Flight Operations
Consultation: The CAA’s intention to assume
responsibility for the certification of UK helidecks
CAP 1295
Published by the Civil Aviation Authority, 2015
Civil Aviation Authority,
Aviation House,
Gatwick Airport South,
West Sussex,
RH6 0YR.
You can copy and use this text but please ensure you always use the most up to date version and use it in
context so as not to be misleading, and credit the CAA.
First published 2015
Enquiries regarding the content of this publication should be addressed to: Flight Operations, Safety and
Airspace Regulation Group, Aviation House, Gatwick Airport South, Crawley, West Sussex, RH6 0YR
The latest version of this document is available in electronic format at www.caa.co.uk
.
CAP 1295
Contents
Contents
Executive Summary
4
Discussion
5
Background and purpose of this paper
5
Summary of the present arrangements for the certification of offshore helidecks
5
Weaknesses evident in the present certification system
6
The CAA’s intention to assume responsibility for the certification of UK helidecks 7
Proposed methodology to adopt the EASA Qualified Entity model for the helideck
certification task at the behest of the national aviation authority (UK CAA)
8
Conclusion and recommendation
9
Appendix A: Example letter to Offshore Helicopter Operators
10
Appendix B: Extract from Basic Regulation (EC) No 216/2008
12
May 2015
Page 3
CAP 1295
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
During the CAA’s Strategic Review of Offshore Helicopter Operations (i.e., CAP 1145),
action A13 was raised notifying CAA’s intention to assume responsibility for the
certification of UK helidecks and to consult with industry to achieve this (Delivery 1Q
2015). A paper (attached) is drafted to examine how the present industry arrangements
can be modified to a CAA-directed certification process which reflects the EASA Qualified
Entity model described in the Basic EASA Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.
The paper examines in detail how a formal MoU could empower one or more qualified
entities to act on behalf of the CAA for the certification of helidecks on the United Kingdom
Continental Shelf (UKCS). The proposed arrangement gives a framework to provide a
robust and legally enforceable system for the certification of over 300 helidecks operating
on the UKCS, which delivers tangible enhancements in safety standards but with minimal
bureaucratic impact to the CAA.
To address weaknesses in the present arrangement, in particular the lack of across-theboard enforcement of sanctions where a helideck has been found to have significant noncompliances, there needs to be a legally binding directive in place whereby CAA is
empowered to prevent an operation should the helideck fail to achieve a minimum level of
compliance. The proposal would be for CAA to underwrite a qualified entity’s approvals
system by issuing an operational directive under article 15 of the ANO (and article 6(4) of
the Air Operations Regulation 965/2012) requiring helicopters operating to offshore
installations and vessels on the UKCS only to do so if facilities have been approved
/certificated by a Qualified Entity (or Entities) acting on behalf of the NAA (UK CAA).
To address standard non-compliances, which are not ordinarily ‘no-go’ items, the qualified
entity will develop and promulgate a set of Agreed Procedures (APS) in an Operations
Manual, which is acceptable to the CAA. To process specific non-standard operational
issues, these will be subject to continuous scrutiny from operational pilots at quarterly
steering meetings. These meetings will be chaired by a qualified entity and include
representation from the CAA, i.e., Flight Operations (Helicopters) and/or Intelligence,
Strategy and Policy (ISP) as a minimum.
To ensure the management, training and competency standards and record keeping of the
qualified entity are maintained ‘fit for purpose’ the CAA will undertake periodic audits of
qualified entity (at the cost of the entity). The cost of audits could be offset against revenue
generated from the certification of each helideck given that such activities fall outside
areas captured by the CAA Official Scheme of Charges.
May 2015
Page 4
CAP 1295
Discussion
Discussion
Background and purpose of this paper
1.
During the CAA’s Strategic Review of Offshore Helicopter Operations, reported
in CAP 1145, in Chapter 14 Operations to Helidecks, an action was raised (A13)
notifying CAA’s intention to assume responsibility for the certification of UK
helidecks and to consult with industry to achieve this (1Q 2015). This short paper
is drafted to examine how a CAA-directed certification process might be
developed and used to help enhance the safety standards at helidecks operated
in the UKCS, by modifying and developing the present industry arrangements, in
place since 1995, through the adoption of an EASA Qualified Entity model. In the
Basic EASA Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 provision is made for a specific
certification task to be allocated to a ‘qualified entity’ (or entities) under the
control and responsibility of EASA or the national aviation authority (NAA). This
paper examines how the current industry model could be adapted to achieve the
objectives of CAP 1145, action A13 by the use of one or more qualified entities
operating on behalf of CAA. The paper also launches the consultation exercise
mentioned in the text of A13, which aims to capture the views of the UK industry
on the proposed certification process.
