinguisher having a capacity of not less than 45kgs;
and a carbon dioxide fire extinguisher with engine applicator having a
capacity of not less than 22.5kgs
2.
Every effort should be made to select equipment that will require minimum
maintenance.
8.2.5.5 Firemans Protective Clothing
Two sets of the following items of firemans equipment should be provided, and be
readily available adjacent to the helideck, for the intervention crew members
assigned to helideck duties:
86
2.
3.
Equipment for clearing the landing area of snow, ice and other debris
4.
87
Reducing the possibility of wasted flights, if for some reason, the helideck
is unsuitable for a landing
88
89
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
90
9.0
HELIDECK STRUCTURES
9.1
INTRODUCTION
This section indicates some of the structural considerations to be taken into
account to achieve a satisfactory helideck structural design. The helideck is the
foundation on which helicopter operations take place on an offshore installation,
MODU or vessel. The helideck and its supporting structure are safety critical
elements as a result of their role in emergency evacuation, as well as during
normal operations.
The helicopter facilities should have sufficient clear approach and departure paths
to enable any helicopter intended to use the landing area to land and take off
safely in any wind or weather conditions that permit helicopter operations.
The landing area should be situated so that it is located on the installation with
respect to prevailing wind conditions in such a position that structure-induced
airflow and temperature effects are minimised.
Designers should be aware of all of the types of helicopter likely to use the
helideck, both normally and in an emergency. The helicopter landing and take-off
area and parking area should be of sufficient size and strength and laid out so as
to accommodate the largest size of helicopter to be used and to adequately resist
impact from heavy and emergency landings.
Helicopter parameters for all of the known helicopters that will operate to the
helideck should be obtained from the helicopter manufacturers. It is recommended
the designer compiles a database for the helicopters, noting dimensions, weights,
contact areas etc. and reviews the data as necessary, including projections for
likely future helicopter developments, to ensure the helideck design will remain
suitable for use in the future.
The helideck and supporting structure should be designed to withstand the worst
likely emergency to be encountered. CAP 437 assumes that a single engine
failure in the hover at 9.14 metres wheel height (30 feet) is the case among likely
survivable cases which would generate the highest vertical rate of decent onto the
helideck.
The design engineer should consider all likely design loads and load combinations.
91
As well as helicopter landing loads, the helideck has to be designed to cope with
imposed loads on the deck from personnel, freight, refuelling and other temporary
equipment, as well as environmental loads from wind, snow and ice, rotor
downwash, etc, and its own self weight.
The design should also take account of wind turbulence and hot and cold gas
thermal effects. Turbulent airflow across the landing area can be caused by wind
flow around adjacent structures, including flare stacks and turbine exhausts (which
can also cause temperature gradients). These effects can seriously influence
helicopter landing and take-off performance characteristics.
Modelling methods such as wind tunnel testing or computational fluid dynamics
computer modelling should be used to determine suitable limits, on helicopter
operational weights and directions on take-off and landing, that may be necessary
for certain wind directions and installation operating conditions see Section 10.
The supporting structure, deck plate, stringers and supporting beams should be
designed to resist the effects of local skid or wheel loads acting in combination with
other loads in the most severe location for the element of structure being
considered. Helicopters should be considered to land anywhere within the
designated landing area and parked or stowed anywhere on the helideck.
Helideck loadings should be analysed to determine the distribution of forces and
bending moments. The helicopter should be positioned to maximise the internal
forces on the component being considered.
9.2
MAIN REFERENCES
The codes and standards applicable to the structural design of the helideck will be
determined by where the helideck is to be operated and the national jurisdiction
governing the installation or vessel of which the helideck will become part. As a
general guide, the following design codes may apply:
ISO
19901-3
Petroleum
and
natural
gas
industries
Specific
92
9.3
LANDING SURFACE
9.3.1
Wood
Hardwood (Greenheart timber) was used for some helideck surfaces constructed
in the early years of UKCS offshore installations. These wood surfaces can still be
found on a few of the oldest platforms in the North Sea.
9.3.2
Steel
Older installation and vessel helideck landing surfaces tend to be of traditional
steel plated construction. This material is relatively cheap and simple to fabricate
but the final assembly is relatively heavy compared with an aluminium or passive
steel deck.
Disadvantages of a steel panelled helideck in service are:
The surface requires initial and periodic painting and may require the
incorporation and maintenance of non-slip aggregate to provide a suitable
friction surface, if this is specified
The helideck surface may be subject to water and fuel puddling due to
minor in-service deformation of the panels.
9.3.3
Aluminium
Since the 1980s, aluminium helideck surfaces have tended to be the norm for
helidecks in the North Sea. This is because they have the advantage of being
lighter in weight than a comparable steel surface.
Normally, the aluminium surface is constructed from extruded planks which are
locked into position to form a pancake assembly.
93
The planks have built in friction surfaces formed by ribs on the extrusion surface.
Often, however, good friction values are only achieved in one direction (e.g. across
the ribs). The designer should therefore specify a requirement for the extrusions to
be milled across the ribs to obtain adequate friction properties in all directions.
9.3.4
Passive Helideck
A passive type helideck can be fabricated from aluminium or steel. The surface is
perforated to allow liquid to pass through it into drainage trays beneath. There are
two types of passive system. These are:
With the void below the perforated deck surface partially filled with a metal
matting material. This prevents any unburned fuel from igniting. See
Figure 9.1
With a foam spray system installed in channels beneath the open mesh
surface to extinguish any burning fuel.
The advantages of specifying a helideck design that offers passive fire safety
features should be considered. Such helidecks can:
Provide a highly effective built-in non-slip surface and eliminate the need
for a helideck net (fixed platforms only)
The collection of dirt, guano and debris that falls through the perforations.
This may be difficult to remove and periodically, may require the
replacement of matting materials.
94
All helideck designs of this type should be fully assessed and tested to
demonstrate their passive fire safety performance and structural integrity. A
competent authority should verify them prior to acceptance as a design option.
9.4
SUPPORT STRUCTURE
9.4.1
Introduction
The helideck support structure connects the helideck to the main structural
steelwork of the offshore installation or vessel. It needs to be designed to transmit
all the helicopter landing loads, environmental, and live and dead loads derived
from the design of the helideck structure to the primary structure of the installation
or the vessel.
9.4.2
Materials
It is quite common for the helideck support structure to be fabricated from carbon
steel, whilst the helideck will often be fabricated from aluminium sections. Where
an aluminium helideck is used in conjunction with a carbon steel structure, then
adequate electrical isolation of aluminium from steel must be maintained.
95
Sufficient information on the materials and the isolation methods used, either in
manuals, or by placards or paint schemes fixed to the structure, should be
provided to users for subsequent operations and maintenance. The designer is
advised to consult with corrosion experts to provide a connection that satisfies anticorrosion requirements, as well as providing a suitable structural connection.
Materials used in the fabrication should conform to a suitable code. For example,
carbon steel should conform to a code such as BS 7191 Weldable Structural Steel
for Fixed Offshore Structures [Ref: 57], latest edition.
9.4.3
Design
Helideck support structures should be designed to carry all the loads imposed on
the helideck through to the primary structure of the installation or vessel. Helideck
loads derive from the parameters of the helicopter for which the helideck is
intended (landing impact forces and wheel spacing), the deck weight, plus
environmental loads (wind, snow and ice), and inertial loads due to installation or
vessel movement (where applicable). Additionally, the effects of live loads and
loads arising from parked helicopters (tied down) should be evaluated (See also
Section 9.6).
The designer of the support structure should ensure that all appropriate load cases
have been applied to the helideck, and that the resulting maximum load cases are
used in the design of the support structure.
Similarly, it is important that the load cases are accurately transposed to the
design conditions for the primary structure to which the support structure will be
connected.
The helideck support structure will also be used as the supporting structure for
appurtenances such as drainage and service lines to the helideck above.
Therefore, the selection of section types, and acceptability of these, need to be
considered in the design process.
9.4.4
Interconnected Modules
It will often be the case (and in particular on a fixed offshore installation) that the
helideck support structure will be positioned above a module on the deck, usually
the accommodation module. The designer therefore has to be aware of the
integration of the helideck design with the module design, as the structural
supports for both units may be common. As well as this, additional safety features
96
such as blast walls, etc., may form part of the module design and could also have
a bearing on the design of the helideck support structure.
9.4.5
Maintenance
It is quite common that the helideck support structure will have limited access once
installed. Therefore, the designer should ensure that the structure is as
maintenance free as possible and, wherever possible, easy access should be
designed into the structure to facilitate future planned inspection and maintenance.
A large number of helideck support structures are propped cantilevers. The
addition of purpose built anchor points for abseiling inspection access in the future
is recommended.
9.5
APPURTENANCES
In addition to the design of the primary steelwork of the helideck, the designer also
has to consider loads from the appurtenances associated with the helideck. These
appurtenances will include:
Drains system
Tiedown fixings
9.6
9.6.1
Introduction
Each design code recommends a particular set of load combinations and factors to
be considered. The designer also needs to consider the load conditions that can
occur during fabrication, lifting, loadout and transportation of the helideck, and both
static and dynamic forces that will be encountered.
97
The designer may also be asked to design suitable lifting points and sea-fastening
points. Any local strengthening should be considered as part of the overall design.
The following design load combinations should be considered:
emergency landing
helicopters at rest.
9.6.2
Emergency landing
Variable Loads
Area load
Permanent Loads
Environmental Loads
Inertial loads.
98
9.6.3
Area load
Helicopter tie down loads, including wind loads from a secured helicopter.
Permanent Loads:
Environmental Loads:
9.6.4
Inertia loads.
Design Loadings
The designer should consider the following design loadings within the load
combinations described above for a fixed or floating offshore installation.
100
9.7
9.7.1
Friction Surface
An adequate non-slip surface should be provided for the whole of the helideck to
ensure the safe movements of both helicopters and personnel. The designer
should therefore properly consider the helideck surface materials of construction
and specify the correct and most appropriate friction surface for the helideck as a
whole and in particular the safe landing area, irrespective of whether a landing net
will be fitted.
9.7.2
Main References
CAP 437, Section 3.8.
9.7.3
Design Considerations
All materials, coverings or coatings used to provide a non-skid surface should be
structurally fastened to the helideck or bonded with an adhesive agent that is not
chemically altered in the presence of fuel, oil and the effects of guano. This
includes both specialist paint systems used with aggregates and pre-formed /
coloured non-slip tiling systems.
101
9.7.4
102
9.7.5
103
It is preferable for the helideck net fixings to be fixed equidistant around the
perimeter of the helideck, except where they would present trip hazards at the
head of access stairways onto the helideck.
Examples of different types of fixings are shown in Figures 9.3 to 9.6. They may
be:
Simple loop or hook bar fixings welded between the deck surface and
upstand, or
Purpose made pad eye or floating ring fittings welded to the deck.
Ideally the net should be capable of being positioned correctly (centrally over the
landing circle) and evenly tensioned from all sides.
Depending on the shape and size of the helideck, this may mean permanently
securing the landing net on one or two sides and tensioning from the remaining
sides.
Figure 9.3 Tensioning system for net with perimeter hook system (arrowed)
104
Figure 9.4 Pad eye type helideck net fixings welded to deck surface (arrowed)
105
That has fixings on the helideck surface beyond the perimeter. These will
be additional trip hazards. However, such an arrangement may be
unavoidable on very large helidecks
That does not allow adjustable strops to be used to tension the net
routinely
9.7.6
There are, however, operational disadvantages with installing helideck nets, such
as passenger trip hazards, obscuring deck markings, and restricting the clearance
of spilt fuel.
These operational disadvantages have prompted owners of fixed installations to
move towards providing and maintaining enhanced friction surfaces in lieu of
helideck nets. The enhanced friction surfaces may include tiling systems that to
some extent still provide visual cues for landing due to the grouting lines being
visible from the air.
