European Union Aviation Safety Agency

Notice of Proposed Amendment 2026-01 (A)

issued in accordance with Article 6 of Management Board Decision 01-2022

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 1 of 23

An agency of the European Union

Regular update of the aerodrome rules for the transposition of ICAO SARPs amendments

RMT.0746

WHAT THIS NPA IS ABOUT

The amendments proposed with this NPA are based on Amendment 18 to ICAO Annex 14 Volume I — Aerodrome Design and Operations, and on Amendments 9 and 10 to Annex 14 Volume II — Heliports. They can be summarised as follows: — incorporation of criteria in the design of aprons for safe ground-handling activities; — provision of runway and taxiway lights based on a new runway visual range (RVR) threshold of 300 m; — provision of runway distance remaining signs (RDRSs); — clarification of serviceability level for aerodrome lighting; — provision of visual aids to denote temporarily closed runways and temporarily closed/restricted areas; — revision of the apron management procedures to include guidance to aircraft departing from the stand and securing of

parked aircraft to prevent unintended movement; — revised design characteristics for the final approach and take-off area (FATO), touchdown and lift-off areas (TLOF),

helicopter clearways, helicopter taxiway and taxi routes, heliport lights, sign markings and markers; — revised design specifications for the obstacle limitation surfaces related to vertical procedures and point-in-space (PinS)

approach or departure procedures with or without a proceed visually instruction. Additionally, this NPA contains proposed amendments to address the safety recommendation issued by Malta’s Bureau of Air Accident Investigation (BAAI) to EASA following a ground collision that involved two B737-800s. It also contains proposed amendments to address a discrepancy between the Aerodromes and the Air Operations requirements related to the assignment of the runway condition code when less than 25 % of a runway third is wet or contaminated (ahead of ICAO), the provision of aerodrome emergency grid maps and the allocation of aircraft to areas other than aircraft stands or apron areas and the height of signs (Amendment 15 to ICAO Annex 14 Volume I). Finally, some amendments of editorial nature are also made to ensure consistency and correctness of the requirements. Overall, the proposed regulatory material is expected to increase the level of safety at aerodromes and collocated heliports, improve operational efficiency and ensure global interoperability of aerodrome operations and design. Furthermore, some of the proposals are expected to reduce the administrative burden for both competent authorities and aerodrome operators, as well as to provide for cost savings.

REGULATIONS INTENDED TO BE AMENDED

— Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 (Aerodromes)

— Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 (ATM/ANS)

ED DECISIONS INTENDED TO BE AMENDED

ED Decisions that issued AMC and GM to support the implementation of Regulations (EU) No 139/2014 and 2017/373:

— ED Decision 2014/012/R 'AMC & GM Aerodromes - Initial Issue' — ED Decision 2017/001/R 'AMC/GM to Reg. (EU) 2017/373' — ED Decision 2012/018/R 'AMC & GM to Part-CAT' ED Decisions that issued the CSs and GM:

— ED Decision 2014/013/R 'CS-ADR-DSN - Initial issue' — ED Decision 2019/012/R 'CS-HPT-DSN Issue 1'

AFFECTED STAKEHOLDERS National competent authorities; aerodrome operators; air crews; aerodrome equipment manufacturers; air traffic

service providers; aircraft operators

WORKING METHODS

Development Impact assessment(s) Consultation

By EASA Light Public — NPA

RELATED DOCUMENTS/INFORMATION ToR RMT.0746 - Regular update of the aerodrome rules for the transposition of ICAO SARPs amendments | EASA

PLANNING MILESTONES: Refer to the latest edition of EPAS Volume II.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

Contents

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 2 of 23

An agency of the European Union

Contents

1. About this NPA ..................................................................................................................... 3

1.1. How this regulatory material was developed .................................................................... 3

1.2. How to comment on this NPA ............................................................................................ 3

1.3. The next steps .................................................................................................................... 4

2. In summary — why and what ............................................................................................... 6

2.1. Why we need to act ........................................................................................................... 6

2.1.1. Description of the issue ............................................................................................ 7

2.1.2. Who is affected by the issue .................................................................................. 10

2.1.3. Conclusion on the need for rulemaking ................................................................. 10

2.2. What we want to achieve — objectives ........................................................................... 10

2.3. How we want to achieve it — overview of the proposed amendments ......................... 11

2.3.1. Proposed amendments .......................................................................................... 11

2.3.2. Applicability of the amended regulatory material ................................................. 15

2.3.3. The legal basis ........................................................................................................ 15

2.4. Stakeholders’ views .......................................................................................................... 16

3. Expected benefits and drawbacks of the proposed regulatory material ............................... 17

4. Proposed regulatory material .............................................................................................. 19

5. Monitoring and evaluation .................................................................................................. 20

6. Actions to support implementation ..................................................................................... 21

7. References .......................................................................................................................... 22

Appendix — Quality of the NPA .................................................................................................... 23

1. The regulatory proposal is of technically good/high quality ............................................ 23

2. The text is clear, readable and understandable ............................................................... 23

3. The regulatory proposal is well substantiated ................................................................. 23

4. The regulatory proposal is fit for purpose (achieving the objectives set) ........................ 23

5. The regulatory proposal is proportionate to the size of the issue ................................... 23

6. The regulatory proposal applies the ‘better regulation’ principles ................................. 23

7. Any other comments on the quality of this document (please specify) .......................... 23

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

1. About this NPA

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 3 of 23

An agency of the European Union

1. About this NPA

1.1. How this regulatory material was developed

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) identified the need to mitigate an issue (as

described in Chapter 2), and after having assessed the impacts of the possible intervention actions

identified rulemaking as the necessary intervention action.

This rulemaking activity is included in the 2026 edition of Volume II of the European Plan for Aviation

Safety (EPAS)1 under Rulemaking Task (RMT) 0746.

EASA developed the regulatory material in question in line with Regulation (EU) 2018/11392 (the Basic

Regulation) and the Rulemaking Procedure3, as well as in accordance with the objectives and working

methods described in the Terms of Reference (ToR) for this RMT4.

1.2. How to comment on this NPA

The draft regulatory material is hereby submitted for public consultation with all interested parties.

NPA 2026-01 is divided in five parts: (A), (B), (C), (D) and (E).

— NPA 2026-01 (A), the explanatory note, contains the background information pertaining to the

regulatory proposal

— NPA 2026-01 (B) contains the proposed amendments to the annexes to Commission

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/20145 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU)

2017/3736

1 European Plan for Aviation Safety (EPAS) 2026 - 15th edition | EASA 2 Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2018 on common rules in the field of

civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and amending Regulations (EC) No 2111/2005, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) No 996/2010, (EU) No 376/2014 and Directives 2014/30/EU and 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 552/2004 and (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (OJ L 212, 22.8.2018, p. 1, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1139/oj).

3 EASA is bound to follow a structured rulemaking process as required by Article 115(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139. Such a process has been adopted by the EASA Management Board (MB) and is referred to as the ‘Rulemaking Procedure’. See MB Decision No 01-2022 of 2 May 2022 on the procedure to be applied by EASA for the issuing of opinions, certification specifications and other detailed specifications, acceptable means of compliance and guidance material ('Rulemaking Procedure'), and repealing Management Board Decision No 18-2015 (EASA MB Decision No 01-2022 on the Rulemaking Procedure, repealing MB Decision 18-2015 (by written procedure) | EASA (europa.eu)).

4 ToR RMT.0746 - Regular update of the aerodrome rules for the transposition of ICAO SARPs amendments | EASA 5 Commission Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 of 12 February 2014 laying down requirements and administrative procedures

related to aerodromes pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 44, 14.2.2014, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/139/oj).

6 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 of 1 March 2017 laying down common requirements for providers of air traffic management/air navigation services and other air traffic management network functions and their oversight, repealing Regulation (EC) No 482/2008, Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1034/2011, (EU) No 1035/2011 and (EU) 2016/1377 and amending Regulation (EU) No 677/2011 (OJ L 62, 8.3.2017, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2017/373/oj).

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

1. About this NPA

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 4 of 23

An agency of the European Union

— NPA 2026-01 (C) contains the proposed amendments to the AMC and GM to Commission

Regulation (EU) No 139/2014, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 and

Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/20127

— NPA 2026-01 (D) contains the proposed amendments to CS-ADR-DSN8

— NPA 2026-01 (E) contains the proposed amendments to CS-HPT-DSN9

Please, submit your comments using the Comment-Response Tool (CRT) available at

http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/10.

To facilitate the collection and technically support EASA’s subsequent review of comments in an

efficient, controlled and structured manner, stakeholders are kindly requested to submit their

comments to the respective predefined segments of the NPA within the CRT, and refrain from

submitting specific comments or all their comments to the ‘General comments’ segment.