Summary of the present arrangements for the certification of
offshore helidecks
2.
The Helideck Certification Agency (HCA) has existed for the certification of
helidecks (initially under the auspices of the British Helicopter Advisory Board
[BHAB]) since the mid 1990’s. HCA functions to provide an inspection and
certification ‘level playing field’ process that enables the offshore helicopter
operators to meet their legal obligations under Article 96 of the Air Navigation
Order, by ensuring that every place operators take-off or land is ‘fit for purpose’.
Until recently the HCA was wholly and equally part-owned by Bristow and CHC
helicopters with a remit to provide their services to all UK offshore helicopter
operators (to support this activity a formal MoU operates between the HCA and
the UK offshore helicopter operators). HCA also has arrangements in place with
the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) as the Aviation Body tasked to
inspect and certificate large yachts under arrangements promulgated in MCA’s
large yacht code, Merchant Shipping Notice (MSN) 1792.
3.
So being wholly owned by the helicopter operators and by taking a voluntary
action to produce their own Operations Manual, setting out their policies and
procedures for inspection and certification arrangements, the HCA (an ISO 9001
May 2015
Page 5
CAP 1295
Discussion
accredited organisation) has in place a system that allows them to be periodically
assessed by UK CAA, to determine whether they are providing an ongoing
effective process for the certification of all offshore helidecks operating in the
UKCS (CAP 1145, section 2.3 reports 228 helideck-equipped fixed installations
as well as 50-100 mobile helidecks operating on the UKCS at any given time).
4.
For a more detailed treatment of the current certification arrangements see
Appendix A.
Weaknesses evident in the present certification system
5.
Since the early 1990’s, before which helidecks were directly approved by the
CAA Aerodrome Standards Department based only on a set of ‘approved’
helideck drawings, the system of a physical helideck inspection by HCA (and its
predecessor BHAB Helidecks) has seen the standards on helidecks raised
considerably. Following the Brent Spar fatal accident in 1990, a subsequent
safety recommendation from the AAIB fatal accident investigation had
recommended CAA to consider, with HSE, the best arrangements for the
inspection of at least all restricted helidecks (75) and ideally all helidecks
regularly used by UK helicopters. After performing the initial task themselves
between 1992-95, but with no further commitment to funding by HSE, CAA
agreed with the helicopter operators that an ongoing authorisation system
needed to be established by the operators to ensure they met their statutory
obligations to only operate to helidecks that are ‘fit for purpose’.
6.
Undoubtedly the HCA system has delivered safety improvements over a near-on
20-year inspection/certification period and has proved HCA to be technically and
procedurally competent to administer the helideck inspection and certification
process. However, this system is recognised to have some inherent
weaknesses. One significant weakness has been due to lack of an across-theboard enforcement of sanctions where a helideck has been found to have
significant non-compliances. Whilst an effective operator system is in place to
determine, for compromised helidecks, appropriate limitations and restrictions
through the HCA chaired Helideck Steering Committee (the composition of HSC
is senior pilots from the offshore helicopter operators), for significant noncompliances stronger regulation/ enforcement has sometimes been needed
(such as an outright temporary ban on helicopter operations). The current
arrangement has not always been able to deliver the required safety outcomes,
often due to commercial pressures that exist in the North Sea: by being wholly
and equally part-owned by two of the offshore helicopter operators (CHC and
Bristow), the HCA certificate has lacked the legal credence necessary for the
direction of all AOC holders, including those that operate under a foreignregistered AOC arrangement (e.g. non-UK helicopter operators). Therefore, the
HCA has found it difficult to apply enforcement action that maintains a level
May 2015
Page 6
CAP 1295
Discussion
playing field for all offshore helicopter operators currently operating in the UK
sector. It has primarily been this lack of a robust and legally enforceable system
that has predicated action A13 in CAP 1145.
The CAA’s intention to assume responsibility for the
certification of UK helidecks
7.
The CAA has never been required to formally licence offshore helidecks for the
reason that although they are clearly commercial air transport (CAT)
undertakings, helidecks are not operated on a scheduled arrangement that is
open to public use. Rather offshore helicopters are effectively chartered by Oil
Companies and their sub contractors for the purpose of moving company and
contractor personnel to their place of work.