From a flying perspective, there may be a case for retaining nets on some offshore
helidecks.
The appearance of the three-dimensional mesh from some distance above, when
landing, provides flight crews with a good reference (visual cue) of the height
above the helideck and the closure rate, particularly at night when many other
visual clues are absent. Net removal will eliminate this valuable visual clue.
Approval to remove the helideck net will only be given if the friction surface
achieves average surface friction values (see CAP 437) using an approved testing
device. This approval for net removal is generally limited to fixed installations.
After approval has been given to remove a landing net, the surface friction will be
subject to routine re-testing, the periodicity will depend on the results achieved
from previous friction tests (See CAP 437 Friction Requirements for Landing
Area Net Removal, CAA Paper 98002 [Ref: 42]).
9.8
9.8.1
Introduction
Access to and from helidecks is a topic that requires proper and detailed
consideration in order to avoid major problems arising during operations. When
planning access and escape systems for the helideck during design, it is
imperative that the designer fully understands the global picture and takes into
account a number of general considerations.
9.8.2
Main References
CAP 437, Chapter 3.
107
9.8.3
a fixed structure
a vessel.
Features to be considered in detail should include, but are not limited to:
Providing the most direct route for the primary access from the heli
admin office
Provision of good clearances from helicopter tail rotor position for deck
crew and passengers
108
9.8.4
There should be minimum of two primary escape routes from the helideck
and preferably three
Escape routes should take into account fire monitor positioning and the
likely effect of water blast impeding passenger escape
Easy access and quick arrival at a place of safety below helideck level
One escape route can be a ladder system if a platform and stairs proves
to be an unworkable option
Fireman and helideck crew escape from monitor platforms should access
to the helideck be cut-off
9.8.5
Vessels with forward helidecks will sometimes offer a very good escape
route to protected areas behind the bridge. The designer should take
advantage of this option.
Platforms
Ensure monitor / access platforms are big enough for fire equipment and
passenger access without impeding helideck crew working areas, and
without exceeding the requirements for unobstructed falling 5:1 gradient
as stated in CAP 437
109
110
9.8.6
Walkways
9.8.7
The head of stairways onto the helideck should be provided with folding
handrails
111
9.8.8
9.9
DRAINAGE
9.9.1
Introduction
Good drainage of helidecks is important. Water and aviation fuel puddling on the
landing surface is to be avoided as it may have an adverse impact during
operations, particularly in an emergency. A helideck with puddling problems can
also directly affect the safety of aircraft and personnel and the operability of the
helideck when icing conditions are present.
Helidecks should therefore be designed to remain free from standing water and
fuel accumulations at all times.
On vessels, MODUs and floating structures drainage may be assisted by the
vessel motions. This assumes that the scuppers are adequately designed to carry
away any standing liquids.
Low level, bow mounted helidecks may also be seriously affected by green water
or spray. This operational feature should be taken into account.
9.9.2
Main References
CAP 437, Chapter 3.
112
9.9.3
Environmental Considerations
Discharging pollutants from offshore installations, MODUs and vessels is generally
considered an environmentally unacceptable practice. It is therefore prudent to
carefully consider helideck drainage and any restrictions that may be applied.
However, there is currently no prohibition of draining pollutants (e.g. aviation fuel)
to the sea in an emergency, as would be the case in the event of a helicopter
crash, particularly if the event were to involve a fire.
MARPOL Annex 1, Regulation 11(a) states that, Regulations 9 and 10 of this
Annex shall not apply to: (a) The discharge of oil or oily mixture necessary for the
purpose of securing the safety of a ship or saving life at sea;.
9.9.4
Operational Considerations
The helideck drain system should be designed with the following operational
requirements in mind:
9.9.5
Rapid and safe disposal of any liquids flowing onto the landing surface
Design Considerations
The surface selected for the helideck will determine the likely effects on surface
drainage. They are as follows:
113
ICAO Heliport Manual [Ref. 54] recommends that a maximum camber of 1:100 be
provided on a fixed platform helideck to facilitate drainage. In the case of MODUs,
vessels and floating structures, see also Section 7 for further considerations when
operating helicopters to moving helidecks.
Whilst controlling a major helicopter fire and fuel spillage, monitor operations will
lay down massive amounts of water / foam compound. Therefore, the large area
of a helideck combined with the need to rapidly clear large fluid volumes from the
surface requires a highly effective drains system.
To ensure that the safety of an installation, MODU or vessel is not compromised,
the scuppers and drain headers should be designed:
For the worst-case event (all monitors operating plus maximum fuel
spillage) to ensure that good drainage flow rates can be achieved
With adequately sized scuppers to collect and retain the liquids and then
direct them into the drain headers
These are
NOT TO SCALE
Debris
Guard
Helideck Surface
Liquid Flow to
Drain Header
114
Note: It is usually impractical to consider routing helideck surface drainage into the
installation, MODU or vessel hazardous drainage system because it cannot
accommodate the potentially high volume of fluid flow.
9.10
9.10.1 Introduction
The helideck perimeter safety net should provide a proper catchment for a person
falling anywhere on the exposed perimeter of the deck.
The angle of the perimeter safety net relative to the landing surface is also
important. Where the angle is less than 10 an individual falling onto the net is
unlikely to be adequately restrained from falling overboard. Therefore, the net
should be angled at approximately 10 from the horizontal.
Spacer to
raise net
above
support.
Net Panel Support
Edge of Helideck
Angle not less or greater than
10
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 9.10 - Typical details and critical dimensions for helideck perimeter safety net
2.
Part of the exposed perimeter equipped with a fixed safety net and the
remainder with hinged panels
3.
116
4.
2.
3.
15 x 3 mm Steel
Stretcher Bar
threaded through
mesh
50 mm Grade A Plastic
Coated Wire Mesh or
equivalent.
Section of net
panel frame
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 9.11 - Typical details of preferred fixings for wire mesh (or equivalent)
perimeter safety net panels.
117
2.
The support angle is significantly less than 10. This suggests the net will
probably provide only limited outboard restraint for an individual falling
onto it. UNACCEPTABLE.
3.
The left hand NDB Aerial Support is, in this case, causing a 5:1
Infringement within the 180 5:1 falling gradient. UNACCEPTABLE.
118
This support must be modified so that the support drops straight down
within the slope of the falling gradient over the edge of the safety net.
Where a support cannot be immediately modified it will be declared as an
infringement in the HLL and may lead to onerous operating restrictions,
particularly on take-off.
4.
The NDB Aerial Support is raised above the helideck support frame.
This is generally an acceptable arrangement (a practical solution) on an
existing helideck and will be needed in order to retrieve the loop aerial for
maintenance.
The preferred solution on a new build or during a major helideck re-work
is to position the aerial supports inboard of the net and between the
perimeter net frames. When laid down the supports should be below
perimeter net level.
Other unsatisfactory Safety Net features the designer should be aware of are:
1.
2.
NOTE: On helideck inspections, it is frequently found that the securing ties are
too long. In the event of a tie breaking and unravelling, a large section of
the net can separate from its frame.
3.
Mesh panel intrusion by support members (no spacers to keep net mesh
clear of supports).
4.
Existence of large gaps at the points where safety net panels abut against
each other. There should only be a small gap sufficient to provide a
clearance between the panel frames and, when fitted, to accommodate
NDB loop aerial supports. Any gaps in the panel system should not be of
such size as to impair catchment of a falling individual.
5.
119
6.
On square aft helidecks equipped with hinged perimeter safety net panels
the design should also include an arrangement that ensures the corners
are properly protected when perimeter safety net panels are in the
deployed position.
Figure 9.13 - Example of NDB aerial fixings installed onto an existing perimeter net
120
9.11
TIEDOWN ARRANGEMENTS
9.11.1 Introduction
The tiedown fixings required on helidecks are an important and functional part of
offshore helicopter operations safety.
There may be occasions when it is imperative that a helicopter that is parked on
the helideck needs to be properly secured to prevent damage to the airframe, due
to high winds or excessive helideck motions.
122
Figure 9.15 Recessed box tiedown fitting (iced up due to blocked drain)
Removable Fittings
Removable fittings may be:
Threaded rings, or
123
Figure 9.16 Semi-recessed removable tiedown fitting. Note painted area to provide
a reference for re-fitting after removal.
9.12
9.13
9.13.2 Introduction
The designer of a helideck should always take due notice of the requirements for
future maintenance and inspection work on the helideck. It is recommended that
the designer review historical statistical information from previous inspections to
determine any causes and trends in maintenance and inspection work, and to
allow for identification of any common factors.
124
The designer should also be aware that the helideck would be incorporated into a
fully integrated schedule of inspection on the installation when it becomes
operational. On fixed platform installations, it is common practice for a written
scheme of examination to be in place. This document maps out a series of
inspection tasks that are to be undertaken to a prescribed set of procedures on a
similarly prescribed inspection schedule. The schedule is determined by a number
of factors including the safety critical rating of the elements of the helideck in
question.
A structural integrity management contractor will use the output from the final
design report produced by the designer to identify safety critical elements on the
helideck. It is therefore the responsibility of the designer to ensure that the final
design report takes due note of the above point and a paragraph or section is
included in the design report which highlights specific areas / tasks recommended
for future inspection. The structural integrity management contractor can use this
in the future.
Similar inspection regimes will be in place for helidecks on other installations such
as drilling rigs, vessels etc.
The detail design of the helideck structure should also allow for satisfactory access
for all maintenance and inspection activities.
Access should be considered for both inspection of the main structural elements of
the helideck and 'local' access to facilitate removal of components if this becomes
necessary during the life of the helideck.
The designer should be aware of those helideck elements that will be subjected to
detailed maintenance and inspection in the future. These include:
Communications equipment
125
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
126
10.0
10.1
INTRODUCTION
The safety of offshore helicopter flight operations can be seriously affected by
environmental effects that may be present around installations, vessels and their
helidecks. These environmental effects are typified by structural turbulence, the
thermal effects caused by gas turbine and diesel exhaust emissions, hot and cold
gas streams and vessel motions.
It is vital, in order to ensure the safety of helicopters operating to and from offshore
installations and vessels, that the best possible flying environment (minimum
turbulence and helideck movement) is maintained.
Where, for operational and/or meteorological reasons, ideal flying conditions do
not prevail, then flight crews need to have access to as much information as
possible on the anticipated turbulent conditions and helideck movements in order
to plan or abort flight operations.
This section addresses, in detail, the environmental effects likely to be
encountered, and provides information on how to identify problems during the
design process and ways that these adverse effects can be mitigated.
10.2
MAIN REFERENCES
CAP 437, Chapter 3.
CAA Paper 99004 - Research on Offshore Helideck Environmental Issues
[Ref: 41].
BMT Report - Helideck Design Considerations Environmental Effects [Ref: 68].
10.3
BACKGROUND
It is almost inevitable that helidecks installed on the cramped decks of offshore
structures will suffer to some degree from their proximity to tall and bulky
structures, and to gas turbine exhausts and flares. The objective of this section is
to help platform designers to create offshore installation topsides designs, and
helideck locations, that are safe and friendly to helicopter operations and, as far
as possible, avoid the environmental effects (mainly aerodynamic, thermal and
wave motion) which can affect helicopter operations. It is hoped that, if used from
127
day one of the offshore installation design process when facilities are first being
laid out, this section will prevent or minimise many helideck environment problems
at little or no cost to design or construction.
Guidance on the design and placement of offshore helidecks has existed for many
years in the CAA document CAP 437 [Ref: 40], which contains certain
environmental criteria relating to the occurrence of downdraft and higher than
ambient temperatures due to exhausts and flares. These criteria were set in order
to ensure safe helicopter operations by avoiding these hazards. Where these
criteria could not be met, or where pilots experienced other environmental
phenomena, an entry has been placed in the Helideck Limitation List (HLL)
(previously known as the Installation / vessel Limitation List - IVLL). These entries
are specific to particular combinations of wind speed and direction, and either
restrict helicopter weight, or prevent flying altogether in certain weather conditions.
