Restricted low approach over helicopters

midwesthondas Newcomer South Korea

Hey quick question. We have an arguement at work right now about restricted low approaches over helicopters. Its kinda a grey area in the .65. The 65 states that you cant do a restricted low approach over an aircraft departing or in the take off posistion. So my question is what about helicopters sitting on the runway? Just want to hear your opinions on it.

ATC_MacGyver MacGyver with the bears.

by sitting on the runway, do you mean position and hold?

is he getting ready to take off? i mean, if you told the helo

"dragon651 taxi onto the runway via Charlie, hold on the runway." i think that is just a way to not say position and hold, for putting him in position..

next, can i ask why you put a helo on a runway? just seems like a waste to foul (damn navy terms) a runway with a helo when you can clear him from a taxiway.

MikeATC Retired FAA, NATCA Member Nashville TN

You should never overfly an aircraft sitting on the runway. If both aircraft are helicopters then instruct the airborne one not to overfly the one sitting on the runway.

midwesthondas Newcomer South Korea

The situation that we were debating is if a helo lands on the runway and needs a momentary delay for pilot training and the 2nd aircraft wants to do a low appoach. In my opinion I would try to advoid this at all costs, for example send the helo to a slope area for delay.

atcpookie Junior Member FAA Headquarters, Washington, DC

Regardless of what the aircraft/helo is doing on the runway he still is an arrival, unless his intention is to depart again. Then he’ll be considered a departure as soon as he touches down even if he plans to sit on the runway for a second. You can not do a low approach over a departing aircraft 3-10-10.

Therefore you must use arrival verses arrival separation. The way it’s written is with 3-10-3a and 3-10-10 note 2 you can do that operation as long as the second helo is a low approach and the first is a full stop landing. But you’ll need to issue a 500 feet restriction.

If the 2nd helo doesn’t want to do the 500ft restriction then you should tell the 2nd helo to do the low approach to the right or left of the runway as mike said.

Don’t forget to exchange traffic!

3-10-3. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION
a. Separate an arriving aircraft from another
aircraft using the same runway by ensuring that the
arriving aircraft does not cross the landing threshold
until one of the following conditions exists or unless
authorized in para 3-10-10, Altitude Restricted Low
Approach.

3-10-10. ALTITUDE RESTRICTED LOW
APPROACH
A low approach with an altitude restriction of not less
than 500 feet above the airport may be authorized
except over an aircraft in takeoff position or a
departure aircraft. Do not clear aircraft for restricted
altitude low approaches over personnel unless airport
authorities have advised these personnel that the
approaches will be conducted. Advise the approaching
aircraft of the location of applicable ground
traffic, personnel, or equipment.

NOTE-
1. The 500 feet restriction is a minimum. Higher altitudes
should be used when warranted. For example, 1,000 feet is
more appropriate for heavy aircraft operating over
unprotected personnel or small aircraft on or near the
runway
.
2. This authorization includes altitude restricted low
approaches over preceding landing or taxiing aircraft.
Restricted low approaches are not authorized over aircraft
in takeoff position or departing aircraft.

ATC_MacGyver MacGyver with the bears.

SIR! How on earth are you going to quote SRS and not even include the rule about helicopters. so if we are talking about two helicopters... please note that ANYTHING is possible with helicopters...
3-9-4
a-
5. When the succeeding aircraft is a helicopter,
visual separation may be applied in lieu of using
distance minima.
3-10-3
3. When the succeeding aircraft is a helicopter,
visual separation may be applied in lieu of using
distance minima.

for OP.

you said the helo needs to sit on the runway for something... are you allowing the helo to lift whenever he is ready? or are you going to clear him for take off? or did he land, and need a minute on the runway before he taxis clear?

atcpookie Junior Member FAA Headquarters, Washington, DC

MAM!! J I can tell you how on earth I can do that - - - - it’s because we’re not talking about the 3000 foot rule with SRS. We’re talking about an arriving helo doing a low approach over another helo that just arrived. Stay on topic. “LOW APROACH”

First, 3-9-4 talks about TIPH and there is no “a 5” I think you meant 3-9-6 a 5. All those are saying is that when the second aircraft is a helo you don’t need the 3000, 4500, or 6000 feet. Visual will work just fine.

I used 3-10-3 a because it addresses the situation above “arriving aircraft doing a low approach over another” and it even sends you to the low approach section. Here it is again if you need the refresher.

3-10-3. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION
a. Separate an arriving aircraft from another
aircraft using the same runway by ensuring that the
arriving aircraft does not cross the landing threshold
until one of the following conditions exists or unless
authorized in para 3-10-10, Altitude Restricted Low
Approach.

I will agree that we are left in the dark about the first helo’s intentions. If he was intending to depart again then he is considered a touch and go and will be classified as a departure as soon as he touched down. You can’t do a low approach over a departing aircraft. However, if he were to depart prior to the other helo reaching the threshold then yes, according to the SRS rules all you would need is visual in lieu of the 3000feet.

I agree with those rules you quoted -- - - - but that’s not what we are talking about. I also agree that anything is possible with helos…. My favorite part is that you can actually tell helicopters to STOP. J

Rosstafari Daaaang. /X

I guess this'd be primarily a military situation, but speaking as an occasional pilot, I'd refuse any clearance that told me to overfly a helo on the runway. Not a chance.

atcguruaf Rico Suave AZ

We sorta used to do this at a CIVILIAN location I worked at... I only mentioned it in caps because everyone seems to think you're talking military (which you may very well be).

Here's the thing:

If you've cleared the helicopter for the option, that includes the stop and go. So, if he chooses to delay a few minutes on the runway, you've approved that with the clearance.

That being said, you cannot ensure when the helo will actually begin departure, meaning you have absolutely no idea when he/she will lift off making it a departure, which in turn means you can't do the restricted low approach over the aircraft.

If you end up holding the helo on the runway, the helo would then be in "takeoff position", again making it illegal to overfly it.

The way we used to get around it was having aircraft offset to the right or left of runway. Right at short final or somewhere before the threshold, we'd say something to the effect of "go around, right of runway, traffic on runway", or something like that.

If the succeeding aircraft was a helo, we'd issue the visual separation rule and advise him to stay behind the preceding helo at all times.



Something else to consider is pattern altitudes. Our helo pattern was about 500 AGL, then 1000 ft for light civilians, then 1500 ft. for fighters.

I understand where the pattern legs are (I only mention that before anyone corrects me on what I'm about to say), and when you consider each leg of the pattern, could you not issue the overhead, at say 1000 ft. AGL, or whatever yours might be?

We used to get a lot of weird aircraft where I was at, and sometimes these pilots would ask for the overhead at 2100 ft. (500 ft. AGL) doing about 60 knots.

I guess my answer is: it's all relative. For tapes purposes, I would not say anything to the effect of "cleared low approach at or above xxx"... instead, I might say "report initial, pattern altitude xxx, right turns", or even "go around, extend upwind, pattern altitude xxx"

There are ways to get around most rules in the .65, the key is the wording used AND you have to know what to do in case it doesn't work out, just for the legal aspect.


Anyway, that's my take. I know people posted the rules and all, but I'm guessing that, since you've been in debate about it, you've pretty much dissected the .65 and still couldn't come up with anything conclusive. I've been in your boat. My ultimate answer is: Be safe.

atcguruaf Rico Suave AZ

exactly! That's why I'd never say to overfly a helo... I'd use other words to get you to do what I wanted, as stated in my post.