There are many different meanings of the word “pins”, but we must add another one: “Point in Space” (PinS).  You may well ask, what is/are "PinS"?  Read on…

(…and, no, Avigation is not doing a side-line in haberdashery!)

By design, helicopters can use conventional and non-conventional operating sites. Moving passengers or freight, helicopters offer significant advantages over fixed-wing aircraft and can operate away from conventional aerodromes into and from ad hoc sites or specially designed heliports. PinS procedures can enable helicopter operations to lower weather minima. Thus, PinS are a game-changer for rotary operations - or at least should be.  So, why are PinS not more widespread in everyday helicopter operations? 

PinS offer potential safety and operational benefits for appropriately equipped helicopters and appropriately trained pilots, for example, helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) operations. GNSS technology enhanced by SBAS systems (i.e. without the need of ground-based navigation infrastructure) permits the design of specific helicopter IFR approach/departure procedures and the introduction of helicopter low-level (LL) IFR routes (LLRs) in obstacle-rich environments, thereby reducing exposure to flights at higher altitudes, which could result in airframe icing. PinS and the associated LLRs could allow rotary operators to expand their operations and enhance their capabilities.   

In the HEMS space, emergency services could operate in poorer weather conditions than is currently the case, allowing helicopter-borne paramedics get to more patients, enabling the delivery of life-saving treatment in the so-called 'golden hour' - the hour immediately following a serious injury. Delays in critical medical intervention before a patient’s arrival at hospital can adversely impact outcomes; therefore, this period is not only critical to patient survival, but also post-recovery quality of life. Likewise, Search and Rescue (SAR) helicopter operations could operate in less clement conditions. 

Increasing IFR capabilities to commercial helicopter operators would significantly increase revenue to these operators in everyday and regular scenarios, e.g. having the ability to operate IFR flights to maintain off-shore wind infrastructure - such an ability would doubtless enhance the through-life maintenance of this infrastructure. 

The benefits of PinS could be both humanitarian and commercial - saving lives, extending environmental operations and increasing the commercial viability of UK helicopter operations. So, what is preventing widespread implementation of PinS and LLRs?  Instrument Flight Procedure design is not an issue; operators' requirements (avionics installation approval/upgrade/supplemental type certificates, operational approval and pilot training and upgrading flight manuals) can all be implemented; signal-in-space performance assessment and monitoring is sufficiently robust; and safety case development and the determination of any visual segment requirements has reached an acceptable point of maturity. One issue could be cost and ownership of the procedures. 

UK’s CAA have deliberated over PinS for over 5 years but have yet to produce any associated regulatory requirements for this niche area. CAA have now determined that PinS approaches be subject to the requirements of CAP1616 [1]. This is a relatively new document (introduced in Nov 17 and revised in Nov 18) and replaced previous airspace change proposal (ACP) documentation. 

CAP1616 ACP processes are geared towards larger commercial aerodromes within or with their own regulated airspace. PinS, however, are designed to enable operations into helipads or smaller operating sites - HEMS and SAR operations (hospitals, air ambulance bases, etc) would be a case in point. The CAP1616 ACP process is a lengthy, complex and hugely expensive one to go through and with no guarantee of approval. After implementation, there are also ongoing management and maintenance costs for PinS procedures. Arguably, the large commercial operations could recover these costs through a small levy to existing charges and fees, but the smaller non-commercial operations who would benefit directly from PinS (i.e. autonomous HEMS and SAR operations) may struggle to recoup such costs.  

CAP1616 states that it can be scaled to suit this smaller type of operation/application, but there is neither guidance nor clarity on how this might translate in practice. Until CAP1616 processes can be tailored properly and implementation costs reduced to a realistic level, most operators that could realise the tangible safety and operational benefits from PinS might simply be unable to justify the time and expense of developing such procedures. 

There are, however, pragmatic solutions that could overcome some of the CAP1616 PinS implementation and ongoing management issues. From operational and regulatory perspectives, Avigation has been exploring a collaborative solution that could address these challenges, and we have discussed with several operators how this might best be achieved. So, there might be a light at the end of the tunnel…

PinS offer clear safety, environmental and community benefits and their operational feasibility has been proven. The real barriers to PinS implementation appear to be regulatory and, for smaller operations, financial; these barriers must be addressed, but they are not insurmountable.  Were CAA and industry to agree a mutually acceptable, pragmatic path through CAP1616 on this issue, the full potential of PinS could indeed be realised.



If you would like to discuss GNSS PinS operations (or another aviation-related challenge), please feel free to contact us at info@avigation.co.uk.

#AvigationLtd #HEMS #Helimeds #PinS #GNSS

[1]. CAA, CAP1616, “Guidance  on the regulatory process for changing the notified airspace design and planned and planned and permanent redistribution of air traffic, and on providing airspace information”, Edition 3 (3 Jan 20), https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1616_...pdf.