The HLL system operated by the British Helicopter Advisory Board (BHAB
Helidecks) should ensure that landings on offshore helidecks are properly
controlled when adverse environmental effects are present. On poorly designed
helidecks, severe restrictions may be placed on operations resulting in reduced
payloads or cancelled flights. This can lead to significant commercial penalties for
the installation operator or vessel owner. Well-designed and helicopter-friendly
platform topsides and helidecks therefore result in efficient operations, and a
saving in cost for the platform operator.
A survey based on pilot responses to a questionnaire on workload and safety
hazards [Ref: 44] rated turbulence around platforms as the largest source of
workload and presenting the largest safety risk of all aspects of offshore flight
operations. A review of offshore helideck environmental issues [Ref: 41] pointed
out that many of the decisions leading to poor helideck performance were made by
designers in the very early stages of design, and recommended that it would be
easier for designers to get these decisions right if comprehensive helideck design
guidance published by industry was available to run in parallel with CAP 437.
128
10.4
DESIGN ISSUES
10.4.1 Introduction
The design guidance in this section applies to all fixed installations (manned and
normally unattended installations), floating installations (including semisubmersibles {e.g. MODUs, FPUs and specialist barges} and vessel hull based
FPSOs) and any other specialist offshore support vessels with a helideck (e.g.
seismic, diving support, pipelay).
The environmental effects described in this section fall into two classes;
129
Figure 10. 1 - Sketch showing the main elements of aerodynamic flow interaction
Helidecks are basically flat plates and so are relatively streamlined structures. In
isolation they would present little disturbance to the wind flow, and helicopters
would be able to operate to and from them in a more or less undisturbed air
environment.
Difficulties arise because the wind must deviate around the bulk of the offshore
installation causing large areas of flow distortion and turbulent wakes, and
because the installation is also often a source of hot or cold gas emissions.
The effects fall into three main categories (see Figure 10.1).
The flow around the bulk of the offshore installation itself. Platforms are
slab-sided, non-streamlined assemblies (bluff bodies) which create
regions of highly distorted and disturbed airflow in their vicinity
130
bodies, and it is the turbulent wake flows behind these bodies that are
important
Hot gas flows emanating from exhaust outlets and flare systems.
The current design criteria are based ultimately on achieving two objectives:
The vertical mean wind speed above the helideck at main rotor height
shall not exceed 0.9m/s for a wind speed of 25 m/s; this equates to a
wind vector slope of 2
These criteria are defined in CAP 437 [Ref: 40] and are taken to be the limiting
conditions for safe helicopter operation. If they are exceeded under any conditions
then the helicopter operator is to be advised, and in most circumstances an
appropriate flight limitation should be entered into the HLL [Ref: 69].
It should be noted that, at present, there is no criterion for the severity of
turbulence that can occur in the helicopter flight path. However, research is
currently in progress to derive one and later versions of these guidelines are
expected to contain such a criterion.
NOTE: The issue arises of how high above the landing area these criteria should
be applied. CAP 437 [Ref: 40] says at a height above helideck level
which takes into consideration the airspace required above the helideck to
accommodate helicopter landing and take - off decision points. The
recommendation in [Ref: 41] is more specific, saying up to a height
above the helideck corresponding to 30 feet plus wheels - to - rotor height
plus one rotor diameter.
131
Figure 10.2 - Sketch showing the helideck installed over a corner with 50% overhang.
From an aerodynamic point of view the helideck should be as far away from the
disturbed wind flow around the platform as possible. This objective, and the 210o
obstacle-free sector, are most readily achieved by locating the helideck on a
corner of the platform with as large an overhang as possible. In combination with
an appropriate elevation and air gap (see Section 10.4.4), the overhang will
encourage disturbed airflow to pass under the deck leaving a relatively horizontal
and clean flow over the top.
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 installation superstructure (see
Figure 10.2.
132
Figure 10.3 - Sketch showing the flow passing under the helideck and clean flow over.
Based on previous research work [Ref: 41] it is recommended that the air gap on
production platforms should be in the range 3m 5m. Helidecks mounted on very
tall accommodation blocks require the largest clearance, whilst those on smaller
blocks and with very large helideck overhangs tend to require less. For shallow
superstructures of three stories or less, such as often found on semi-submersible
drilling vessels, a 1m gap may be sufficient.
In combination with an appropriate overhang (see Section 10.4.3), the air gap
encourages the disturbed airflow to pass under the deck leaving a relatively linear
and clean flow over the top (see Figure 10.3).
It is essential that the air gap is preserved throughout installation operational life,
and does not become a storage area for bulky items that might obstruct the free
flow of the air through the gap.
NOTE: However, it should be noted that CAP 437 recommends that the helideck
height should not exceed 60m above sea level. Above this height the
regularity of helicopter operations may be affected by low cloud base
conditions.
133
134
Figure 10.4 - Sketch showing plan view of flow behind a clad and an unclad derrick
Consequently it is best if the helideck is not placed closer than 10 structure widths
from a tall solid structure such as a clad derrick. However, few offshore
installations will be large enough to permit such a clearance to be included in the
design, and so the specification of a clad derrick is almost certain to result in a
significant operational limitation for helicopters when the derrick is upwind of the
helideck. It will be particularly important to try to ensure that the installation is
aligned such that this only happens in rarely occurring wind directions (see Section
10.9.4).
10.4.5.2 Unclad Derricks and Cranes
Unclad derricks are relatively porous. A wake still exists, but the turbulence is of
much higher frequency and smaller scale due to the flow being broken by the
lattice elements of the structure. An unclad derrick can therefore be safely located
closer to the helideck than its clad equivalent. Ideally the separation between the
helideck and an unclad open lattice derrick should be at least 5 times the derrick
width at helideck height (see Figure 10.4). Separations of significantly less than 5
derrick widths may lead to the imposition of operating restrictions in certain wind
conditions.
Crane pedestals and crane booms are also usually of lattice construction, and the
same approximate rule can be applied as for lattice derricks. Generally the
disturbed flow region will be much less due to the smaller dimensions.
135
136
Figure 10.5 - Sketch showing the hot gas plume dispersing, and 2oC rise 130-190m downwind
Except for very large platforms, this implies that regardless of design, there will
always be a wind condition where temperature rise above the helideck exceeds
2oC. It is likely to be impossible, therefore, to design a helideck that is compliant
137
with the criteria under all conditions. The design aim becomes one of minimising
the occurrence of high temperatures over the helideck rather than eliminating
them. This can be achieved by trying to ensure that platform layout and alignment
direction are such that these conditions are only experienced rarely (see Section
10.9.4).
Many offshore installations have the power generation modules and exhausts
located close to the accommodation modules and helideck. This is because the
power generation is regarded as significantly less hazardous than drilling or
production modules. This can be a good location provided that the stacks are high
enough, are not wide enough to cause large amounts of turbulence, and do not
impinge on the obstacle protected surfaces.
The helideck should be located such that winds from the prevailing wind directions
carry the plume away from the helicopter approach path. To minimise the effects
for other wind directions, the exhausts should be sufficiently high to ensure that the
plumes are above the helicopter approach path.
To achieve this, it is
recommended that the exhaust outlets be no less than 20-30 m above the
helideck, depending on the gas turbine flow rates and temperatures.
In the past, some platforms were fitted with downward facing exhausts so that the
hot exhaust gases were initially directed down towards the sea surface. This
arrangement is not recommended because the hot plume can rise and disperse in
an unpredictable way, particularly in light wind conditions.
NOTE:
138
Consideration therefore needs to be given to ensuring that gas release points are
as remote as possible from the helideck and helicopter flight path, and that any
unforeseen gas releases trigger the automatic activation of the helideck status
lights (flashing red). Planned gas releases should only occur when helicopters are
not in the area.
The blowdown system on a production platform depressurises the process system
releasing the hydrocarbon gas. It will normally be designed to reduce the pressure
to half, or to 7 bar, in 15 minutes (the API standard). For a large offshore
installation this might require the release of 50 tonnes or more of gas. Once down
to this target pressure in 15 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 production process. Alternatively it
may be triggered manually.
The blowdown system should have venting points that are as remote as possible
from the helideck and, in prevailing winds, downwind of the helideck. It is common
to have this vent on the flare boom, and this will normally be a good location.
However, it should be noted that dilution of the gas to 10% LFL may not occur until
the plume is a considerable distance from the venting point. This distance could
be anywhere between 200m 500m depending on vent size, venting rate and
wind speed.
Drilling rigs often have poor-boy degassers which are used to release gas whilst
circulating a well, but a drilling rig is unlikely to release any significant quantities of
gas without warning, unless there is a sudden major crisis such as a blow-out. As
with production platforms it is unlikely to be possible to locate the helideck
sufficiently distant from the potential gas sources to guarantee 10% LFL or less,
and so the rig should not accept helicopter flights when well circulation activity is
139
going on, or when there are problems down the well. Helideck status lights should
be connected to the appropriate gas detection systems and automatically initiated.
10.5
10.5.1 General
As well as experiencing the aerodynamic effects and potential hazards outlined
above, floating installations and vessels experience dynamic motions due to the
ocean waves.
These motions (see Figure 10.6) are a potential hazard to the helicopter, and
operational motion limits are set in order to avoid unsafe conditions.
The setting of these operating limits should involve consideration of two aspects:
limits for safely remaining on the deck for the period necessary to effect
passenger and cargo transfer (usually not more than 10 minutes).
The former is mainly affected by the rate of the heave (vertical) motion, but also by
the roll and pitch motions, and is relatively easy for the pilot to judge visually. The
pilot can see the movements of the vessel, and can judge whether it is safe to
make the landing, and can choose the appropriate moment to set the helicopter
down.
140
The wave environment (e.g. more severe West of Shetland than in the
Southern North Sea)
The size of the vessel (a small vessel generally tends to exhibit larger and
faster motions than a large vessel)
The vessels motion characteristics (certain hull forms exhibit larger wave
motions than others, or are sensitive to particular sea conditions)
The location of the helideck (vertical motions tend to be greater at the bow
and stern of a ship than at midships, and sway motions due to roll tend to
increase with helideck height)
141
The design of the helicopter itself (different motion limits apply to different
helicopter types)
The time of day (more onerous motion limits are applied to helidecks on
smaller ships in the hours of darkness due to the degraded visual cues
available to the pilot).
142
143
Figure 10.8: Variation in helideck downtime with location along the length of a large
FPSO.
Figure 10.8 illustrates how wave motion downtime for a helideck typically varies
with its location along the length of a large ship (in this case: an FPSO) when
operating in a reasonably harsh environment. Maximum downtime occurs when
the helideck is located at the bow or stern, and minimum downtime when the
helideck is amidships.
Variations in downtime in this case are a direct
consequence of variations in predicted heave motions.
Figure 10.9 illustrates how the helideck location affects wave motion downtime on
a small ship (e.g. a diving support vessel) operating in a moderate sea
environment. Once again, downtime tends to be greatest at the bow and least
amidships, although there is relatively little variation over the aft part of the ship. In
this case there is a marked difference between levels of downtime occurring when
the helideck is at the vessels bow and stern.
144
Figure 10.9 -Variation in helideck downtime with location along the length of a small ship.
This asymmetry in the downtime curve is not due to any marked difference
between the vessel motions at bow and stern, but is rather a direct consequence
of the more stringent motion limits for a helideck located at the bow of a small ship
than for a helideck at the stern. This more stringent requirement is because both
helicopter and ship will normally be facing into wind, and pilots landing on bow
helidecks will therefore have poorer visual cues to assist their landing.
10.6
145
waves, swell and current. Swell and wind-generated waves can come from very
different directions, and especially complex heave, roll and pitch motions may
occur if swell onto the beam of the vessel occurs at the same time as a windgenerated sea onto the bow. The vessel roll response in head-sea conditions is
sensitive to the amount of wave directional spreading, and a multi-directional wave
model may have to be used to obtain reliable estimates of maximum roll response
in these circumstances. Despite the complexity, all these effects can be taken into
account at the helideck design assessment stage (see Section 10.11).
