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

May 2015 Page 3

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

CAP 1295 Executive Summary

May 2015 Page 4

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-the-board enforcement of sanctions where a helideck has been found to have significant non-compliances, 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.

CAP 1295 Discussion

May 2015 Page 5

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

CAP 1295 Discussion

May 2015 Page 6

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-the-board 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 non-compliances 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 foreign-registered AOC arrangement (e.g. non-UK helicopter operators). Therefore, the HCA has found it difficult to apply enforcement action that maintains a level

CAP 1295 Discussion

May 2015 Page 7

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 mid-1990’s). This reinforces the HCA process as a favourable starting point for a

CAP 1295 Discussion

May 2015 Page 8

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

CAP 1295 Discussion

May 2015 Page 9

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. 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 (Kevin.Payne@caa.co.uk), copying CAA’s Safety Programme Manager, Dr. Felipe Nascimento (Felipe.Nascimento@caa.co.uk).

CAP 1295 Appendix A: Example letter to Offshore Helicopter Operators

May 2015 Page 10

APPENDIX A

CAP 437 Appendix F (example letter to Offshore Helicopter Operators)

CAP 1295 Appendix A: Example letter to Offshore Helicopter Operators

May 2015 Page 11

CAP 1295 Appendix B: Extract from Basic Regulation (EC) No 216/2008

May 2015 Page 12

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’