Further, once all comments are placed to the respective predefined segments, there is no need to

submit them (as a pdf attachment) to the ‘General comments’ segment.

The deadline for the submission of comments is 23 June 2026.

1.3. The next steps

Following the consultation of the draft regulatory material, EASA will review all the comments

received and will duly consider them in the subsequent phases of this rulemaking activity.

Considering the above, EASA may:

— issue a decision amending the Certification Specifications and Guidance Material for Aerodrome

Design (CS-ADR-DSN);

— issue a decision amending the Certification Specifications and Guidance Material for the design

of surface-level VFR heliports located at aerodromes that fall within the scope of Regulation

(EU) 2018/1139 (CS-HPT-DSN);

— issue an opinion proposing amendments to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No

139/2014 (Aerodromes) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 (ATM/ANS);

the opinion will be submitted to the European Commission which shall consider its content and

decide whether to issue amendments to those Regulations;

— following the amendment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2014

(Aerodromes), issue a decision11 amending:

7 Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 of 5 October 2012 laying down technical requirements and administrative

procedures related to air operations pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 296, 25.10.2012, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/965/oj).

8 https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/certification-specifications/reg/aerodromes-adr#cs-adr-dsn-aerodromes-design 9 https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/certification-specifications/reg/aerodromes-adr#cs-hpt-dsn-heliports-design 10 In case of technical problems, please send an email with a short description to [email protected]. 11 The amendment of some AMC and GM as well as CSs and GM depends on the adoption of the corresponding

implementing acts (for example, while the CSs and GM contain design requirements for closed runway lighting, the implementing act contains the operational conditions for the use of this type of lighting).

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

1. About this NPA

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 5 of 23

An agency of the European Union

— the AMC and GM to support the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 139/2014

(Aerodromes);

— the AMC and GM to support the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 (Air

Operations);

— CS-ADR-DSN and CS-HPT-DSN;

— following the amendment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 (ATM/ANS),

issue a decision amending the AMC and GM to support the implementation of that Regulation.

When issuing the opinion and the decisions, EASA will also provide feedback to the commentators and

information to the public on who engaged in the process and/or provided comments during the

consultation of the draft regulatory material, which comments were received, how such engagement

and/or consultation was used in rulemaking, and how the comments were considered.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

2. In summary — why and what

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 6 of 23

An agency of the European Union

2. In summary — why and what

2.1. Why we need to act

ICAO has recently adopted amendments to the standards and recommended practices (SARPs) of

Annex 14 Volume I ‘Aerodrome Design and Operations’ and Volume II ‘Heliports’. The harmonisation

of the EU requirements for aerodromes and heliports with the latest amendments adopted by ICAO

will contribute to a more uniform global aviation system. This uniformity will ensure safety of

operations and global interoperability, thus facilitating both international and domestic aviation at

aerodromes that fall within the scope of the Basic Regulation12. This NPA proposes the adoption of

those amendments which have been assessed as contributing towards a high uniform level of civil

aviation safety in Europe.

Malta’s Bureau of Air Accident Investigation (BAAI) issued a safety recommendation to EASA following

a ground collision that involved two B737-800s. EASA decided to address this safety recommendation

within the context of the regular update of the Aerodromes rules.

Following the implementation of the global reporting format (GRF), EASA has identified a discrepancy

between the Aerodromes and the Air Operations requirements related to the assignment of the

runway condition code when less than 25 % of a runway third is wet or contaminated, which needs to

be addressed. The change is proposed to be implemented ahead of ICAO to mitigate the safety issue.

Additionally, some updates are necessary to clarify the provision of aerodrome emergency grid maps,

to ensure safety when aircraft are parked to areas other than aircraft stands or apron areas, and to

ensure harmonisation between Ground Handling and Aerodromes rules with respect to the

establishment of formal arrangements between aerodrome operators and ground-handling

organisations.

Finally, some changes of editorial nature are also necessary to ensure consistency and correctness of

the requirements.

More details are provided in the following sections.

12 See Article 2, point (1)(e) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2018 on

common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and amending Regulations (EC) No 2111/2005, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) No 996/2010, (EU) No 376/2014 and Directives 2014/30/EU and 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 552/2004 and (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (OJ L 212, 22.8.2018, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1139/oj).

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

2. In summary — why and what

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 7 of 23

An agency of the European Union

2.1.1. Description of the issue

2.1.1.1. Design and operation of aerodromes

A. Amendment 18 to ICAO Annex 14 Volume I ‘Aerodrome Design and Operations’

Amendment 1813 to ICAO Annex 14 Volume I ‘Aerodrome Design and Operations’, applicable as of

27 November 2025, introduced changes to the SARPs which aim to improve operational safety as well

as to resolve discrepancies between the design of visual aids and their operational requirements.

These changes can be summarised as follows:

— incorporation of criteria in the design of aprons for safe ground handling;

— provision of certain runway and taxiway lights based on a new RVR threshold of 300 m;

— provision of runway distance remaining signs (RDRSs);

— clarification of serviceability level for aerodrome lighting that requires higher intensity values

than those prescribed by the current certification specifications (CSs);

— provision of specific visual aids to denote temporarily closed runways (lighted X) and

temporarily closed or restricted areas;

— revision of the apron management procedures to include the requirements related to the

provision of guidance to aircraft departing from the stand and securing parked aircraft to

prevent any unintended movement.

Currently, the amendments listed above have not yet been transposed into the EU requirements for

aerodrome design and operations, specifically in CS-ADR-DSN and in Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 and

related AMC and GM.

The implementation of some of these amendments is also expected to contribute to the mitigation of

the risks related to the safety issue14 ‘poor or inadequate apron/stand design and layout (SI-1003)’.

B. Safety Recommendation MALT-2019-002

In response to a ground collision at Malta International Airport on 17 January 2019 that involved two

B737-800s (one stationary at a runway holding position and another passing on a parallel taxiway),

Malta’s Bureau of Air Accident Investigation (BAAI) issued the following safety recommendation to

EASA and the FAA:

‘It is recommended that the FAA and EASA reassess the need for mandatory winglet tip proximity

warnings (for B737-800 comparable winglets), together with additional pilot aids and anti-collision

aids on the ground.’

EASA found that from a safety risk management perspective the limited safety benefit of a taxi anti-

collision system or aid does not justify mandating their installation on all large, fixed-wing aircraft.

Regarding the additional pilot aids and anti-collision aids on the ground, EASA found that existing

13 ICAO State Letter AN 4/1.2.31-25/23, 24 April 2025. The amendments to the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS) are not

within the scope of RMT.0746. Instead, they fall within the scope of RMT.0751 ‘Protection of aerodrome surroundings’ (see EPAS Volume II ‘EPAS Actions’, 2026 Edition).

14 See EPAS Volume III ‘Safety Risk Portfolio’, 2026 Edition.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

2. In summary — why and what

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 8 of 23

An agency of the European Union

specifications contained in CS-ADR-DSN ensure adequate clearance distances between certain types

of aircraft and establish the provision of necessary visual cues.

However, the safety issues could be mitigated from an operational point of view at aerodromes and,

therefore, EASA decided to address it within the context of the regular update of the Aerodromes

rules. The issue on ground collisions was also raised by the Member States during the implementation

support workshop which took place on 24 September 2025.

C. Global reporting format (GRF) discrepancy

Following the implementation of the GRF, EASA has identified a discrepancy between the Aerodromes

and the Air Operations requirements related to the assignment of the runway condition code in the

case where less than 25 % of a runway third is wet or contaminated.

This topic was also discussed with the Member States during the Aerodromes TeB meeting which took

place on 25 September 2025. It was agreed to propose and implement the change ahead of ICAO to

mitigate the safety issue.

D. Aerodrome emergency grid maps

AMC2 ADR.OPS.B.005(b) which concerns aerodrome emergency grid maps has not been updated

since its initial publication and, therefore, is not fully harmonised with the content of ICAO Doc 9137

‘Airport Services Manual’, Part 1 ‘Rescue and Firefighting’. Consequently, it does not ensure sufficient

clarity related to the provision of grid maps, their availability to external agencies or on the format

(paper or electronic) they have to be provided. This topic was raised by the Member States and

discussed during the implementation support workshop which took place on 24 September 2025.

It was agreed to include the proposed amendments in the next regular update of the Aerodromes

rules.

E. Allocation of aircraft to areas other than aircraft stands or apron areas

In cases of mass diversions, special events, infrastructure works, etc., and where there is no alternative

aerodrome to accommodate excess traffic, aerodrome operators allocate aircraft to areas other than

the standard ones (i.e. aircraft stands or apron areas). However, the current Aerodromes rules lack

the necessary provisions to ensure that allocation is performed in a safe manner.