The ability of a thruster-assisted FPSO, or other dynamically positioned vessel, to
turn to a desired heading can be used operationally to minimise helideck downtime
due to both wave motions and aerodynamic effects. It can be used during flight
operations to:
ensure that wave induced motions at the helideck are minimised, and/or
10.7
COMBINED OPERATIONS
In these situations the various effects considered in Sections 10.4.3 to 10.4.7 must
be considered for the platform complex as a whole. It will normally be necessary
for the helideck to be located on the platform corners remote from the other
platform(s) in order to comply with 210o obstruction-free sector, and for best
aerodynamic performance.
In some cases the platform complex may include more then one helideck, and it
will therefore be necessary to assess the design issues for each of these
helidecks. However, operational limitations which have to be placed on an
individual deck may cause little helicopter downtime if there is an alternate
helideck that can be used under these conditions. All such limitations need to be
fully investigated, documented, and communicated to the operators to ensure that
the various management procedures to control the use of the helidecks are put
into place.
147
Whilst the detailed arrangements for these combined operations may vary
considerably from one circumstance to another (see Section 8.1), there are certain
aspects of design and platform topsides layout that, if optimised, can minimise the
need for helideck restrictions during combined operations.
Certain types of mobile platforms (e.g. flotels) have gangways and/or gangway
landing portals, and clearly this defines the side of the mobile platform that will
normally be closest to the fixed platform when combined operations are in
progress. Consequently the design of the floatel should have the gangway located
as far away from the helideck as practicable in order to maximise the available
obstruction free sector, and also to ensure that turbulence or hot gas plumes
caused by the adjacent fixed platform are as distant from the mobile platform
helideck as possible.
Whatever considerations and choices were made at the fixed or mobile platform
design stage, when combined operations are to be carried out, a helideck
assessment should be conducted to evaluate the effect of one platform on the
other, and determine any helideck restrictions that should be imposed. Apart from
the physical requirements for an unobstructed 210o obstacle free sector and falling
5:1 gradient (over at-least 180o), this assessment should consider the effect of the
turbulent wake from one platform impinging on the helideck of the other, and any
hot gas exhausts from one influencing the approach to the other helideck. The
helideck on a mobile unit is likely to be at a much lower level than the bulk of the
fixed platform it is alongside, and is therefore likely to experience severe
turbulence when downwind.
These considerations are likely to determine that, under certain wind conditions,
helideck operations to the mobile unit need to be curtailed. Where the combined
operations have more than one helideck available and a gangway platform for
personnel, it may be possible to switch from using one helideck to the other
depending on the conditions. All such limitations need to be fully investigated,
documented, and communicated to the helicopter operators to ensure that the
various management procedures to control the use of the helidecks are put into
place.
10.8
149
150
151
152
10.8.4 FPSOs
Good: The high location of the
helideck and generous air gap mean
that it is very unlikely to suffer from any
aerodynamic turbulence, particularly
as the vessel usually operates heading
into wind.
Bad: The extreme forward location of
the helideck means that vessel pitch
will be experienced at the helideck as
heave motion and acceleration. The
high location of the helideck means
that vessel roll will be experienced at
the helideck as sway motion and
acceleration. Pilots also dislike bowmounted helidecks because of the lack
of visual cues when vessel is heading
into wind.
153
154
10.9
10.9.1 Introduction
The environmental effects described in this section are influenced by the wind and
wave conditions experienced by the offshore installation. Clearly these weather
conditions vary from day to day in a largely unpredictable way.
However, wind speeds and wave heights are both amenable to statistical analysis,
and data can be obtained which describe their statistical properties. These data
can be used with information about the flow patterns around the platform, and the
platform wave motions to:
156
implies that the model test velocities have to be scaled as the square root of the
model scale (Froude scaling). For example, for a model scale of 1:100, a full-scale
wind speed of 10 m/s is represented by a model test wind speed of 1 m/s. This
scaling requirement imposes a practical limit on the model scale for a specific wind
tunnel facility, and the ability to run at low speeds with good stability is often
important.
The correct density ratio can be achieved in two ways. Heated air can be used
where the model release temperature is equal to the full-scale temperature. There
are practical disadvantages associated with this method in setting the high
temperatures of around 500C in a wind tunnel.
A practical alternative is to
157
The extents of the computational domain should be sufficiently large to avoid any
numerical influence of these boundaries on the flow around the platform in
accordance with best practice guidelines [Ref: 61]. Typically, this should extend
several platform diameters away from the object of interest in all directions with an
extended computational domain in the downstream wake region. A marine
atmospheric boundary layer profile of velocity and turbulence should be generated
at the upstream boundary and maintained throughout the computational domain
using suitable roughness properties for the sea.
To obtain good quality CFD solutions, a sufficient number of finite volumes (grid
density) must be used, and their quality must be such that the numerical
approximations used retain their formal mathematical accuracy. The grid density
should be sufficient to fit both geometrical features and flow behaviour (such as
shear layers and eddies). The overall aim is to achieve, as closely as practicable,
so-called grid-independent solutions of the numerical formulations of the mass,
momentum and energy conservation equations. This becomes more difficult, of
course, as the Reynolds Number and the range of geometrical scales is increased.
Many engineering flows, including platform aerodynamics, are dominated by the
effects of turbulence. There is no single turbulence model that applies universally
to all flows. However there are a number of approaches for engineering
applications that have known ranges of validity and can be used with good
judgement. It is, nevertheless, best practice to validate CFD results by comparison
with physical measurements, or to follow procedures that have been established
as valid in this way [Ref: 61].
Direct and Large Eddy Simulation techniques have shown potential to predict
turbulence with reasonable accuracy but are not practical for helideck design due
to the excessive computing power and simulation time required. The most
common approach is to use a RANS turbulence model in which time averaged (or
occasionally ensemble averaged, for transient flows) values of the flow quantities
are solved. The role of the turbulence model is twofold. Firstly, it modifies the
mean flow field velocities, pressures and temperatures, and secondly it provides a
measure of the turbulence within the flow. Most commonly, this takes the form of
the turbulent kinetic energy and the dominant length or time scale of the energy
containing eddies. Both can be directly related to simple statistical properties of the
turbulence.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Modelling Techniques
Both CFD and wind tunnel testing can provide key information for the design of
offshore helidecks. The main strengths and weaknesses of each can be
summarised as (assuming best practice in each case):
158
On balance, wind tunnel tests can provide reliable flow data for the safe
design of particular helidecks, whereas CFD is a tool best employed to
provide guidance on the effect of design variations and local flow features
Wind tunnel testing will give, directly, measured data for turbulent
fluctuations, such as peak values, necessary for comparison with helideck
design guidance
Wind tunnel tests for helideck wind flows are normally not affected by
modelling at small model scale (Reynolds Number effects), but care
should be taken to ensure that this is the case and to suitably condition
the experiments if necessary
CFD can provide results at full-scale flow conditions and hence model
consistently buoyancy (Froude Number) and turbulence (Reynolds
Number) effects
CFD results are available for the entire flow field. Wind tunnel data is
available at the instrumented measurement locations, although a large
number of measurements can be obtained in a relatively short period of
time
159
Details of the CFD model with reasoning for the choice of computational
domain, geometrical simplifications, computational mesh, modelling
assumptions, sub-models (e.g. turbulence model, bulk resistance terms)
and range of validity of the sub-models employed
160
161
Beaufort
Number
N
NE
SE
SW
NW
Var
Total
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.5
1.5
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.6
1.2
1.0
0.2
7.0
2.1
1.3
1.3
1.5
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.4
0+
15.5
2.8
1.5
1.5
2.0
3.4
3.2
3.0
3.6
21.1
2.7
1.0
1.8
2.3
4.2
3.6
3.4
3.5
22.5
1.8
0.6
1.6
2.1
3.4
3.3
2.7
2.5
18.0
0.9
0.2
1.1
1.3
1.8
2.0
1.4
1.1
9.8
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
3.3
0+
0+
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.7
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
0.1
10
11
0+
12
Total
11.6
5.7
8.8
10.5
16.5
16.1
14.9
14.9
1.0
100
162
Probability
Cumulative
16.5%
16.5%
16.1%
32.6%
14.9%
47.5%
14.9%
62.4%
The prevailing wind directions are therefore defined to be in the range 157.5 to
292.5 with a cumulative probability of 47.5% (or 173 days in the year).
163
NOTE: It should be noted that wind directions are invariably defined in terms of
the direction that the wind blows FROM. However, occasionally such data
may be presented as directions TO (often to be consistent with wave
direction data, which is usually presented in this way). If there is any
doubt about the direction definition then it is essential that the data be
checked with the authority that generated or published it. An error of 180o
in determining the prevailing wind directions is likely to be disastrous for
helideck operability.
Turbulence effects
The balance (or relative weighting) between these considerations will change
depending on the wind speed. For example, if the turbulence is low, a pilot could
prefer to make a straight-in approach downstream of an obstacle rather than fly a
sideways manoeuvre. Hence there could be a trade-off between turbulence and
sideways and backwards manoeuvring, related to wind strength.
However, generally the helideck should be located such that winds from the
prevailing directions carry turbulent wakes and exhaust plumes away from the
helicopter approach path. To assess if this is likely to be the case, overlay the
prevailing wind direction sectors onto the centre of the helideck. Figure 10.14 to
Figure 10.17 give examples ranging respectively from most to least favourable
helideck locations for a platform with prevailing winds from the southwest.
Major items of obstruction, including drilling derricks and exhaust stacks should be
outside the areas embraced by these sectors as shown in the figures. If they are,
then conditions at the helideck are likely to be compliant for 50% of the time. If
obstructions are located within the prevailing wind sectors, then the following
options should be explored:
If none of these are successful, then a more detailed assessment is required, and
an aerodynamic specialist should be consulted.
To minimise the effects for other wind directions, then obstructions should be
located as far away as possible from the helideck. In the case of the exhaust
stacks, these should be sufficiently high to ensure that the plumes are above the
helicopter approach path. To achieve this, it is recommended that the exhaust
outlets be no less than 20-30 m above the helideck.
NORTH
EAST
All obstruction locations
acceptable
WEST
292.5 degrees
SOUTH
Prevailing directions
157.5 degrees
Figure 10.14 - Most favourable helideck location is at the south corner. Regardless
of the location of the obstruction, the southwest prevailing winds will carry turbulent
wakes and exhaust plumes away from the helideck. The location also allows intowind approaches to be flown by the Captain for most prevailing wind directions with
minimum sideways manoeuvring and a clear overshoot path.
165
NORTH
292.5 degrees
WEST
EAST
Prevailing directions
157.5 degrees
SOUTH
Figure 10.15 - Second most favourable helideck location is at the west corner. Like
the south location, prevailing winds will carry turbulent wakes and exhaust plumes
away from the helideck. However, the location will require extensive sideways
manoeuvring on approach for many prevailing wind directions.
NORTH
Acceptable obstruction
location
292.5 degrees
Prevailing directions
EAST
WEST
157.5 degrees
Unacceptable
obstruction location
SOUTH
Figure 10.16 - Third most favourable helideck location is at the east corner. About
half the prevailing wind directions will carry turbulent wakes towards the helideck.
The location permits clear into-wind approaches to be flown but many prevailing
wind directions will have an obstructed overshoot path.
166
292.5 degrees
NORTH
Prevailing directions
Acceptable obstruction
location
EAST
WEST
Unacceptable
obstruction location
157.5 degrees
SOUTH
Figure 10.17 - Least favourable helideck location is at the north corner. Like the
east location, about half the prevailing wind directions will carry turbulent wakes
towards the helideck. The location permits clear into-wind approaches to be flown
but many prevailing wind directions will have an obstructed overshoot path.