8.
However, it is CAA’s intention that offshore helideck operations should meet the
same standards of regulation befitting any other ‘scheduled’ commercial air
transport operation. To achieve this CAA has studied how the responsibility is
discharged (i.e. the national models of certification) in other key offshore sectors,
both inside and outside the North Sea and has given consideration to several
options:
9.
First, whether CAA should take-over direct regulatory oversight of all helidecks
operating on the UKCS by establishing a process for the inspection and
certification of helidecks through a robust legal arrangement which changes the
Air Navigation Order to give CAA the appropriate powers to directly licence all
helidecks on the UKCS. Given the fact that EASA does not require this activity
of its member states, and acknowledging that the CAA does not currently have
the resources to address such a substantial task (the certification of more than
300 helidecks operating in the UKCS), a preference has been identified internally
to refine the existing system to ensure more effective oversight of helidecks is
achieved.
10.
The second option is best explained in light of recent changes in the
aforementioned sub-optimal HCA arrangement. On 21st November 2014 the
HCA business was sold by Bristow and CHC to a holding company formed for
the acquisition, called Helideck Analytics Ltd. However, this new company
retained the core staff and competencies from the current arrangement and
continued to trade as the Helideck Certification Agency Ltd (note: an expanding
portfolio means they have recently acquired additional resources). From the
perspective of introducing a new legally-enforceable certification regime this is a
positive development since it secures a wholly independent appropriate entity,
now a business separated from the end-users (the offshore helicopter
operators), but maintaining the core competency (and a comprehensive
database of certification activity that goes back nearly 20 years to the mid1990’s). This reinforces the HCA process as a favourable starting point for a
May 2015
Page 7
CAP 1295
Discussion
CAA-led certification process. However, to avoid automatically accepting a
monopoly situation where healthy competition is stifled, there is an opportunity to
open up the market place to other organisations that might also consider
themselves to have the relevant experience and skills sets to perform the task of
helideck inspection and certification as an accredited entity acting on behalf of
the UK CAA, alongside the HCA.
Proposed methodology to adopt the EASA Qualified Entity
model for the helideck certification task at the behest of the
national aviation authority (UK CAA)
11.
Under the EASA Basic Regulation (REGULATION (EC) No 216/2008)
recognition is given for a ‘qualified entity’ meaning a body which may be
allocated a specific certification task by, and under the control of, the Agency or
the national aviation authority. As EASA currently has no legal remit for the
certification of helidecks, qualified entities would be acting only on behalf of the
national aviation authority, the UK CAA. Rules pertaining to the activities of a
qualified entity are reproduced in Appendix B. It is evident that for qualified
entities to perform a specific certification task at the behest of UK CAA, there
would need to be established memoranda of understanding (MoU) between CAA
and the other parties – in a similar way that an MoU is in existence between the
HCA and the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) for the certification of
helidecks on large yachts (arrangements promulgated in an Annex to MCA’s
Merchant Shipping Notice MSN: 1792).
12.
It is essential from CAA’s perspective, and a clear objective of CAP 1145, that
any new arrangement should seek to address all the perceived weaknesses of
the present system. In particular that a robust process be established, not only
for identifying non-compliances but, as a minimum, for grading non-compliances
between ‘go’ and ‘no-go’ items - in a similar way that an aircraft Minimum
Equipment List (MEL) operates (where some items may be classed as deferred
defects for the duration of the flight while others are regarded as essential to
uphold legal obligations if a flight is to continue safely). It has long been the
stated intent of CAA that a ‘Helideck MEL’ be developed; and with the
establishment of a new certification basis this presents the ideal opportunity to
do so.
13.
In addition to the technical development of a helideck inspection report, to more
adequately address the manpower responsibilities and training of the installation
helideck, there needs to be in place a legal directive whereby CAA (and their
agent(s)) is empowered to prevent an operation should, in the opinion of the
CAA and / or the qualified entity, the helideck fail to achieve a minimum level of
compliance i.e. if it is deemed unsafe to continue operations. The interim
proposal, while the necessary process of amendment to the ANO and the Civil
May 2015
Page 8
CAP 1295
Discussion
Aviation Act is determined (see section 4), would be for CAA to underwrite a
qualified entity’s approvals system by issuing an operational directive under
article 15 of the ANO (and article 6(4) of the Air Operations Regulation 965/2012)
requiring helicopters operating to offshore installations and vessels on the UKCS
only to do so if facilities have been approved or certificated by a qualified entity
(unless exempted by the CAA under article 242). For a helideck that exhibits
significant non-compliances, the directive could be amended to prohibit or to limit
operations, or, to offer a degree of flexibility, to apply special conditions to
operations.