F. Formal arrangements between aerodrome operators and ground-handling organisations

Point ORGH.GEN.115 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2015 on ground handling

requires the establishment of formal arrangements between aerodrome operators and ground-

handling organisations. However, while currently Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 (Aerodromes) includes

requirements for the establishment of formal arrangements between aerodrome operators and other

organisations that provide services at aerodromes (e.g. apron management service providers — point

ADR.OR.F.085), there is no requirement to cover formal arrangements between aerodrome operators

and ground-handling organisations.

15 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/20 of 19 December 2024 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the

European Parliament and of the Council by laying down requirements for the safe provision of ground handling services and for organisations providing them (OJ L, 2025/20, 7.3.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2025/20/oj).

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

2. In summary — why and what

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 9 of 23

An agency of the European Union

G. Height of signs

The majority of the changes to the SARPs introduced by Amendment 1516 to ICAO Annex 14 Volume I

‘Aerodrome Design and Operations’ have already been transposed in the Aerodromes rules. However,

the changes to the height of signs, more specifically related to the face height, have not yet been

transposed in CS-ADR-DSN.

H. Editorial amendments

Some editorial amendments are also made to ensure consistency and/or correctness of the

requirements.

Such editorial changes include for example the removal of the obsolete terminology ‘taxiway

intersection marking’. This terminology is no longer used in ICAO Annex 14, Volume I since edition 3

1999, when Standard 5.2.10 Taxiway intersection marking was renamed as 5.2.10 Intermediate

holding position marking, retaining the same design characteristics (ICAO Annex 14, Volume I, Figure

5-6). However, ‘taxiway intersection marking’ is still used in the ATM/ANS and Aerodromes rules in

parallel with ‘intermediate holding position marking’. Stakeholders have informed EASA that this

creates confusion and consistency needs to be achieved between the ATM/ANS and the Aerodromes

rules.

2.1.1.2. Design of heliports located at aerodromes falling in the scope of the Basic Regulation

The requirements for the design of heliports contained in EASA’s CS-HPT-DSN have not been updated

since their initial publication in 2019. Consequently, CS-HPT-DSN does not reflect the relevant17 safety

enhancements introduced by Amendments 918 and 1019 to ICAO Annex 14 Volume II ‘Heliports’.

Amendment 9 introduced extensive changes to ICAO Annex 14 Volume II, aiming mainly to enhance

safety and efficiency of heliport operations, but also to simplify and make the design characteristics

more concrete. Amendment 10 introduced further changes aiming for greater safety and flexibility.

These amendments can be summarised as follows:

— new definitions of the terms used throughout the provisions;

— revised design characteristics for the final approach and take-off area (FATO), safety areas,

touchdown and lift-off areas (TLOF), helicopter clearway, helicopter stands and protection

areas;

— revised provisions for helicopter taxiways and taxi routes;

— revised provisions for heliport lights, signs, markings and markers;

— addition of objectives for each marking type (e.g. D-value marking, FATO perimeter marking,

etc.) and lighting system (e.g. approach lighting system, FATO perimeter lights, etc.);

16 ICAO State Letter AN 4/1.2.28-20/35, 03 April 2020. 17 ICAO Annex 14 Volume II ‘Heliports’ contains provisions also for elevated heliports, helidecks or shipboard heliports

which are not relevant for CS-HPT-DSN. 18 ICAO State Letter AN 4/16.10-20/22, 6 April 2020. 19 ICAO State Letter AN 4/16.11-25/28, 10 April 2025.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

2. In summary — why and what

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 10 of 23

An agency of the European Union

— revised provisions for obstacle limitation surfaces related to vertical procedures and the PinS

approach or departure procedures with or without a proceed visually instruction;

— revised provisions for obstacle limitation requirements.

Furthermore, there is currently no requirement to provide aeronautical data concerning the

helicopter landing area (e.g. declared distances, elevation of FATO, etc.) to the aeronautical

information service providers for publication in the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP).

Member States have requested during several meetings of the advisory bodies the of update CS-HPT-

DSN to reflect the latest ICAO amendments regarding heliports.

2.1.2. Who is affected by the issue

The following stakeholders are expected to be affected by the proposed amendments:

— aerodrome operators since the proposed amendments will have an impact on their certification

basis and operations;

— national competent authorities since they will have to approve the changes to the aerodrome’s

certification basis and oversee their implementation;

— flight crews: some of the proposed amendments (e.g. the introduction of runway distance

remaining signs, closed runway lighting) will impact their training;

— aerodrome equipment manufacturers (e.g. the introduction of the runway distance remaining

signs, the introduction of the design specifications for the closed runway lighting);

— air traffic service providers.

2.1.3. Conclusion on the need for rulemaking

EASA concluded, as explained further in Chapter 3, that intervention was necessary and that non-

regulatory actions cannot effectively address the issue. Therefore, amendments are necessary to

Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 (Aerodromes), Regulation (EU) 2017/373 (ATM/ANS), to the AMC and

GM supporting the implementation of these Regulations, and Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, as well

as to CS-ADR-DSN and CS-HPT-DSN.

2.2. What we want to achieve — objectives

The overall objectives of the EASA system are defined in Article 1 of the Basic Regulation. The

regulatory material presented here is expected to contribute to achieving these overall objectives by

addressing the issues described in Section 2.1.

The objective of this rulemaking task is to increase the level of safety at aerodromes, to ensure global

interoperability of aerodrome operations and design, and to ensure a level playing field amongst

aerodrome operators.

More specifically, the proposed amendments aim to:

— mitigate the risk of collisions between aircraft and between aircraft and ground handling

vehicles and equipment;

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

2. In summary — why and what

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 11 of 23

An agency of the European Union

— harmonise the provision of certain runway and taxiway lights based on a new RVR threshold of

300 m instead of 350 m to remove existing conflict and ambiguity between runway and taxiways

capability;

— mitigate the risk of unintended landings on temporarily closed runways;

— clarify the serviceability level for aerodrome lighting that requires higher intensity values than

those prescribed by the current certification specifications (CSs);

— mitigate the risk of confusion and enhance pilot and driver awareness during temporary

changes to the movement area;

— enhance the safety and regularity of operations at heliports located at aerodromes falling in the

scope of the Basic regulation;

— address GRF discrepancy regarding the assignment of a runway condition code when 25 % or

less of a runway third is wet or contaminated.

2.3. How we want to achieve it — overview of the proposed amendments

A summary of the main proposed amendments is presented below.

Please, refer to NPA 2026-01 (B), (C), (D) and (E) for the full list of the proposed amendments, each

with a detailed rationale explaining the amendment.

2.3.1. Proposed amendments

2.3.1.1. Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 (Aerodromes)

A new requirement is proposed in ADR.OR.D.040 regarding the formal arrangements between the

aerodrome operator and the ground-handling organisations providing services at the aerodrome. The

proposed requirement completes point ADR.OR.D.040and ensures consistency with Commission

Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/20 on ground handling, which already specifies the establishment of

such formal arrangements in point ORGH.GEN.115.

A new requirement is proposed to be added in point (e) of ADR.OPS.B.027 regarding the prohibition

of vehicles on the safety area of the FATO, the taxi route or the protection area of the helicopter

stand during the movement of helicopters to ensure the safety of helicopter operations.

Two new requirements are proposed to be added in point ADR.OPS.B.071 related to the provision of

specific visual aids to denote temporarily closed runways and temporarily closed or restricted areas.

The first proposal concerns the addition of a new requirement in point (a)(2) to allow the use of the

closed runway lighting (lighted X) as an alternative to the closed runway markings for the prevention

of unintended landings. The second proposal concerns the addition of a new point (f) containing the

requirement for the provision of variable message signs when there is an operational need to indicate

temporarily closed or restricted areas, as well as to provide information to aerodrome users on

operational restrictions.

Point (c)(1) of ADR.OPS.C.015 is proposed to be amended to clarify the serviceability level for

aerodrome lighting that requires higher intensity values than those prescribed by the current CSs.

Moreover, for harmonisation purposes, the runway visual range (RVR) for the serviceability of the

taxiway centre line lights contained in point (b)(5) is amended in line with the RVR for CAT II of 300 m,

instead of 350 m.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

2. In summary — why and what

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 12 of 23

An agency of the European Union

Two new proposed requirements that need to be covered by the aerodrome operator’s procedures

are added as follows:

— a new point (g) in ADR.OPS.D.035 to ensure that a parked aircraft is appropriately secured to

prevent any unintended movement; and

— a new point (f) in ADR.OPS.D.040 to ensure the provision of guidance to an aircraft departing

from the stand.