167
A wind speed and direction frequency table (see example in Figure 10.18) can be
used to make the estimate of downtime.
On the frequency table highlight all combinations of wind speed and direction that
flow studies have indicated will not fulfil the guidance requirements. Adding up all
the highlighted values will give the estimate of the total percentage of the time that
the helideck will be unavailable for flight operations or where payload limitations
may be imposed.
Beaufort
Number
NE
SE
SW
NW
Var
Tota
l
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.5
1.5
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.6
1.2
1.0
0.2
7.0
2.1
1.3
1.3
1.5
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.4
0+
15.5
2.8
1.5
1.5
2.0
3.4
3.2
3.0
3.6
21.1
2.7
1.0
1.8
2.3
4.2
3.6
3.4
3.5
22.5
1.8
0.6
1.6
2.1
3.4
3.3
2.7
2.5
18.0
0.9
0.2
1.1
1.3
1.8
2.0
1.4
1.1
9.8
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
3.3
0+
0+
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.7
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
0.1
10
11
0+
12
Total
11.6
5.7
8.8
10.5
16.5
16.1
14.9
14.9
1.0
100
Figure 10.18 Example wind frequency table showing estimation of total downtime.
In the example the total of the highlighted cells is 14.3% indicating that, on
average, helideck restrictions may apply 1 day in 7. The direct cost and
associated inconvenience of these flight limitations can only be determined by the
field operator. If necessary similar assessments may be made on a seasonal
basis.
168
Air
temperature
data,
compared
with
the
2oC
above
ambient
There are a number of key issues that should be appreciated when this data is
presented, and is plotted or tabulated in terms of wind heading:
The convention is that wind headings are always presented in terms of the
heading FROM which the wind is blowing. Nevertheless, labelling of
tabulations and plots should always include the words wind direction
(from) in order to remove any chance of misunderstanding
For fixed platforms in the early phases of design it may be convenient and
useful to present results in terms of headings relative to Platform North.
However, in later stages when data is being used in operability
assessments, or is being prepared for the production of a summary for
operations (see Section 10.10.3), then it is likely to be much more useful if
presented in terms of True North
Installations such as mobile drilling rigs and FPSOs that can change their
heading as a result of the weather conditions or for operational purposes
should have their wind heading data presented relative to their primary
axis. Again the direction of this primary axis should be explicit
In all the above, a small annotated plan view sketch alongside the table or
plot should be used to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding by the
reader.
It is recommended that data is presented at two levels, firstly a detailed level which
shows quantitatively the parameters of interest in relation to the acceptance criteria
(see Figures 10.19, 10.20 and 10.21 below), and secondly at a simpler summary
level, which illustrates the extent of non compliance with the limiting criteria as a
function of wind speed and direction (see Figures 10.22 to 10.24).
The tabular presentation of the data should comprise results from a polar survey
taken above the landing spot together with results from lateral surveys. The lateral
surveys should correspond to the worst-case wind directions identified in the polar
surveys. Typical examples of a tabular presentation are shown in the tables in
Figures 10.19 and 10.20.
The tables show results for peak temperature rise at a wind speed of 5 m/s but a
similar format should be used for other parameters. Empty cells evident in Figure
10.19 indicate where it was judged that measurements were not required. This is
170
often an easy judgement to make for temperature assessments but less so for
downdraft and turbulence.
Consequently for downdraft and turbulence
measurements, a full range of wind direction should be tested.
For temperature rise measurements, results should be presented for a range of
reference wind speeds e.g. 5, 10, 15 and 20 m/s. This is because temperature
rise has an unpredictable dependence on reference wind speed. In contrast,
downdraft and turbulence can be re-scaled for any wind speed. For this re-scaling,
a reference wind speed of 25 m/s, taken to be a practical upper limit for helicopter
operation, is suggested.
To supplement the tables, it is recommended that the lateral survey results be
presented also as a contour plot as shown in Figure 10.21.
To highlight the wind conditions in which design criteria are exceeded it is
recommended that summary data be presented to provide an immediate visual
indication. Examples of such presentations for downdraft, temperature rise and
turbulence data are shown respectively in Figures 10.22, 10.23 and 10.24. In
these figures, the radial axis is the reference wind speed and the circumference
axis denotes wind direction (from), with respect to Platform North. The absence of
shading indicates compliance with the criteria.
171
Wind direction
MAX
0
15
30
5.2
4.3
8.6
5.9
0.1
0.1
8.6
45
11.8
8.3
9.3
4.1
0.1
0.1
11.8
60
9.7
8.3
8.8
5.5
0.3
0.4
9.7
75
3.4
2.2
5.1
2.2
0.3
0.2
5.1
165
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
180
1.9
1.5
1.6
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.9
195
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
210
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
225
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
90
105
120
135
150
240
255
270
285
300
315
330
345
NOTE: Empty cells denote where measurements were judged to be unnecessary.
For temperature rise data, similar tables would be included for other wind speeds
e.g. 10, 15 and 20 m/s
Figure 10.19 - Polar Scan of 3 second peak temperature rise above landing spot
172
Y (m)
z (m)
0
z (m)
5
z (m)
10
z (m)
15
z (m)
20
z (m)
25
z (m)
30
0.5
1.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
-20
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
-15
0.7
1.3
3.2
3.9
0.2
0.4
0.2
-10
2.2
4.6
6.7
5.9
3.5
0.3
0.4
-5
4.1
7.9
7.4
8.7
5.2
0.3
0.3
5.8
11.8
8.3
9.3
4.1
0.1
0.1
2.3
6.5
9.1
8.5
8.3
2.0
0.3
10
1.9
5.0
7.7
10.0
5.4
0.4
0.2
15
0.7
3.4
5.2
6.8
2.7
0.3
0.2
20
0.5
3.8
2.3
0.7
0.3
0.2
25
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
NOTE: For temperature rise data, similar tables would be included covering the
other wind speeds and wind directions where any further local peaks were
identified.
Figure 10.20 - Lateral scan of temperature rise across the landing spot
173
Figure 10.21 - Plot of 3 second peak temperature rise above landing spot; Wind
speed at 10 m = 5 m/s; Wind direction (degrees from Platform N) = 45. For
temperature rise data, similar charts would be included covering the other wind
speeds and wind directions where any further local peaks were identified.
174
2-5C
5-10C
15-20C
175
176
Figure 10.25 - Example summary presentation of environmental limits for a fixed platform.
177
178
Provided that transfer functions have been derived for all six motion components
(roll, pitch, yaw, sway, surge and heave) for a vessel at a defined reference point
(often at the centre of gravity, or amidships at the waterline), then RAOs can be
readily calculated for any helideck location on the vessel.
Using specialist software this data can be combined with wave climate data (see
Section 10.12.1) and limiting motion criteria (see Section 10.12) to derive
quantitative helideck downtime estimates (see Section 10.13).
179
Sig Hgt
(m)
> 14
13 to 14
12 to 13
11 to 12
10 to 11
9 to 10
8 to 9
7 to 8
6 to 7
5 to 6
4 to 5
3 to 4
2 to 3
1 to 2
0 to 1
28
167
1
5
19
62
80
1
5
21
<4
4~5
323
278
140
1
2
7
22
66
140
85
5~6
1
1
4
12
33
77
112
38
6~7
1
2
4
10
24
44
46
9
49
13
1
2
5
10
15
12
2
7~8
8~9
9 ~ 10
Zero Crossing Period (s)
1
2
3
4
2
1000
1
2
5
14
37
98
226
381
235
1
1
10 ~ 11
11 ~ 12
12 ~ 13
> 13
The maximum motion experienced during a given time interval depends not only
on the sea state, but also on the particular sequence of waves that occurs, and on
the length of the time interval. Significant variations in maximum motions often
occur between one sample time interval and another. The limiting motion criteria
are therefore normally interpreted as specifying most probable or expected
maximum values occurring in a 10-minute time interval (i.e. the most likely or
average value of all maxima that can occur in different randomly-sampled 10minute intervals). Standard formulae for estimating the most probable and
expected maximum motion in a given sea state are available, and are often
incorporated into standard vessel motion prediction programs. Motion time series
obtained from time-domain simulation programs or model tests should be
processed statistically to obtain estimates of the most probable or expected
maximum values.
Special care should be taken to determine whether maximum motions represent
single-amplitude (i.e. from the mean value to the maximum) or double-amplitude
(i.e. from minimum to maximum) values. Standard helicopter landing criteria are
usually defined in terms of maximum double-amplitude heave motions (i.e.
measured from trough to peak), but maximum single-amplitude for roll and pitch
motions (i.e. measured from the true vertical).
A new approach to measuring helideck motion based on helideck accelerations is
currently being developed [Ref: 65]. The measure of motion severity employed is
simply the acceleration in the plane of the helideck divided by the acceleration
normal to the helideck. This measure is monitored on a continuous basis over a
10-minute period and processed statistically to produce a prediction of the most
likely maximum value for the next 10 minutes; the Motion Severity Index (MSI).
When this is introduced the height of the helideck above the vessel centre of
gravity will be of greater concern since the greater this distance, the greater the
horizontal acceleration generated by a given roll motion. Maximum MSI values
may be calculated and analysed using vessel motion models and procedures
similar to those used to determine maximum heave, roll and pitch, together with
the published MSI algorithms.
NOTE: The single-amplitude roll and pitch motions must be measured from the
true vertical in order that any vessel list or trim is properly accounted for.
181
182
11.
HELIDECK SYSTEMS
11.1
INTRODUCTION
The items that make up the whole helideck facilities package cover a wide range of
individual systems and components. Each system and its components contribute
to the overall serviceability of a helideck, which is a Safety Critical Element (SCE).
Several discipline engineers, as part of their discipline responsibilities, will often
manage the work associated with the helideck systems and components.
However, there is a pressing need to ensure this work is properly co-ordinated to
ensure that the final product is a fully certified helideck ready for flight operations,
preferably with no operating restrictions.
The following sections deal with the various systems and components in detail, to
provide designers with practical guidance for optimising designs and operation.
183
11.2
11.2.1 Introduction
Care is necessary to ensure that all markings on the helideck follow the guidance
of CAP 437 precisely, except where otherwise agreed with the BHAB Helidecks.
Where markings are found to be incorrect, this problem may have occurred during
preparation of the initial helideck design drawings, whilst painting a new build
helideck or as a result of repainting during helideck maintenance.
184
185
11.2.4.2 Helideck
The NAME should ideally be clearly displayed between the origin of the obstacle
free sector and the touchdown marking. The identification NAME, should be the
same as the installation or vessel AVIATION CALL SIGN and ideally this should be
reproduced on the side identification panels.
The identification marking letters / figures should clearly contrast with the
background colour of the helideck surface. For greater effect, the white markings
can be outlined in a contrasting colour (e.g. black) if it is necessary to highlight
them against the helideck base colour.
Particularly, this may need to be done on aluminium helidecks where the natural
surface remains unpainted. Also, on passive design helidecks, the perforated
surface will rarely provided sufficient contrast without highlighting all the markings.
CAP 437 states a MINIMUM height of 1.2 metres for the identification marking
letters / figures. Where space permits, consideration should be given to enlarging
the markings to a height of 2.0 metres with a line width of 0.4 metres.
It is essential to ensure the helideck net (when fitted) does not obscure any part of
the identification NAME.
11.2.4.3 Installation Identification Boards
It should be recognised that the retro-reflective systems currently used for
installation identification boards do not provide adequate long-range identification
for pilots, particularly at night and in poor visibility. The use of advanced lighting
technologies (i.e. high intensity, long life LEDs - Section 11.3.3.4) should be
considered for installation identification boards in order to enhance long range
identification for pilots and mariners. See CAA Paper 92006 [Ref: 45].
Where possible, designers should consider placing the side signage panels that
are used for helicopter operations at as high a level as possible on the Installation.
Suitable locations may be found on drilling derricks and other elevated structures.