14.
To address standard non-compliances, which are not ordinarily ‘no-go’ items, the
qualified entity/entities would be encouraged to develop and promulgate a set of
agreed procedures (APS) in an Operations Manual, acceptable to the CAA. To
process specific non-standard operational issues these would continue to be
subject to scrutiny from operational pilots at periodic steering group meetings.
These meetings chaired by the qualified entity, would include representation
from CAA Flight Operations (Helicopters) and/or from Intelligence, Strategy and
Policy (ISP) as a minimum.
15.
To ensure the management, training, competency standards and record keeping
of the qualified entity are maintained ‘fit for purpose’ the CAA would undertake
periodic audits of them. These audits would be funded from revenue generated
by the certification of each helideck i.e. a portion of the fixed fee from the
certification process would be passed on to the CAA to allow for recuperation of
costs associated with the audit requirements of the qualified entity, and for high
level oversight activities associated with a CAA-directed certification system (it
should be noted that these activities currently fall outside areas captured by the
CAA Official Scheme of Charges).
Conclusion and recommendation
16.
May 2015
It is the conclusion and recommendation of this paper that in order to most
effectively address the action (A13) raised to CAA in CAP 1145, the CAA should
adopt an appropriately accredited entity (or entities) for the inspection and
certification of helidecks on the UK Continental Shelf. Forthwith a formal dialogue
should be established between UK CAA and interested parties to develop a
process which transfers the responsibility for the certification of helidecks on
installations and vessels operating in UK waters from the helicopter operators to
the Civil Aviation Authority. As per the consultation initiated under the terms of
A13, the CAA encourages the industry to express their views on the process
proposed by e-mailing your comments to CAA’s Flight Standards Officer –
Helicopters, Mr Kevin Payne ([email protected]), copying CAA’s Safety
Programme Manager, Dr. Felipe Nascimento ([email protected]).
Page 9
CAP 1295
Appendix A: Example letter to Offshore Helicopter Operators
APPENDIX A
CAP 437 Appendix F (example letter to Offshore
Helicopter Operators)
May 2015
Page 10
CAP 1295
May 2015
Appendix A: Example letter to Offshore Helicopter Operators
Page 11
CAP 1295
Appendix B: Extract from Basic Regulation (EC) No 216/2008
APPENDIX B
Extract from Basic Regulation (EC) No 216/2008
‘(f) ‘qualified entity’ shall mean a body which may be allocated a specific certification task
by, and under the control and the responsibility of, the Agency or a national
aviation authority;
Article 13
Qualified entities
When allocating a specific certification task to a qualified entity, the Agency or the national
aviation authority concerned shall ensure that such entity comply with the criteria
laid down in Annex V.
ANNEX V
Criteria for qualified entities referred to in Article 13 (‘qualified entity’ or ‘entity’)
The entity, its Director and the staff responsible for carrying out the checks, may not become involved, either directly or as
authorised representatives, in the design, manufacture, marketing or maintenance of the products, parts,
appliances, constituents or systems or in their operations, service provision or use. This does not exclude the
possibility of an exchange of technical information between the involved organisations and the qualified entity.
The entity and the staff responsible for the certification tasks must carry out their duties with the greatest possible professional
integrity and the greatest possible technical competence and must be free of any pressure and incentive, in
particular of a financial type, which could affect their judgment or the results of their investigations, in particular
from persons or groups of persons affected by the results of the certification tasks.
The entity must employ staff and possess the means required to perform adequately the technical and administrative tasks
linked with the certification process; it should also have access to the equipment needed for exceptional checks.
The staff responsible for investigation must have:
sound technical and vocational training, satisfactory knowledge of the requirements of the certification tasks they carry out and
adequate experience of such processes, the ability required to draw up the declarations, records and reports to
demonstrate that the investigations have been carried out.
The impartiality of the investigation staff must be guaranteed. Their remuneration must not depend on the number of
investigations carried out or on the results of such investigations.
The entity must take out liability insurance unless its liability is assumed by one Member State in accordance with its national
law.
The staff of the entity must observe professional secrecy with regard to all information acquired in carrying out their tasks under
this Regulation’
May 2015
Page 12