2.3.1.2. Regulation (EU) 2017/373 (ATM/ANS)

Point (a)(1) of ATS.TR.265 is proposed to be amended to replace the obsolete term ‘taxiway

intersection marking’ with ‘intermediate holding position markings or lights’ to ensure consistency

with the terminology used in the Aerodromes rules.

2.3.1.3. AMC and GM to Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 (Aerodromes)

— The references to the ISO standards regarding the management of security for aeronautical

data included in AMC1 ADR.OR.D.007(b) are proposed to be removed following the introduction

of point ADR.OR.D.005A ‘Information security management system’.

— AMC1 ADR.OPS.A.005 and GM1 ADR.OPS.A.005 are proposed to be amended to also include

the provision of data by the aerodrome operator on helicopter landing areas, where

established.

— The obsolete term ‘taxiway intersection marking’ in point (c)(3)(ii) of GM2 ADR.OPS.A.005(a)

is proposed to be removed to ensure consistency throughout the terminology used in the

Aerodrome rules, as well as consistency with the ATM/ANS rules.

— AMC2 ADR.OPS.B.005(b) is proposed to be amended to offer greater clarity regarding the

provisions of the aerodrome emergency grid maps, their availability to externals and their

format (paper or electronic). Additionally, a new GM6 ADR.OPS.B.005(b) is introduced

containing additional guidance for the provision of aerodrome emergency grid maps.

— new GM8 ADR.OPS.B.010(a)(2) is added containing additional guidance on the amounts of

extinguishing agents to ensure the safety of helicopter operations. The proposed guidance

material concerns those aerodromes of lower RFFS category numbers (1, 2 and 3) and regularly

used by helicopters, where the amounts of extinguishing agents determined in accordance with

AMC4 ADR.OPS.B.010(a)(2) may not be sufficient because of the more demanding helicopter(s).

— new AMC1 ADR.OPS.B.030(a) and GM1 ADR.OPS.B.030(a) are added containing proposals

related to the identification of restrictions on the movement area by the aerodrome operator,

development of mitigation measures and coordination with the air navigation service providers

regarding the restrictions identified. The proposed AMC1 and GM1 address Safety

Recommendation MALT-2019-002.

— AMC1 ADR.OPS.B.037(a);(b) and GM1 ADR.OPS.B.037(b) are proposed to be amended to

change the percentage of the runway third that can be wet or covered by a contaminant when

assigning runway condition code (RWYCC) 6 and 5. The proposed amendment addresses the

GRF discrepancy.

— new GM1 ADR.OPS.B.071(d) is added containing a proposed clarification of the term ‘runway

lighting’. The proposed amendment supports the implementation of point ADR.OPS.B.071.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

2. In summary — why and what

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 13 of 23

An agency of the European Union

— new AMC1 ADR.OPS.B.071(a)(2) is added introducing the location where the closed runway

lighting needs to be placed and a new GM1 ADR.OPS.B.071(a)(2) is added too containing

additional guidance on the purpose of this type of visual aid, as well as on the potential

interference with radio navigation aids. The proposed amendment supports the

implementation of point ADR.OPS.B.071.

— new AMC1 ADR.OPS.B.071(g) and GM1 ADR.OPS.B.071(g) are added containing the proposed

conditions for the use of variable message signs and guidance to clarify the term ‘temporary

changes’. The proposed amendment supports the implementation of point ADR.OPS.B.071.

— new AMC1 ADR.OPS.D.025(a) is added proposing a risk assessment to be performed by the

aerodrome operator for those cases when an aircraft is parked on areas other than aircraft

stands or apron areas.

— new AMC1 ADR.OPS.D.040(f) is added containing the three means which are acceptable to

guide an aircraft during departure from the stand. The proposed amendment supports the

implementation of point ADR.OPS.D.040.

2.3.1.4. AMC and GM to Regulation (EU) 2017/373 (ATM/ANS)

GM1 ATS.TR.265(a)(1) is proposed to be amended to replace the obsolete term ‘taxiway intersection

marking’ with ‘intermediate holding position markings or lights’ to ensure consistency throughout

the terminology used in the ATM/ANS rules, as well as consistency with the Aerodromes rules.

2.3.1.5. AMC and GM to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 (Air Operations)

GM1 CAT.OP.MPA.303 is proposed to be amended in line with the amendment proposed to

AMC1 ADR.OPS.B.037(a);(b). The proposed amendment addresses the GRF discrepancy.

2.3.1.6. CS-ADR-DSN

— Point (b) of CS ADR-DSN.C.215 is proposed to be amended in line with the corresponding ICAO

Annex 14 Volume I SARPs so that the length of the runway end safety area (RESA) for a non-

instrument runway code 1 or 2 cannot be reduced by installing an arresting system.

— The value in point (b)(4) of CS ADR-DSN.D.325 is proposed to be corrected in line with the

mathematical formula used to calculate the graded portion of the taxiway strip.

— CS ADR-DSN.E.345 is proposed to be amended to include criteria in the design of aprons for

safe ground handling.

— Figure L-6 of CS ADR-DSN.L.570 is proposed to be amended to ensure the correct depiction of

the enhanced taxiway centre line marking.

— CS ADR-DSN.L.605 is proposed to be amended to ensure that mandatory instruction markings

are provided in accordance with the correct categorisation of the taxiways based on the outer

main gear wheel span (OMGWS).

— Point (k)(2) of GM1 ADR-DSN.M.615 is proposed to be amended to remove the value related to

the maximum acceptable luminance value for solar panels. The value will be reviewed in the

context of rulemaking task RMT.0751 ‘Protection of aerodrome surroundings’.

— Figure M-8 of CS ADR-DSN.M.685 is proposed to be amended to ensure the correct depiction

of the yellow runway edge lights as required by point (c)(1) of CS ADR-DSN.M.675.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

2. In summary — why and what

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 14 of 23

An agency of the European Union

— CS ADR-DSN.M.690, GM1 ADR-DSN.M.700, CS ADR-DSN.M.710, CS ADR-DSN.M.715, CS ADR-

DSN.M.725 and CS ADR-DSN.M.735 are proposed to be amended to ensure a harmonised

provision of the runway and taxiway lights based on a new RVR threshold of 300 m, instead of

350 m, and to remove existing conflict and resultant ambiguity.

— The obsolete term ‘taxiway intersection marking’ in GM1 ADR-DSN.M.770 and CS ADR-

DSN.N.800 is proposed to be removed to ensure consistency throughout the terminology used

in the Aerodromes rules, as well as consistency with the ATM/ANS rules.

— a new point (b)(2)(iii) is added in CS ADR-DSN.N.775 to extend the applicability of the variable

runway message signs to indicate temporarily closed or restricted areas in line with the

proposed point (g) of ADR.OPS.B.071; additionally CS ADR-DSN.N.775 is amended with the

revised face height of the signs.

— new CS ADR-DSN.N.801 and GM1 ADR-DSN.N.801 are added containing the proposed design

specifications for the runway distance remaining signs (RDRSs).

— new specifications and guidance material are added within CS ADR-DSN.R.855 containing the

proposed design specifications and guidance material for the closed runway lighting used to

denote temporarily closed runways.

— CS ADR-DSN.U.940 contains proposed new maximum allowed main beam average intensities

for the approach centre line and crossbars and runway edge.

2.3.1.7. CS-HPT-DSN

— The title of CS-HPT-DSN is proposed to be amended to replace the term ‘VFR’ with ‘visual’ in

line with the terminology used in ICAO Annex 14 Volume II, and to avoid inconsistencies within

CS-HPT-DSN due to the new proposed design specification that is related to the use of PinS

approach and departure procedures (e.g. obstacle limitation surfaces). CS HPT-DSN.A.010 and

GM1 HPT-DSN.A.010 are also amended for the same reasons.

— CS HPT-DSN.A.020 is proposed to be amended to include several definitions of terms used

throughout CS-HPT-DSN.

— Specifications and guidance material contained in HPT-DSN.B100 and HPT-DSN.B.120 are

proposed to be amended to include provisions regarding the characteristics (e.g. size, load

bearing strength, slopes) of the FATO and the TLOF.

— In CS HPT-DSN.B.130, the specifications regarding the extent of the safety area of a FATO are

proposed to be amended, especially in relation to non-rectangular FATOs and to the creation

of a separate CS HPT-DSN.B.140 regarding the protected side slope.

— The new taxiway and air and ground taxi routes concepts are proposed to be included in

Chapter C, leading to its extensive amendment. Consequently, CS HPT-DSN.F.590 and CS HPT-

DSN.F.600 on markings and markers of taxiways and taxi routes are also amended.