186
Cranes
Drilling Derricks
Burner Booms
Flare Stacks
Communications Towers
Any structures that infringe any of the obstruction free criteria and have
been identified as a helideck restriction by BHAB Helidecks.
Any other structures that are adjacent to potential flight paths where
marking may provide additional and beneficial visual clues to flight crews.
187
Although CAP 437 makes no distinction between the types of structural obstruction
and the colour schemes to apply, it is highly recommended that any structures that
are cited as infringements to the obstruction free criteria should be marked with
BLACK and YELLOW bands.
In the case of gas turbine exhausts, BLACK and WHITE / SILVER is acceptable.
High temperature paint systems suitable for gas turbine exhaust systems tend to
have limited colour ranges.
11.3
188
During this period of change and prior to updating CAP 437, interim guidance
has been produced in the form of a CAA letter [Ref: 49]. However, designers
who are currently designing new helidecks and constructors who are
undertaking helideck refurbishment are strongly advised to contact the CAA
or BHAB Helidecks for the most up-to-date information and advice.
189
environment. Failure to do so can cause flight crew severe problems when landing
and taking-off from installations and vessels at night and in poor visibility.
Providing good helideck lighting on Offshore Installations, probably more so than
on vessels, is made more difficult because of the background lighting environment.
Light pollution from the vast array of general installation lighting will often compete
with the helideck lighting and, in some cases, has the effect of overpowering the
visual cues that have been specifically provided for flight crews. See Figure 11.2.
When locating and specifying luminaires for helideck lighting systems designers
should attempt to visualise the likely results (including probable background light
pollution) from a helicopter flight crews perspective, both in the air on an approach
to the helideck and whilst parked on the helideck itself. The key to this exercise is
finding the right balance.
The use of computer generated luminance diagrams (usually provided by
specialist lighting supply companies) may help to establish correct levels of
helideck lighting with respect to perimeter and floodlighting.
Much of the light pollution can be physically shielded from the approaching or ondeck helicopter if sufficient thought is given to this problem during the design
phase. The designer should always give consideration to the visual tasks to be
undertaken by helicopter flight crews during approach to an installation or vessel
and the associated visual clues and aids available during each phase of the
operation. These are given in the following table, Figure 11.1.
PHASE
VISUAL TASK
Platform Location
Sensor Search
Platform
Identification
Helideck Acquisition
Shape of helideck.
Colour of helideck.
Luminance of helideck (floodlighting).
Perimeter lighting.
Final Approach
192
Figure 11.3 Typical Surface Mounted Perimeter Light with Bird Spike
193
These panels have recently been demonstrated during a CAA Research Project
lighting trial to provide a very effective illuminated H. In the future, such
enhancements to offshore helideck lighting may become a requirement.
When using these light fittings it is important to ensure that the construction is
sufficiently robust for helideck applications (e.g. environmental effects) and they
can withstand the weight and abrasive effects of anticipated traffic. Suitable power
supplies and enclosure rating should also be fully considered.
A technical specification for ELP lighting is given in ICAO Annex 14 Volume 2.
11.3.4.4 Light Emitting Diode (LED) Systems
A recent innovation when designing helideck lighting is the use of LED technology.
Recent lighting trials during a CAA Research Project have established that this
technology is probably superior to ELP panels because it provides clearer visual
signals and has potentially longer operating life.
The proposed future use of these systems for illuminating the 'H' and aiming circle
awaits the development of practical equipment.
11.3.4.5 Lighting Layout
Spacing of the lighting units should, as far as reasonable practicable, be
equidistant. To achieve a regular pattern it is preferred that more light units are
added and the maximum spacing be slightly reduced.
In the case of helidecks where the perimeter lights delineate a safe landing area
that is less than the overall size of the helideck surface (e.g. there is passenger
walkway, a parking or run-off area), semi-recessed fittings or ELP lights may be
considered more appropriate. Placing this type of fitting across that section of the
194
helideck where personnel and aircraft movements may take place will present less
obstructions and trip hazards.
11.3.4.6 Power Supply and Control
There is considerable merit in designing the supply system for perimeter lighting to
operate from two separate power circuits. Alternate lights should be supplied from
different power supplies. This has the effect of at least providing half the perimeter
lighting if there is a malfunction circuit in one of the electrical supplies.
Control of the perimeter lighting should be from a location convenient to the
Helideck / HLO office. It may also be beneficial to have the lighting activated by
low light conditions using an appropriately designed PIR system.
If the helideck and / or installation is in an unsafe condition (i.e. not fit for helicopter
operations), the helideck lighting system should be switched off.
11.3.5 Floodlighting
11.3.5.1 Objective
The objective with floodlighting on offshore helidecks is to provide flight crews with
good visual cues during the approach and landing phase and to eliminate any
black hole visual effects in the safe landing area. At night and in low light
conditions the floodlighting also provides a safer work environment for helideck
crews and for passenger movements.
NOTE: During helideck lighting field trials, as part of a recent CAA research
project, it has been noted that by making use of combinations of modern
lighting systems (LEDs and ELPs) for the helideck markings and using
green perimeter lights, good light levels and visual cues can be achieved
with reduced use of low level floodlighting.
Also, with floodlights positioned in a raised position (0.05D above the
helideck surface) at the origin of the Limited Obstacle Sector and aimed
toward the centre of the SLA, overall performance can be significantly
improved. Data presented to CAA suggests that XENON floodlights now
available for use on offshore helidecks may, in some cases (e.g. low
cultural lighting), offer enhanced performance over the current generation
of halogen systems. Trials have indicated that deck level xenon systems
may have an application on NUIs, when to use elevated halogen
floodlighting would create an obstacle in an otherwise obstacle free
195
196
problematical where the electrical system design does not make proper provision
for loss of electrical supply (e.g. during changeover from main to emergency
supply), however short-lived.
Manufacturers of floodlighting should be asked to provide a methodology for initial
setting up (the angle between fitting brackets and deck surface is critical) and
subsequent regular checking once installed. Incorrect settings may dazzle the
pilot or cause a black hole effect.
For small installations, (e.g. satellite installations, etc.) particular attention should
be paid to the floodlighting of the structure below helideck level with downward
facing floodlights. This enhances the 'visual cues' available to pilots during night
approaches to give depth perception.
On vessels with forward mounted helidecks, difficulties may be experienced with
exposed helideck fittings (such as floodlighting) being damaged or swept away by
waves, when the vessel is underway in heavy seas.
11.3.5.3 Combined Perimeter and Floodlights
Combined perimeter and floodlights are, as their name implies, an integrated
design.
Powered by a fluorescent luminaire they offered designers (in the early years of
offshore helideck designs) a compact helideck lighting solution. However, the
extent of the beam cast by the floodlighting is very limited and will invariably give a
black hole effect.
Combined perimeter and floodlights do not meet the current ICAO uniformity and
intensity ratio requirements and are therefore unacceptable and should no longer
197
198
199
Drilling Derricks
Radio Masts
200
The obvious problems associated with high temperatures at the flare tip mean that
placing an obstruction light where it is subject to extreme temperatures is not a
realistic proposition. Also, with a permanently lit flare (pilot flare in operation),
there is little to be gained by installing an obstruction light at the highest point
because there should be sufficient illumination at the tip for flight crews to see and
avoid.
Therefore, if obstruction lights are to be fitted to the flare tower then the highest
location should start at an elevation where the lights will be unaffected by radiated
heat and at a point that is accessible for maintenance.
An alternative to fitting obstruction lights on the flare structure is to flood light it
from a lower elevation. For instance, on an FPSO, locating the floodlight on top of
the Turret may provide both a convenient and effective position to achieve a good
result.
201
202
Externally illuminated windsocks provide equally good lighting but tend to be more
vulnerable to damage. In both cases the arrangement for elevating the windsock
above helideck level should be designed to allow the windsock assembly to be
safely lowered for routine maintenance, filament and sock replacement. See also
Section 11.9.4 for details about the Windsock structure and its location.
In some instances (e.g. due to its location and the available electrical power
supplies), it may be considered desirable to illuminate a windsock from a remote
light source. For this type of arrangement to be acceptable it should be clearly
demonstrated that there is an overriding need to illuminate with a remote light
source(s) and that the lighting is both effective and does not impair pilot night
vision.
203
2.
204
Be visible to the helicopter flight crew whilst in the air and on the helideck and
preferably be located close to the helideck exits so as to be visible to
Installation personnel
On normally unattended installations the system must be capable of being reset from an adjacent manned platform or a manned shore location.
205
Performance of status light units must have been verified using an approved
test procedure (e.g. based on FAA AC 20-74) and been subjected to testing
to validate the effective intensity of the flashing lights.
206
Designers should note that normally there should be at least two lights fixed on the
helideck perimeter or at locations nearby. However, to ensure the warning signals
can be seen from a helicopter from all approach directions, in some cases there
may be a requirement to install more than two beacons.
11.3.9.6 Operational Requirements
When status lights are installed and operational on an installation or vessel, the
operator or owner should provide relevant information (e.g., switching logic, etc.) to
the BHAB Helidecks for notification (in the HLL) to all the helicopter operators and
their flight crews.
11.4
207
It is also very important to note that once a pilot has committed to land on an
offshore helideck, any failure of a helideck system intended to provide visual cues
(e.g. helideck lighting) or safety information (e.g. installation to helicopter
communications and status lights) will seriously compromise flight safety and
potentially jeopardise a safe landing.
11.5
With two separate cable and supply systems for each of the lighting
circuits.
11.5.1 General
The Offshore Installations (Prevention of Fire and Explosion, and Emergency
Response) Regulations (SI 1995/7434) require in Regulation 5 the Duty Holder to
perform an assessment which shall consist (to quote from the regulations):
a)
The identification of the various events which could give rise to:
(i)
a major accident involving fire or explosion; or
(ii)
the need (whether or not by reason of fire or explosion) for
evacuation, escape or rescue to avoid or minimise a major
accident.
b)
c)
(ii)
d)
2.
The containment and extinguishment of the fire within the crash area
3.
4.
Rapid control of running fires and pool fires in all helicopter operating wind
conditions
2.
209
3.
4.
5.
6.
210
Legislation
Refuelling operations.
It is generally agreed that foam systems are currently the best method of achieving
rapid control of fires involving fuel spillage.
The effectiveness of a foam system depends on five criteria:
Speed of response
Reliability
Coverage
Quantity
For guidance to achieve these specifications see CAP 437 - Rescue and
Firefighting Facilities.
Lightweight foam branch lines should augment fixed systems.
Manual monitors are generally more flexible than self oscillating types but
serious consideration should be given to shielding the operators from
crash effects.
212
213
Oscillating monitors should not be left pre-set on straight jet because of the
hazards to escaping personnel and the relative ineffectiveness of the agent when
applied in this manner.
Operating levers are preferred to wheels for physically actuating the monitor
controls.
Monitors should be fitted with individual isolation valves suitably protected from
potential crash damage.
11.5.6.3 Foam Type, Supply and Storage
Foam Type
The preferred compound for the helideck foam system is a low expansion, high
performance AFFF (Aqueous Film Forming Foam) which is freeze protected (to at
least -3C, dependent on the operating region).
NOTE: When selecting suitable 'Type B' foam concentrates, duty holders should
consider the requirement stated in CAP 437 to conduct annual tests of all
parts of the foam production system including the finished foam.
The compound can be supplied in various percentages of concentration. 3% and
6% foams have a significantly greater range of acceptable operating tolerances
when compared with 1% foams and, with this in mind, UK CAA recommends,
where practical, that duty holders select a 3% or 6% Type B foam concentrate.
Supply
The system should be capable of continuously supplying foam (aspirated or nonaspirated) for at least 10 minutes at a rate not less than that prescribed by ICAO
for Performance Level B standard foam (e.g. 5.5 litres per square metre per
minute).
NOTE: The performance standard is currently under review by European Aviation
Authorities and may be subject to change in the future.
