3.1.39 The U.S. standard for separation between FATO center and the centerline of the runway is 120 meters.
3.2.2 The U.S. does not apply either a performance related or an alternative design standard for elevated heliport facilities.
3.2.5 to 3.2.10 The U.S. does not use safety areas in its heliport design.
3.3 3.4 In the U.S., shipboard and relocatable off.shore helicopter ‘‘helideck’’ facilities are under the purview of the U.S. Coast Guard and utilize the International Maritime Organization (IMO) code. Fixed off.shore helideck facilities are under the purview of the Department of Interior based on their document 351DM2. Coastal water helideck facilities are under the purview of the individual affected States.
Chapter 4 Obstacle Restriction and Removal
4.1.1 The U.S. approach surface starts at the edge of the take.off and landing area.
4.1.2 a) The U.S. approach surface width adjacent to the heliport take.off and landing area is a minimum of 2 rotor diameters.
4.1.2 b) 2) The U.S. precision instrument approach surface flares from a width of 2 rotor diameters to a width of 1,800 meters at the 7,500 meters outer end. The U.S. does not use a note similar to the one that follows 4.1.4, as it does not differentiate between helicopter requirements on the basis of operational performance.
4.1.5 The outer limit of the U.S. transitional surfaces adjacent to the take.off and landing area is 76 meters from the centerline of the VFR approach/departure surfaces. The transitional surface width decreases to zero at a point 1,220 meters from the take.off and landing area. It does not terminate at an inner horizontal surface or at a predetermined height.
4.1.6 The U.S. transitional surfaces have a fixed width, 76 meters less the width of the take.off and landing area, from the approach centerline for visual operations and an outwardly flaring width to 450 meters for precision instrument operations. The U.S. does not use an inner horizontal surface nor terminate the transitional surfaces at a fixed/predetermined height.
4.1.7 b) Since the U.S. includes the safety area in the take.off and landing area, the comparable elevation is at the elevation of the FATO.
4.1.9 through 4.1.20 The U.S. does not use the inner horizontal surface, the conical surface, or take.off climb surface described in these paragraphs or the note following paragraph 4.1.20 for heliport design.
4.1.21 through 4.1.25 The U.S. does not have alternative criteria for floating or fixed.in.place helidecks.
4.2 The U.S. has no requirement for a note similar to the one following the heading ‘‘Obstacle limitation requirements.’’
4.2.1 The U.S. criteria does not require a take.off climb surface or a conical obstacle limitation surface to establish a precision instrument approach procedure.
4.2.2 The U.S. criteria does not require a take.off climb surface or a conical obstacle limitation surface to establish a non.precision instrument approach procedure.
4.2.3 The U.S. criteria does not require a take.off climb obstacle limitation surface to establish a non.instrument approach procedure.
4.2.4* The U.S. has no requirement for protective surfaces such as an inner horizontal surface or a conical surface.
4.2.5 The U.S. does not have tables for heliport design comparable to the ICAO Tables 4.1 to 4.4.
4.2.6 The U.S. subscribes to the intent of this paragraph to limit object heights in the heliport protective surfaces but uses fewer surfaces with different dimensions for those surfaces.
4.2.7* The U.S. subscribes to the intent of this paragraph but uses different dimensional surfaces.
4.2.8 The U.S. criterion requires that a heliport have at least one approach and departure route and encourages multiple approaches separated by arcs of 90 to 180 degrees.
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：美国航行情报汇编 AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION PUBLICATION AIP 1(72)