— Chapter D on helicopter stands is proposed to be amended to separate the provisions related

to the stand itself from the protection area around it, to remove the requirement for a central

zone and to add new requirements, e.g. on the surface friction and resistance to downwash for

both the stand and the protection area.

Several amendments are proposed to Chapter E (Obstacle limitation surfaces and requirements) as

follows:

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

2. In summary — why and what

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 15 of 23

An agency of the European Union

— Regarding the approach and take-off climb surfaces, the possibility to have two or more turns

is proposed to be added in CS HPT-DSN.E.410(b), CS HPT-DSN.E.410(c)(4), CS HPT-DSN.E.420(b)

and CS HPT-DSN.E.420(c)(5).

— New requirements are proposed to be added to enable the use of an elevated helicopter

clearway and of vertical procedures and PinS procedures. With respect to the latter, a new

CS HPT-DSN.E.425 is proposed to be added which contains provisions for transitional surfaces,

which are required for the purpose of obstacle limitation, when utilising PinS procedures.

— Revised requirements for obstacle limitation: in particular, the requirement for at least two

approach and take-off climb surfaces is proposed to be added in CS HPT-DSN.E.430(c)(6), while

the possibility to accept a new object or the extension of an existing object only when this is

shielded by an existing immovable object is proposed to be included in CS HPT-DSN.E.430(c)(4)

and (c)(5).

Several amendments are proposed to Chapter F (Visual aids) as follows:

— The D-value marking is proposed to be added as new CS HPT-DSN.F.525.

— The provisions on the touchdown/position marking (CS HPT-DSN.F.570) and helicopter stand

markings (CS HPT-DSN.F.610) are proposed to be updated to include unidirectional applications,

to delete the possibility of an offset marking, and to delete the central zone requirements.

— The possibility for an unpaved taxiway is proposed to be added in CS HPT-DSN.F.590(d)(1).

— a new CS HPT-DSN.F.695 is proposed to be added related to helicopter stand floodlighting

design requirements.

— References to CS-ADR-DSN are proposed to be added or extended regarding taxi route lights

(CS HPT-DSN.F.700), signs (CS HPT-DSN.F.705), and obstacle marking and lighting

(CS HPT-DSN.F.710).

Several GM related to newly proposed or existing CSs are proposed to be included as guidance for

heliport designers and operators regarding which factors need to be considered in the design of a

heliport.

2.3.2. Applicability of the amended regulatory material

For the proposed amendments to Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 (Aerodromes), EASA intends to

propose a transition period of 1 year to allow affected stakeholders to prepare for the implementation

of the new regulatory material.

For the AMC and GM and the CSs and GM which are dependent on the adoption of the amendments

to Regulation (EU) No 139/2014, the same transition period is proposed as for the implementing

regulation, i.e. 1 year.

Given the editorial nature of the amendments to Regulation (EU) 2017/373 (ATM/ANS), no transition

period is foreseen.

2.3.3. The legal basis

The legal basis for amending:

— Annex III (Part Organisation Requirements (Part-ADR.OR)) to Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 is

Article 39(1)(c) of the Basic Regulation;

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

2. In summary — why and what

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 16 of 23

An agency of the European Union

— Annex IV (Part Operations Requirements — Aerodromes (Part-ADR.OPS)) to Regulation (EU)

No 139/2014 is Article 39(1)(a) of the Basic Regulation;

— Annex IV (Specific requirements for providers of air traffic services (Part-ATS)) to Regulation

(EU) 2017/373 is Article 43(1)(a) of the Basic Regulation.

2.4. Stakeholders’ views

The proposed amendments stemming from ICAO amendments were coordinated with Member States

during the ICAO State Letter consultation process. A pre-NPA consultation was performed specifically

on the RDRS topic with the Commercial Aviation Community Steering Group (CA.CSTG). The

consultation showed that these organisations, particularly those representing flight crews, support

the implementation of such signs.

Furthermore, some topics such as the GRF discrepancy, the aerodrome emergency grid maps and

ground collisions were raised by the Member States and discussed during the implementation support

workshop which took place on 24 September 2025 and the Aerodromes TeB which took place on

25 September 2025. The inclusion of the proposed amendments in this NPA was supported.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

3. Expected benefits and drawbacks of the proposed regulatory material

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 17 of 23

An agency of the European Union

3. Expected benefits and drawbacks of the proposed regulatory material

The proposed regulatory material is expected to support in the achievement of the objectives

described in Section 2.2.

In addition, the following benefits have been identified:

The proposed amendments to the serviceability level for aerodrome lighting that requires higher

intensity values than those prescribed by the current CSs are expected to improve the clarity of the

requirement and eliminate uncertainty and different interpretations among competent authorities

and aerodrome operators regarding its applicability.

The proposed removal of the obsolete term ‘taxiway intersection marking’ and its replacement with

‘intermediate holding position markings or lights’ is expected clear up the confusion it currently

creates among stakeholders and to ensure consistency between the terminology used in the ATM/ANS

and the Aerodromes rules.

The proposed amendment regarding aerodrome emergency grid maps is expected to provide clarity

concerning the provision of grid maps, their availability to external agencies, and additional flexibility

in terms of the format (paper or electronic) they can be provided.

The proposed requirements related to the identification of restrictions aim to ensure a better

coordination with the ANSPs, while the inclusion of specific design criteria for safe ground handling

will ensure a better interface with the ground handling activities.

The proposed amendment related to runway surface condition assessment and reporting aims to

resolve a discrepancy between the Aerodromes and the Air Operations rules regarding the assignment

of a runway condition code when less than 25 % of a runway third is wet or contaminated, which is

considered important for safety and, therefore, implemented ahead of ICAO.

The proposed amendment related to the allocation of aircraft to areas other than aircraft stands or

apron areas is expected to provide aerodrome operators with greater flexibility in using the

infrastructure during cases of mass diversions, special events, infrastructure works, etc., provided a

risk assessment has been performed.

The proposed requirements on closed runway lighting (lighted X) are expected to provide aerodrome

operators, aerodrome equipment manufacturers, flight crews and competent authorities with a set

of certification specifications commonly applicable in the Member States. Additionally, the proposed

requirements provide aerodrome operators with flexibility since they allow the use of closed runway

lighting as an alternative to closed runway markings for the prevention of unintended landings.

The proposed amendments to certain runway and taxiway lights based on a new RVR threshold of

300 m, instead of 350 m, are expected to improve operational efficiency by removing existing conflict

and resultant ambiguity between runway capability and supporting aerodrome visual aids

infrastructure. They are also expected to eliminate missed approaches and associated risks, as well as

diversions in conditions where a landing can be carried out but the aircraft cannot taxi to the apron as

the taxiway lighting system is not compliant for operations below RVR 350 m despite the runway being

compliant with CATII RVR. Furthermore, the proposed amendments will streamline the provision

criteria, reducing the costs for aerodrome operators. This includes examples such as:

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

3. Expected benefits and drawbacks of the proposed regulatory material

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 18 of 23

An agency of the European Union

— allowing the 30-metre longitudinal spacing for runway centre line lights on runways used in RVR

of 300 m or greater, instead of the current 350 m RVR, provided the maintenance objective is

met;

— mandating the provision of rapid exit taxiway indicator lights, taxiway centre line lights (except

for the case of night use), runway turn pad lights and intermediate holding position lights for

RVR less than 300 m, instead of the current threshold of 350 m — in other words, the provision

of these lights will only be required for CATIII and no longer for CATII conditions.

The proposed CSs and GM for RDRSs are expected to ensure harmonisation of the design

requirements and consequently facilitate the equipment certification process in accordance with

Commission Regulation (EU) No 139/2014. The introduction of commonly applicable design

requirements for RDRSs may also alleviate the need for ‘special conditions’ when installing military

equipment, thereby reducing the additional administrative burden for both competent authorities

and aerodrome operators.

The revised CSs and GM for heliports located at aerodromes falling in the scope of the Basic

Regulation, will ensure alignment with the latest amendments to ICAO Annex 14, Volume II, as well as

commonly applicable design requirements within the Member States. In addition, several of the

revised provisions (e.g. size of FATO, characteristics of the essential objects, visual aids requirements)

will improve the safety of helicopter operations. Furthermore, the proposed revised certification

specifications for obstacle limitation surfaces related to vertical procedures and PinS approach or

departure procedures are expected to support the deployment of these procedures specifically

designed and optimised for helicopters, thus contributing to the increased efficiency and usability of

heliports.