During helideck inspections, the HLO should be able to identify whether
the foam monitors supply aspirated or non-aspirated foam and be
knowledgeable of the delivery rate of the system.
Output of the monitors should be sufficient such that in the event of failure
of one unit the remaining units can satisfy the helideck firefighting
214
requirements for the largest helicopter certified to use the helideck. Full
details should be provided to operations.
Where foam is delivered from the monitors non-aspirated, there must be a system
for providing aspirated foam to the Safe Landing Area (SLA) at the prescribed
minimum delivery rate.
Proportioning accuracy of 0% and +0.05% should be specified, particularly when
using 1% AFFF compound.
Ensuring an immediate firefighting response at the helideck will require a readily
available firewater supply at sufficient pressure to operate the monitors (e.g. a fire
main with quiescent pressurisation).
Storage
Many installations and vessels have, in the past, specified central foam storage
systems with either a pressurised bag tank or pumped supply system.
The disadvantages of this type of system are:
The system will invariably suffer a time delay getting foam to the monitor
nozzles
215
Separate foam storage tanks located adjacent to each of the foam monitors are
preferred because they offer:
216
Figure 11.15 - Typical monitor control panel with properly identified operating
valves for each monitor mounted externally
The controls, switches etc. for foam systems should be arranged in such a way
that the foam supply starts automatically or can be initiated at the activation point
for the monitors.
With remote operation capability, the systems can be set up prior to use so as to
avoid the necessity to operate each of the monitor valves independently before the
system can be used.
Remote activation is operationally advantageous where the number of helideck
crew members are limited. Also, if the monitors are correctly set to douse the fire
area, helideck crewmembers are potentially less exposed to the fire hazard.
Compact, self-contained, skid mounted units can be obtained which provide the
designer with flexibility for locating the unit on the perimeter of larger helidecks,
outwith the zones that have a height restriction.
These units are supplementary to the main system, and their output is significantly
less than a monitor. The foam making capability (supply time) will be entirely
dependent on the size of the storage tank and the foam fill.
Normally, these units come fully equipped with a jet / fog nozzle and branchpipe
and approximately 30 metres of 1 hose.
It is essential to ensure there is sufficient hose length available to reach around the
helideck easily. On very large helidecks hose length may need to be increased.
218
219
NOTE: During helideck inspections, this equipment is not always found available
at the helideck. When they are located on site, they are often poorly
maintained. Proper storage should be provided adjacent to the helideck.
Nozzles
A variety of jet / fog nozzles are available for firefighting duty. The primary
consideration when specifying them for use offshore is their ease of use and
durability.
Figure 11.19 Typical nozzle for water / foam jet or spray application
Engine fires
To deal readily with such incidents, suitable and sufficient extinguishants should be
provided as noted in CAP 437.
The media commonly used are dry powder and CO2.
221
11.5.9.1 Specification
Complementary media are readily available in portable form either hand carried
and / or trolley mounted. For the helideck, trolley mounted units provide the
quantities specified in CAP 437. However, hand portable units can be more useful
in some minor firefighting applications (e.g. within a helicopter).
It should be noted that when specifying media for engine etc. bay fires, an
extendable lance applicator should be included.
However, it is essential to check that the design of the locking ring to extend the
lance is both secure and easy to operate. This is to ensure that, when in use,
failure or inadvertent operation of the lance extension is avoided.
NOTE: During helideck inspections, it is commonly found that fire extinguishers
are poorly located and their test dates have expired.
11.5.9.2 Location
One of the main problems with trolley mounted extinguishers on helidecks is
finding good storage locations where the equipment does not infringe height
restrictions, is both accessible and easily moved onto the helideck, and can be
properly secured (particularly on moving helidecks).
Height of
Perimeter
Safety Net
NOT TO SCALE
Trolley Mounted
Fire Extinguisher
Helideck Surface
prevent easy manhandling of the trolley by one person. Platform width should be
kept to the minimum required for the trolley(s) in order to reduce loss of the
Perimeter Safety Net coverage.
223
11.6
224
225
226
227
11.7
HELICOPTER REFUELLING
11.7.1 Introduction
The decision to include a refuelling system in the facilities design is purely an
operational one. A decision should only be made after consultation with either the
installation operating company aviation or logistics representative, helicopter
operator or other specialist.
There is no legal requirement to hold and dispense aviation fuel but if a system is
provided it must be guaranteed to produce clean fuel.
229
To assist with locating the transportable tanks during loading or back loading, the
bunded area should have a substantial purpose made steel frame around its
perimeter to act as a guide and buffer system. This is particularly important on
floating structures and vessels where restraining the tanks from movement due to
vessel motions should be fully taken into account.
A suitably specified, rigid pipe system will normally be installed for interconnecting
fixed aviation fuel storage tanks to the pumping system (skid mounted).
The supply to fixed aviation fuel storage from transportable tanks, or where no
fixed tanks are used, will normally be achieved by using flexible hoses from each
transportable tank coupled to a rigid piped gallery. It is imperative that the flexible
hose, coupling and tank are all properly bonded.
11.7.4.3 Aviation Fuel Pumping System
The aviation fuel pumping system and ancillary equipment (normally skid mounted)
should be designed and located to achieve good operating efficiency with easy
access for routine maintenance.
230
Figure 11.25 Example of aviation fuel dispenser skid with low overall height
231
Figure 11.26 Example of aviation fuel dispenser with high overall height.
Positioning adjacent to the helideck is critical to avoid infringing obstacle
clearances
Locating the fuel dispenser skid on the helideck, adjacent to the safe landing area
needs to be well thought out to ensure safe and easy access for refuelling
operations, routine maintenance and annual strip down, inspection and recertification.
The skid should have a steady red light mounted on the top and connected to the
system to indicate when the system is in operation. The light should be visible
from all areas of the helideck.
Skid positioning on the helideck along with layout of the skid system components
and any access panels should fully take into account routine and annual
maintenance programmes (e.g. filter pack removal).
Routine fuel system and fuel quality checks should be capable of being carried out
simply and easily without risk of contamination (e.g. water / rain ingress).
11.7.4.5 Miscellaneous Provisions
Fuel Quality
System design and quality control procedures should be stringently followed in
order to ensure that fuel dispensed is fit for aviation purposes.
232
Materials of Construction
Material selection is very important to ensure that system integrity and aviation fuel
cleanliness is always maintained. For this reason stainless steel piping and
components are used throughout.
Aircraft Bonding Cable and Reel
The dispenser must be equipped with a securely mounted, retractable bonding
cable (hand, pneumatic or electric powered) with a substantial insulated crocodile
clip and quick disconnect plug incorporated into the cable at the aircraft end (in the
event that the helicopter departs with the bonding cable still attached). See Figure
11.27.
Refuelling Couplings
Pressure and open line fuel delivery nozzles should be provided.
System Colour Coding and Identification Markings
Jet-A1 fuel system components should be correctly marked with the appropriate
vessel and piping product identification codes. Additionally, appropriate Hazchem
labels should be sited at fuel storage and dispenser locations. See Figure 11.28
and 11.29.
Figure 11.28 Typical aviation fuel identification markings used on pipework with
flow arrow incorporated
234
11.8
COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
11.8.1 Introduction
Communications equipment is a key part of helicopter operations in an offshore
environment. In the UK, there are specific radio and navigation equipment
requirements for supporting offshore helideck operations. Meteorological data
(See Section 11.9) is also an essential part of the information communicated to
flight crews during offshore helicopter operations. The procedures and practical
mechanisms for helicopter communications should be considered in conjunction
with the equipment arrangements provided for aeronautical communications.
During a design and construction project aeronautical communications equipment
will often be specified as part of a total package for the installation or vessel. It is
therefore important for helideck designers dealing with the aeronautical
communications requirement to liase with project and / or company communication
specialists. This should ensure that efficient and approved system coverage is
obtained.
Guidance and approval for all items of air-band radio equipment, etc. should be
obtained from the Air Traffic Safety Standards Department (ATSSD) of the CAA at
Gatwick. It should also be noted that all aeronautical frequencies (NDB and R/T)
are subject to international protocols and are controlled in the UK solely by
ATSSD.
Applications to CAA ATSSD will be required for using the specified equipment and
for frequency allocations. This procedure requires completion and submission of
official forms to CAA ATSSD and the process takes a considerable time to
conclude. This time period should be built into the project programme.
The designated radio callsign must be the same as the helideck and installation /
vessel identification markings. Callsign approval is also required.
235
236
Finding suitable aerial locations for good equipment performance and access for
maintenance can be difficult and areas around the helideck perimeter are often
chosen as a matter of convenience, particularly where there is no purpose built
radio tower on installations and floating structures. Vessels pose less of a problem
because often there is a suitable platform on the bridge top.
It is imperative that helideck designers in conjunction with communications
specialists plan the siting of aerials to ensure that they do not adversely impact
helideck operations.
Equally, remote sensors for meteorological instruments should not be sited where
they may adversely impact helideck operations. Also, the environment around an
offshore helideck during helicopter movements can seriously affect the operation
and accuracy of remote sensors (anemometers in particular) as a result of the
rotor downwash, so this should be fully taken into account.
237
238
There may be a number of installations in an area with the NDBs operating on the
same frequency, therefore switching arrangements and their location should be
kept simple and easy to operate, to avoid spurious use.
Application for frequency allocation and equipment approval is required from
ATSSD.
See Sections 11.8.3.1 and 11.8.3.2 for information about locating the equipment
and aerials.
NOTE: During helideck inspections the use of single frequency NDB sets tuned to
410kHz has been noted. These are unacceptable to the ATSSD.
239
access points to the helideck (e.g. base of stairways) to provide better general
coverage and to place them in a less noisy environment.
11.9
METEOROLOGICAL EQUIPMENT
11.9.1 Introduction
Flight crews involved in all types of aviation activity are heavily dependent upon
comprehensive and accurate meteorological information to properly plan their
flights and to maintain a high level of flight safety, whilst on the ground and in the
air.
Offshore helicopter operations are equally as dependent, if not more so, on
acquiring good meteorological information.
It is because of the hostile
environments that offshore helicopters encounter at sea and the remote locations
of the landing sites; accurate information is required for the onshore departure
240
airfield, for the general navigation area and at the offshore installation or vessel
destination.
Historically, probably with the exception of those facilities equipped with automatic
weather stations or staffed by meteorological specialists, offshore weather reports
from installations and vessels have generally been of poor quality, often grossly
inaccurate.
Therefore, properly calibrated instrumentation to enable accurate meteorological
and flight information to be given to helicopter flight crews is an essential feature of
helideck systems design for offshore operations.
NOTE: During offshore helideck inspections it is often found that meteorological
instrument calibration certificates (e.g. anemometers and barometers) are
unavailable or out of date. It is essential the initial calibration documents
be passed to the Operators Maintenance Department to establish a
suitable record keeping process during operations. A copy of these
records should also be available on the installation or vessel.
Windspeed and direction (at the general location and over the helideck)
241
Visibility, and
Cloud base.
242
Figure 11.30 Windsock in highly visible location on NUI (only one windsock
required in this case)
Equipment Specification
Purpose built equipment should be specified that incorporates:
A folding mast (to assist with maintenance of the swivel assembly, sock
and lighting)
Windsock lighting systems are discussed in more detail in Section 11.3.7. Where
integral lighting systems are employed it is imperative that the specification takes
into proper account the rating and security of any electrical slip ring arrangements.
See Figure 11.31 for the mechanical components of a typical windsock
arrangement.
243
Swivel Head
Assembly
Approx. 2 metres
Sock Support
Ring
Sock Envelope
(Approx. 600
mm Diameter)
Sock Restraint
Cage / Cables
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 11.31 Typical windsock mechanical assembly (lighting omitted for clarity)
11.9.4.2 Anemometers
At least one fixed anemometer should be installed on all installations and vessels.
