Guidelines for vertiport design - Draft Advisory Circular 139.V-01 v1.0

For skidded VCA, or VCA with wide undercarriage footprint, downwash will extend to the taxiway and stand environment when the VCA is hover taxing. This should be considered for the protected area which may benefit from being extended. Note downwash is a function of both velocity and volume. Large numbers of 60kph = Beaufort 7 and 80kph = Beaufort 9. Where downwash is measured is highly pertinent ie at the 'wing' is very different than at the effected zone. Am curious to learn what the assumptions are behind Table 1.

Amplification on downwash as per previous comment

Whilst this is an AC, the stakeholders responsible for adjacent obstacle free gradients and transition zones reside with Council and Government. The eventual proliferation of vertiports has the potential to profoundly impact urban design. This has occurred already in heliport design.

Obstacle free climb gradients directly intersect with VCA OEI performance, design, certification and flight manual data. Required gradients must be achievable for the vehicle within an acceptable probability of engine failure.

I can see the math behind this but assume this will evolve over time. I caution against basing criteria against current "uncertified" types, rather they are a good guidance and should be considered as a minimum. Future proofing should anticipate growth in size and weight of VCA. (Helicopter sector learnt this lesson after the fact)

Nil

At this point

At this point, but as per previous comments, intersects with VCA design and certification. In many ways, OEI performance limited VCA may drive gradients and splays, otherwise in certain locations will unintentionally exclude VCA from use.

Suggest add material, marking that is optimised for stimulating enhanced visual systems (EVS)

Nil

Suggest frequency should obviously be optimised for the visible spectrum in all environmental conditions but also stimulate EVS systems

Nil