Finally, the proposed regulatory material included in this NPA will ensure compliance with the relevant

ICAO SARPs.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

4. Proposed regulatory material

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 19 of 23

An agency of the European Union

4. Proposed regulatory material

NPA 2026-01 (B) — Proposed amendments to the annexes to Commission Implementing

Regulation (EU) 139/2014 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU)

2017/373

NPA 2026-01 (C) — Proposed amendments to the AMC and GM to Commission Regulation (EU)

139/2014, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 and

Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

NPA 2026-01 (D) — Proposed amendments to CS-ADR-DSN

NPA 2026-01 (E) — Proposed amendments to CS-HPT-DSN

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

5. Monitoring and evaluation

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 20 of 23

An agency of the European Union

5. Monitoring and evaluation

EASA plans to monitor as follows whether the objectives described in Section 2.2 will be achieved with

the proposed regulatory material:

— feedback from standardisation inspections;

— feedback from the Advisory Bodies; and

— in the long term, the occurrence trend related to the objectives established in Section 2.2.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

6. Actions to support implementation

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 21 of 23

An agency of the European Union

6. Actions to support implementation

To support affected stakeholders in the implementation of the new regulatory material, EASA may, as

deemed necessary, provide clarifications during the Aerodromes Advisory Body meetings (ADR TeB

and CSTG) and/or during annual implementation support workshops.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

7. References

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 22 of 23

An agency of the European Union

7. References

— ICAO Annex 14 Volume I ‘Aerodrome Design and Operations’, 9th edition, July 2022

— ICAO Annex 14 Volume II ‘Heliports’, 5th edition, July 2020

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (A)

Appendix — Quality of the NPA

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 23 of 23

An agency of the European Union

Appendix — Quality of the NPA

To continuously improve the quality of its documents, EASA welcomes your feedback on the quality

of this document with regard to the following aspects:

Please provide your feedback on the quality of this document as part of the other comments you have

on this NPA. We invite you to also provide a brief justification, especially when you disagree or strongly

disagree, so that we consider this for improvement.Your comments will be considered for internal

quality assurance and management purposes only and will not be published (e.g. as part of the CRD).

1. The regulatory proposal is of technically good/high quality

Please choose one of the options

Fully agree / Agree / Neutral / Disagree / Strongly disagree

2. The text is clear, readable and understandable

Please choose one of the options

Fully agree / Agree / Neutral / Disagree / Strongly disagree

3. The regulatory proposal is well substantiated

Please choose one of the options

Fully agree / Agree / Neutral / Disagree / Strongly disagree

4. The regulatory proposal is fit for purpose (achieving the objectives set)

Please choose one of the options

Fully agree / Agree / Neutral / Disagree / Strongly disagree

5. The regulatory proposal is proportionate to the size of the issue

Please choose one of the options

Fully agree / Agree / Neutral / Disagree / Strongly disagree

6. The regulatory proposal applies the ‘better regulation’ principles[1]

Please choose one of the options

Fully agree / Agree / Neutral / Disagree / Strongly disagree

7. Any other comments on the quality of this document (please specify)

[1] For information and guidance, see:

− https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation-why-and-

how_en

− https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation-why-and-

how/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en

European Union Aviation Safety Agency

Notice of Proposed Amendment 2026-01 (B)

issued in accordance with Article 6 of Management Board Decision 01-2022

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 1 of 9

An agency of the European Union

Proposed amendments to the annexes to

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2014

and to

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (B)

Contents

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 2 of 9

An agency of the European Union

Contents

Proposed amendments .................................................................................................................. 3

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) NO 139/2014 ANNEX III — PART-ADR.OR .............. 4

SUBPART D — MANAGEMENT — AERODROME OPERATORS (ADR.OR.D) ............................................. 4

ADR.OR.D.040 Formal arrangements with ground handling organisations providing services at the

aerodrome .......................................................................................................................................... 4

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) NO 139/2014 ANNEX IV — PART-ADR.OPS ............ 5

SUBPART B — AERODROME OPERATIONAL SERVICES, EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATIONS (ADR.OPS.B) ...................................................................................................................................................... 5

ADR.OPS.B.027 Operation of vehicles ................................................................................................ 5

ADR.OPS.B.071 Closed runways and taxiways, or parts thereof ........................................................ 5

SUBPART C — AERODROME MAINTENANCE (ADR.OPS.C) ..................................................................... 6

ADR.OPS.C.015 Maintenance of visual aids and electrical systems ................................................... 6

SUBPART D — APRON MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS .............................................................................. 7

ADR.OPS.D.035 Aircraft parking ......................................................................................................... 7

ADR.OPS.D.040 Aircraft departure from the stand ............................................................................ 8

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/373 ANNEX IV — PART-ATS ........................... 9

SUBPART B — TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVIDERS OF AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES (ATS.TR) .......... 9

ATS.TR.265 Control of aerodrome surface traffic in low-visibility conditions .................................... 9

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (B)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 3 of 9

An agency of the European Union

Proposed amendments

The amendments are presented as follows:

— deleted text is struck through;

— new text is highlighted;

— an ellipsis ‘[…]’ indicates that the rest of the text is unchanged.

Where necessary, the rationale is provided in italics.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (B)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 4 of 9

An agency of the European Union

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) NO 139/2014

ANNEX III — PART-ADR.OR

SUBPART D — MANAGEMENT — AERODROME OPERATORS

(ADR.OR.D)

ADR.OR.D.040 Formal arrangements with ground handling organisations providing services at the aerodrome

(a) The aerodrome operator shall have formal arrangements with the organisations providing or

intending to provide ground handling services at the aerodrome.

(b) The arrangements shall be concluded prior to the start of the provision of services by those

organisations and shall include the following, as a minimum:

(1) duration of the arrangement;

(2) list of ground handling services to be provided at the aerodrome;

(3) method of exchanging operational information between the aerodrome operator and the

GH organisation; representation of the ground handling organisation in the aerodrome

safety committees and the aerodrome safety programmes;

(4) information regarding ground support equipment (GSE) or resource pooling;

(5) areas, premises and/or facilities to be used at the aerodrome necessary for the ground

handling organisation to conduct its business;

(6) notification of termination of the provision of ground handling services.

Rationale

This new implementing rule proposes to address the formal arrangements that the aerodrome

operator should conclude with ground handling organisations providing services at the

aerodrome. Such a requirement exists today only for providers of apron management services.

Formal arrangements concluded before the deployment of ground handling services ensures a

smooth continuation of ground handling services or setting up of a new provider of services at

the aerodrome. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/20 on the safe provision of ground

handling services and for organisations providing them already specifies such formal

arrangements in point ORGH.GEN.115, and proposed point ADR.OR.D.040 closes the loop with

the requirements on ground handling.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (B)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 5 of 9

An agency of the European Union

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) NO 139/2014

ANNEX IV — PART-ADR.OPS

SUBPART B — AERODROME OPERATIONAL SERVICES, EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATIONS (ADR.OPS.B)

ADR.OPS.B.027 Operation of vehicles

[…]

(e) The driver of a vehicle on the manoeuvring area:

[…]

(3) where a FATO, helicopter taxi-route or helicopter stand have been established, shall not

operate a vehicle on the safety area of the FATO, the taxi-route or the protection area of

the helicopter stand, during the movement of helicopters.

Rationale

CS-HPT-DSN already contains specifications that prohibit the use of the safety area of a FATO, the ground taxi route, the air taxi route and the protection area of a helicopter stand by mobile objects. However, these specifications contain requirements of operational nature and are, therefore, better suited for inclusion in Part-ADR.OPS. It is proposed to incorporate them in point (e) of ADR.OPS.B.027, which already contains similar requirements.

ADR.OPS.B.071 Closed runways and taxiways, or parts thereof

(a) The aerodrome operator shall ensure that closed markings are displayed on:

(1) a runway or a taxiway, or a portion thereof, which is permanently closed to use by all

aircraft;

(2) a temporarily closed runway or taxiway, or a portion thereof, except that such markings

may be omitted when the closure is of short duration and adequate warning is provided

by air traffic services. A closed runway marking may also be omitted when a closed

runway lighting is provided.

[…]

(f) The aerodrome operator shall ensure that variable message signs are used when there is an

operational need to indicate temporarily closed or restricted areas, as well as to provide

information on operational restrictions to aerodrome users.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (B)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 6 of 9

An agency of the European Union

Rationale

Amendment 18 (State Letter 25/23) to ICAO Annex 14 Volume I introduced the use of closed runway

lighting as an effective measure to prevent unintended landings on closed runways (Recommendation

7.1.4.1). This is also supported by safety recommendations issued by accident investigation bodies.

Furthermore, with the same ICAO amendment the use of unserviceability signs is introduced to indicate

temporary closed or restricted areas, as well as to provide information to aerodrome users on

operational restrictions. EASA has already notified ICAO that unserviceability signs will not be

implemented because the addition of a new colour (orange) will introduce additional complexity for

flight crews. In addition, since there is no requirement of such signs to be lit, it restricts their usability

during nights or at reduced visibility conditions. For this reason, EASA proposes the use of variable

message signs because they can deliver different messages without the need to replace them.