In addition, a hand held anemometer should be provided to allow the HLO to
acquire actual helideck deck wind velocity readings, when required. The
instrument should be located at a convenient control point adjacent to the helideck.
Sensor Location
A fixed anemometer should be provided and located in free air at a high point on
the installation or vessel where it can operate in windflows unaffected by the
structure of the facility.
Locating anemometers on DP (Dynamically Positioned) vessels is a particularly
important exercise because the outputs are often linked to the DP system.
It is vital to pick sensor locations that ensure an accurate readout of the wind
conditions over the vessel but at the same time the sensors do not pick up
helicopter downwash, etc. that may spuriously affect vessel heading control.
Indicator Location
The wind speed indicator should be located at a suitable control point where the
HLO and / or Radio Operator can easily obtain readings to transmit to the flight
crews (See Sections 11.8.3.1).
244
Figure 11.32 An example of a good folding mast system with a poorly installed
windsock (windsock too small and restraint cables too long)
245
246
247
248
249
vessel, this can greatly assist with more accurate flight planning and establishing
payloads.
It should also reduce the opportunity for expensive overfly flights where landings
have to be aborted on arrival at the installation due to the pilot encountering
excessive helideck movements that are outside the limits prescribed in his
company Operations Manual, thus preventing the execution of a safe landing.
Aircraft Chocks
Freight Loader
De-Icing Equipment.
250
When aviation fuel is spilt onto the helideck surface during helicopter
refuelling
near misses, etc.) is the helideck monitoring and reporting co-ordinated by BHAB
Helidecks. If a helideck fails to meet an acceptable level of cleanliness then
landing restrictions will be applied by BHAB Helidecks, thus limiting helideck
availability.
The levels of operational acceptance of helideck guano infestations by BHAB
Helidecks are shown in Figure 11.33. Any reporting above level 7 will incur flight
restrictions.
A significant part of the work to combat a bird / guano infestation problem will be
handled during operations by employing a management system to monitor
helideck condition and by building routine helideck cleaning into the maintenance
programme.
During a helideck design project, it should be established whether the potential for
bird / guano infestations exist. If there is likely to be a problem then provision
should be made for the installation of bird exclusion devices along with efficient
helideck cleaning / wash down systems.
1
Clean
No night operations
10
It should be noted that individual bird exclusion devices are reported to have only
low to moderate success on most installations. Combined systems have been
more successful.
252
2.
3.
253
2.
The signs follow EC shape, symbol and colour conventions for prohibition,
warning or advice, where appropriate
3.
4.
Signs are placed clearly in the normal line of sight of embarking and
disembarking passengers and other operational personnel taking into
account the normal routes taken to and from the helideck from heli-admin.
254
These signs are best grouped together and positioned on robust frames at all the
entry points to the helideck. See Figure 11.34.
Preferably they should be located at the foot of the stairways or landings leading to
the helideck surface. If possible, the signs should be located in a relatively unexposed position to avoid potential mechanical or wind damage.
Figure 11.34 Example of helideck safety signs securely mounted on a robust frame
255
256
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
257
APPENDICES
1.
Contributors
2.
References
3.
List of Abbreviations
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
258
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
259
APPENDIX 1 - CONTRIBUTORS
HSE and the Author wish to express their thanks to the following for their individual
contributions during the preparation of these guidelines.
Dr. Shane Amaratunga
Dave Andrew
John Bartovsky
Ruth Bemment
Duncan Bliss
Ian Bonnon
John Burt
Dave Casson
Mike Crabb
Ian Evans
Peter Garland
W S Atkins
BHP Billington / UKOOA
Statoil AS
Civil Aviation Authority (Retired)
Civil Aviation Authority
Shell Exploration & Production / UKOOA
BMT Fluid Mechanics Limited
Atkins Consulting
HSE
BHAB Helidecks
BOMEL Limited
HSE
CHC Scotia Helicopters / BHAB
Civil Aviation Authority
HSE
Intl Assoc. of Marine Contractors (Retired)
BHP Billington / OGP
Technip Coflexip / IMCA
BMT Fluid Mechanics Limited
Wood Group
BMT Fluid Mechanics Limited
Civil Aviation Authority
Shell Aircraft Limited / UKOOA
Bristow Helicopters Limited / BHAB Helidecks
BP
Sikorsky Aircraft Corp
260
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
261
APPENDIX 2 - REFERENCES
LEGISLATION, GUIDANCE PUBLICATIONS, ETC.
Throughout these guidelines references are made to Regulations, Codes of Practice and
relevant official papers and reports. Where specific references are applicable to a particular
topic these are given at the end of the relevant paragraph for quick reference.
At the time these guidelines were published the following list of publications were current. It
is strongly recommended when making reference to any of these documents that the most
up to date revision is obtained and used.
LEGISLATION
Acts
1.
2.
3.
HASAWA
Statutory Instruments
4.
5.
SCR
6.
MAR
7.
PFEER
8.
DCR
9.
MHSWR
262
10.
(SI 1992/2051)
Noise at Work Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/1790)
11.
12.
ANO
L30
14.
L83
15.
L70
16.
L65
17.
L23
18.
L85
19.
L138
263
IND(G)
219L, 4/96
No: 1/94
22.
No: 5/96
23.
No: 4/99
No: 14
25.
No: 27
26.
No: 39
27.
No: 47
28.
29.
30.
264
OTO 00:131
32.
OTO 00:067
33.
OTO 01:039
34.
OTO 98:088
35.
OTO 00:089
36.
OTO 01:072
CAP 393
38.
CAP 74
39.
CAP 434
40.
CAP 437
41.
CAA Paper
No: 99004
42.
CAA Paper
No: 98002
43.
CAA Paper
No: 94004
44.
CAA Paper
No: 97009
45.
CAA Paper
No: 92006
265
46.
CAA Paper
No: 98003
47.
CAA Letter
17/11/2003
48.
CAA Letter
31/12/2003
Issue 4, 2003.
50.
Issue 1, 1996
51.
Issue 1, 1996
52.
Issue 1, 1995
54.
55.
Doc. 9261
British Standards
56.
BS 5950
57.
BS 7191
58.
BS 6399
Part 1
266
59.
BS5345
Part 2
European Standards
60.
61.
19901-3
American Standards
63.
Norwegian Standards
64.
65.
Miscellaneous Papers
66.
67.
68.
69.
267
71.
268
AAIB
ABCB
ACOP
AEO
AFFF
ALARP
AMSL
ANO
AOC
API
ATSSD
BHAB
BHAB Helidecks
BROA
BS
CAA
CAP
CAPEX
CCR
COSHH
D
DCR
DERA
DIFFS
DNV
DSV
EERA
ELP
FPS
FPSO
FPU
HASAWA
HLG
HLL
HLO
HOMP
HORG
HSE
HUMS
269
IADC
IAGC
IAS
IATA
ICAO
ICP
IMCA
IMO
IP
ISO
IVLL
LDP
LFL
LOS
MAR
MAUW
MCA
MODU
MSF
MSI
MTOW
NDB
NM
NMD
NUI
OAT
OBRR
OCA
OEI
OGP
OHIR
OIAC
OIM
ON
OPEX
OPITO
OSD
PFEER
PIR
270
QNH
RAO
RFF
RFFF
rms.
R/T
SCE
SCR
SLA
Point of Origin
Persons on Board
Personal Protection Equipment
Indication of height above a set datum (e.g. and airfield or
helideck)
Indication of altitude above mean sea level
Response Amplitude Operator
Rescue and Firefighting
Rescue and Fire Fighting Facilities
root mean square
Receive / Transmit
Safety Critical Element
Safety Case Regulations
Safe Landing Area
SN
SRG
SSCV
TDP
TGWU
UKCS
UKOOA
UPS
VHF
WAT
PO
POB
PPE
QFE
271
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
272
18.95 metres
7936 kg (t = 8.0)
= 15.73 m
= 11.75 m
H1 / H2
Passenger Access
Refuelling Method
Gravity only
Fuel Type
Jet A-1
Undercarriage
Tricycle
Nosewheels:
Contact Area (each): 123 cm
Loading: 22 %
3.32m
Mainwheels:
Contact Area (each): 290 cm
Loading: 78 %
4.8m
273
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
274
22.8 metres
14600 kg (t = 15)
= 18.93 m
= 14.14 m
RFF Category
H1 / H2
Passenger Access
Refuelling Method
Fuel Type
Jet A-1
Undercarriage
Tricycle
0.42m
3.34m
7.0m
4.3 m
275
Note: Values are given for the twin main wheel option at touchdown vertical velocity limit of 2.0 m/s - some variants may be equipped
with single main wheels.
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
(Courtesy of Westland Helicopters Limited)
276
14.30 m
4800 kg (t = 4.8)
11.87 m
8.87 m
H1 / H2
Small, 6m x 6m
Passenger Access
Refuelling Method
Gravity
Fuel Type
Jet A-1
Undercarriage
Tricycle
Nosewheels:
Contact Area (each): ? cm
Loading: ? %
Mainwheels:
Contact Area (each): ? cm
Loading: ? %
3.91 m
277
1.90 m
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
278
19.50 m
10400 kg (t = 10.4)
16.18 m
12.09 m
H1 / H2
Passenger Access
Refuelling Method
Fuel Type
Jet A-1
Undercarriage
Tricycle
Nosewheels:
Contact Area (each): ? cm
Loading: ? %
3.00 m
5.25 m
279
Mainwheels:
Contact Area (each): ? cm
Loading: ? %
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
280
18.7 metres
8599 kg (t = 8.6)
= 15.52 m
= 11.59 m
RFF Category
H1 / H2
Passenger Access
Refuelling Method
Fuel Type
Jet A-1
Undercarriage
Tricycle
Nosewheels:
Contact Area (each): 290 cm
Loading: 35.5 %
3.0m
Mainwheels:
Contact Area (each): 452 cm
Loading: 64.5 %
5.26m
281
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
282
19.5 metres
9300 kg (t = 9.3)
= 16.19 m
= 12.09 m
H1 / H2
Passenger Access
Refuelling Method
Fuel Type
Jet A-1
Undercarriage
Tricycle
Nosewheels:
Contact Area (each): 290 cm
Loading: %
3.0m
5.28m
283
Mainwheels:
Contact Area (each): 452 cm
Loading: %
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
284
13.68 metres
4250 kg (t = 4.3)
= 16.19 m
= 12.09 m
RFF Category
H1 / H2
Small, 6m x 6m
Passenger Access
Refuelling Method
Gravity only
Fuel Type
Jet A-1
3184 lbs
Undercarriage
Tricycle
Nosewheels:
Contact Area (each): 123 cm
Loading: 22 %
1.90m
Mainwheels:
Contact Area (each): 213 cm
Loading: 78 %
3.64m
285
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
286
22.2 metres
9298 kg (t = 9.3)
= 18.43 m
= 13.76 m
H1 / H2
Passenger Access
Refuelling Method
Fuel Type
Jet A-1
Undercarriage
Tailwheel
Mainwheels:
Contact Area (each): 374 cm
Tailwheel:
Contact Area: 277 cm
Loading: 15 %
4.27m
Loading: 85 %
7.15m
287
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
288
16 metres
5307 kg (t = 5.3)
= 13.28 m
= 9.92 m
H1 / H2
Passenger Access
Refuelling Method
Gravity only
Fuel Type
Jet A-1
Undercarriage
Tricycle
Nosewheel:
Contact Area: 115 cm
Loading: 25 %
2.44m
5.0m
289
Mainwheels:
Contact Area (each): 107 cm
Loading: 75 %
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
290
20.88 m
=
=
11859 kg (t = 11.9)
12837 kg (t = 12.8)
17.33 m
12.95 m
RFF Category
H1 / H2
Passenger Access
Refuelling Method
Fuel Type
Jet A-1
Undercarriage
Tricycle
3.18 m
6.20 m
291
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
(Courtesy of Sikorsky Aircraft)
292