Moreover, they can be used in all visibility conditions and are widely used in road transport.

SUBPART C — AERODROME MAINTENANCE (ADR.OPS.C)

ADR.OPS.C.015 Maintenance of visual aids and electrical systems

[…]

(b) The aerodrome operator shall establish and implement a preventive and corrective

maintenance programme to ensure the serviceability of the individual lights and the

aerodrome’s lighting systems reliability, in a manner that ensures continuity of guidance to, and

control of aircraft and vehicles, as follows:

[…]

(5) For a taxiway intended for use in runway visual range conditions less than a value of 550

300 m, the system of preventive maintenance shall have as its objective that no two

adjacent taxiway centre line lights be unserviceable.

[…]

(c) For the purposes of point (b), a light shall be deemed to be unserviceable if:

(1) the main beam average intensity is less than 50 % of the value specified in the certification

specifications issued by the Agency. For light units where the designed main beam

average intensity is above the value specified in the certification specifications issued by

the Agency, the 50 % value shall be related to that design value For light units where the

main beam average intensity is required to be higher than the value specified in the

certification specifications issued by the Agency, a light shall be deemed to be

unserviceable when the main beam average intensity value is less than 50 per cent of this

higher value and not the value specified in the certification specifications issued by the

Agency;

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (B)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 7 of 9

An agency of the European Union

(2) the filter associated with the light is missing, damaged, or the light does not produce the

correct colour light beam.

[…]

Rationale

See the rationale for CS ADR-DSN.M.710 regarding the changes to the RVR value in point (b)(5).

The proposed change to point (c)(1) stems from Amendment 18 (State Letter 25/23) to ICAO Annex 14

Volume I. The term ‘design value’ has created uncertainty and led to different interpretations among

the competent authorities and aerodrome operators regarding its applicability.

The first part of point (c)(1) defines the serviceability for a light as a percentage of the minimum

intensity values prescribed in CS-ADR-DSN. The main beam average intensity of a light shall not be less

than 50 per cent of the intensity value provided in CS-ADR-DSN: this is for a lighting system where the

initial new installation was done according to the intensity values — for example, if CS-ADR-DSN

requires 10 000 cd (100 per cent), then a light should not measure below 5 000 cd (50 per cent).

The second part of point (c)(1) defines the serviceability for a light where the aerodrome requires the

aeronautical ground lights supporting runway operations to have a main beam average intensity

higher than what is required in CS-ADR-DSN. The term ‘designed’ in this case refers to the aerodrome

or ‘site’ design of the lighting system, where an initial new installation of the aerodrome lighting

system required higher intensity values than the intensity values required in CS-ADR-DSN.

In this case, the serviceability of 50 per cent for a light shall not refer to the minimum intensity value

prescribed in CS-ADR-DSN, but it shall refer to ‘that design value’ being an initial higher intensity value.

For example, if CS-ADR-DSN requires 10 000 cd as the minimum for an installation but the operator

identifies the need for 15 000 cd (the new 100 per cent), then a light should not measure below 7 500

cd (the revised 50 per cent).

SUBPART D — APRON MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS

ADR.OPS.D.035 Aircraft parking

The aerodrome operator shall establish and ensure the implementation of procedures to ensure that:

[…]

(g) parked aircraft is appropriately secured to prevent any unintended movement.

Rationale

A new point (g) is proposed to be added in ADR.OPS.D.035 in line with Amendment 18 (State Letter

25/23) to ICAO Annex 14 Volume I to ensure the protection of aircraft, of the aerodrome infrastructure,

of those aboard aircraft, and of those working around them.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (B)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 8 of 9

An agency of the European Union

ADR.OPS.D.040 Aircraft departure from the stand

The aerodrome operator shall establish and ensure the implementation of procedures to ensure that during the departure of an aircraft from the aircraft stand:

[…]

(f) the aircraft is guided.

Rationale

A new point (f) is proposed to be added in ADR.OPS.D.040 in line with Amendment 18 (State Letter

25/23) to ICAO Annex 14 Volume I to ensure the safety of aircraft during departure from the stand.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (B)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 9 of 9

An agency of the European Union

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/373

ANNEX IV — PART-ATS

SUBPART B — TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVIDERS

OF AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES (ATS.TR)

ATS.TR.265 Control of aerodrome surface traffic in low-visibility

conditions

(a) When there is a requirement for traffic to operate on the manoeuvring area in conditions of

visibility which prevent the aerodrome control tower from applying visual separation between

aircraft, and between aircraft and vehicles, the following shall apply:

(1) at the intersection of taxiways, an aircraft or vehicle on a taxiway shall not be permitted

to hold closer to the other taxiway than the holding position limit defined by intermediate

holding positions markings or lights, or, stop bars or taxiway intersection marking, in

accordance with the applicable aerodrome design specifications;

[…]

Rationale

‘Taxiway intersection marking’ is no longer used in ICAO Annex 14 Volume I since Edition 3 (1999),

when Standard 5.2.10 ‘Taxiway intersection marking’ was renamed as 5.2.10 ‘Intermediate holding

position marking’, retaining the same design characteristics (Figure 5-6). However, ‘taxiway

intersection marking’ is still used in the ATM/ANS and Aerodromes rules in parallel with ‘intermediate

holding position marking’. Therefore, ‘taxiway intersection marking’ is proposed to be removed to

ensure consistency with the terminology used in the Aerodromes rules and avoid any confusion. See

also the rationale provided for GM1 ATS.TR.265(a)(1), GM2 ADR.OPS.A.005(a), GM1 ADR-DSN.M.770

and CS ADR-DSN.N.800.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency

Notice of Proposed Amendment 2026-01 (C)

issued in accordance with Article 6 of Management Board Decision 01-2022

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 1 of 20

An agency of the European Union

Proposed amendments to the AMC and GM to

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 139/2014,

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/373 and

Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (C)

Contents

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 2 of 20

An agency of the European Union

Contents

Proposed amendments ........................................................................................................................... 4

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) NO 139/2014 ANNEX III — PART-ADR.OR ........... 5

SUBPART D — MANAGEMENT — AERODROME OPERATORS (ADR.OR.D) ........................................... 5

AMC1 ADR.OR.D.005(b)(8) Management system .............................................................................. 5

AMC1 ADR.OR.D.007(b) Management of aeronautical data and aeronautical information ............. 5

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) NO 139/2014 ANNEX IV — PART-ADR.OPS ......... 7

SUBPART A — AERODROME DATA (ADR.OPS.A) ................................................................................... 7

AMC1 ADR.OPS.A.005 Aerodrome data ............................................................................................. 7

GM1 ADR.OPS.A.005 Aerodrome data ............................................................................................... 7

GM2 ADR.OPS.A.005(a) Aerodrome data ........................................................................................... 7

SUBPART B — AERODROME OPERATIONAL SERVICES, EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATIONS

(ADR.OPS.B) ................................................................................................................................. 8

GM8 ADR.OPS.B.010(a)(2) Rescue and firefighting services ............................................................ 10

AMC1 ADR.OPS.B.016(c)(b)(4) Foreign object debris control programme ...................................... 11

GM1 ADR.OPS.B.016(c)(b)(4) Foreign object debris control programme ........................................ 11

GM1 ADR.OPS.B.027(e)(3) Operation of vehicles ............................................................................. 11

AMC1 ADR.OPS.B.030(a) Surface movement guidance and control system .................................... 11

GM1 ADR.OPS.B.030(a) Surface movement guidance and control system ...................................... 12

AMC1 ADR.OPS.B.037(a);(b) Assessment of runway surface condition and assignment of runway

condition code .................................................................................................................................. 13

GM1 ADR.OPS.B.037(b) Assessment of runway surface condition and assignment of runway

condition code .................................................................................................................................. 13

GM1 ADR.OPS.B.071(d) Closed runways and taxiways, or parts thereof ......................................... 14

AMC1 ADR.OPS.B.071(a)(2) Closed runways and taxiways, or parts thereof .................................. 15

GM1 ADR.OPS.B.071(a)(2) Closed runways and taxiways, or parts thereof .................................... 15

AMC1 ADR.OPS.B.071(f) Closed runways and taxiways, or parts thereof ........................................ 15

GM1 ADR.OPS.B.071(f) Closed runways and taxiways, or parts thereof.......................................... 16

AMC2 ADR.OPS.B.080(a) Marking and lighting of vehicles and other mobile objects ..................... 16

SUBPART C — AERODROME MAINTENANCE (ADR.OPS.C) ................................................................. 17

GM1 ADR.OPS.C.015(b);(c) Maintenance of visual aids and electrical systems ............................... 17

SUBPART D — APRON MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS ............................................................................ 17

AMC1 ADR.OPS.D.025(a) Aircraft stand allocation ........................................................................... 17

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (C)

Contents

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 3 of 20

An agency of the European Union

AMC1 ADR.OPS.D.040(f) Aircraft departure from the stand ............................................................ 18

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/373 ANNEX IV — PART-ATS ...................... 19

SUBPART B — TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVIDERS OF AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES (ATS.TR) ..... 19

GM1 ATS.TR.265(a)(1) Control of aerodrome surface traffic in low-visibility conditions ............. 19

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) NO 965/2012 ANNEX IV (PART-CAT) ............................. 20

SUBPART B — OPERATING PROCEDURES ............................................................................................ 20

GM1 CAT.OP.MPA.303 In-flight check of the landing distance at time of arrival - aeroplanes .... 20

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (C)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 4 of 20

An agency of the European Union

Proposed amendments

The amendments are presented as follows:

— deleted text is struck through;

— new text is highlighted;

— an ellipsis ‘[…]’ indicates that the rest of the text is unchanged.

Where necessary, the rationale is provided in italics.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (C)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 5 of 20

An agency of the European Union

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) NO 139/2014

ANNEX III — PART-ADR.OR

SUBPART D — MANAGEMENT — AERODROME OPERATORS

(ADR.OR.D)

AMC1 ADR.OR.D.005(b)(8) Management system

SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TRAINING

[…]

(c) The safety management system training programme should be developed in accordance with AMC1 ADR.OR.D.017(a);(b), and AMC1 ADR.OPS.B.010(b);(c) AMC2 ADR.OPS.B.010(d) and be incorporated in the training programme foreseen therein.

[…]

Rationale

Point (c) of AMC1 ADR.OR.D.005(b)(8) is amended with the correct reference since AMC1

ADR.OPS.B.010(b);(c) was amended to ‘AMC2 ADR.OPS.B.010(d)’ in 2021 (see ED Decision 2021/003/R).

AMC1 ADR.OR.D.007(b) Management of aeronautical data and aeronautical information

SECURITY MANAGEMENT FOR AERONAUTICAL DATA AND AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION PROVISION ACTIVITIES

(a) The security management objectives should be:

(1)(a) to ensure the security of aeronautical data and aeronautical information received, produced, or otherwise employed, so that they are it is protected from interference, and access to them it is restricted only to those authorised; and

(2)(b) to ensure that the security management measures meet appropriate national, EU, or international requirements for critical infrastructure and business continuity, and international standards for security management., including:

(i) ISO/IEC 17799:2005 — Information technology — Security techniques — Code of practice for information security management;

(ii) ISO 28000:2007: — Specification for security management systems for the supply chain.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (C)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 6 of 20

An agency of the European Union

(b) Regarding the ISO standards, the relevant certificates issued by an appropriately accredited organisation, are considered as an Acceptable Means of Compliance.

Rationale

The references to specific ISO standards are proposed to be deleted based on the following reasoning:

ISO/IEC 17799:2005 has been replaced by ISO/IEC 27002:2022, which is a supporting standard to

ISO 27001. Although the latter has influenced the development of Part-IS and many similarities exist

between the two (i.e. Part-IS and ISO 27001), ISO 27002 provides a framework for implementing

infosec controls for an organisation that follows ISO 27001. Unlike ISO 27001, a certification cannot be

obtained for complying with ISO 27002. Furthermore, an ISO certificate does not necessarily capture

the whole of the organisation’s safety-related processes.

In addition, a certification based on an ISO standard is related mostly with business continuity instead

of safety objectives.

The above reasoning has already been included in recital (5) ‘A significant number of organisations

already use international standards, such as ISO 27001, in order to address the security of digital

information and data. Those standards may not fully address all the specificities of civil aviation’,

and recital (6) ‘Therefore, it is appropriate to set out requirements for the management of information

security risks with a potential impact on aviation safety’ of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1645.

Finally, point ADR.OR.D.005A ‘Information security management system’ has been included in

Regulation (EU) No 139/2014, which makes reference to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1645.

All the required provisions can be found in this regulation and the accompanying regulatory material.

GM1 ADR.OR.D.040(b)(7) Formal arrangements with ground handling organisations providing services at the aerodrome

The following are a few examples of areas, premises and facilities that may be provided by the

aerodrome operator to the ground-handling organisations. The list is not exhaustive.

(a) Office space;

(b) Parking area for GSE when not in operation;

(c) Warehouse;

(d) Storage area for ULD;

(e) Storage facilities for fuel;

(f) Storage facilities for de-icing / anti-icing fluids.

Rationale

See rationale provided for ADR.OR.D.040.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (C)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 7 of 20

An agency of the European Union

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) NO 139/2014

ANNEX IV — PART-ADR.OPS

SUBPART A — AERODROME DATA (ADR.OPS.A)

AMC1 ADR.OPS.A.005 Aerodrome data

(a) Data relevant to the aerodrome and available services should include, but may not be limited to, items in the following list:

[…]

(10) rescue and firefighting; and

(11) visual approach slope indicator systems.;

(12) helicopter landing area, where established.

[…]

GM1 ADR.OPS.A.005 Aerodrome data

[…]

HELICOPTER LANDING AREA

The information concerning the helicopter landing area provided at the aerodrome is made available

in accordance with Part 3, AD2.16 of Appendix 1 to Annex VI of Commission Implementing Regulation

(EU) 2017/373.

Rationale

The proposed amendments to AMC1 ADR.OPS.A.005 and GM1 ADR.OPS.A.005 ensure that the

information concerning the helicopter landing area, if such an area has been established at the

aerodrome (see CS-HPT-DSN), is made available.

GM2 ADR.OPS.A.005(a) Aerodrome data

SURVEYING REQUIREMENTS FOR RUNWAY THRESHOLDS, TAXIWAYS AND AIRCRAFT STANDS

[…]

(c) Taxiways

[…]

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (C)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 8 of 20

An agency of the European Union

(3) In defining taxiways, the following points must be surveyed at the centre of the centre line marking of each taxiway, as appropriate:

(i) intermediate holding positions and runway holding positions (including those associated with the intersection of a runway with another runway when the former runway is part of a standard taxi route) and for points established for the protection of sensitive areas for radio navigation aids;

(ii) taxiway intersection markings;

(iii) intersection of other taxiways, including taxiways described in point (c) (2) above;

(iiiv) intersections of ‘blocks’ defined for surface movement, guidance and control systems;

(iv) commencement and end of selectable taxiway lighting systems provided as part of the surface movement, guidance and control systems, where different from subparagraph (iv iii) above; and

[…]

Rationale

‘Taxiway intersection marking’ is no longer used in Annex 14 Volume I since Edition 3 (1999) when

Standard 5.2.10 ‘Taxiway intersection marking’ was renamed as 5.2.10 Intermediate holding position

marking’, retaining the same design characteristics (Figure 5-6). However, ‘taxiway intersection

marking’ is still used in the ATM/ANS and Aerodromes rules in parallel with ‘intermediate holding

position marking’. Therefore, ‘taxiway intersection marking’ is proposed to be removed to avoid any

confusion (term already included in point (c)(3)(i)).

SUBPART B — AERODROME OPERATIONAL SERVICES, EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATIONS (ADR.OPS.B)

AMC2 ADR.OPS.B.005(b) Aerodrome emergency planning

AERODROME EMERGENCY PLAN DOCUMENT

The aerodrome operator should include, at least, the following in the aerodrome emergency plan

document:

[…]

(e) A detailed grid map (or maps) of the aerodrome and its immediate surroundings (with date of

revision), approximately at a distance of 8 km from the centre of the aerodrome, indicating

topography, access roads and location of water supplies. The map(s) should be visibly posted in

the control tower and the fire station(s), and should be available on RFF vehicles as well as on

other supporting vehicles required to respond to an aircraft accident or incident. The map(s)

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (C)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 9 of 20

An agency of the European Union

should also be made available to external agencies, such as police and medical services, as

required. If the aerodrome operator is responsible to issue the detailed grid map(s), it should

have a control process in place to ensure that all agencies are made aware of any changes to or

reissues. The grid map(s) may be provided in paper or electronic format.

Rationale

Point (e) is amended at the request of the Member States to better reflect the content of ICAO Doc

9137 ‘Airport Services Manual’, Part 1 – Rescue and Firefighting.

GM6 ADR.OPS.B.005(b) Aerodrome emergency planning

AERODROME EMERGENCY GRID MAPS

(a) Detailed grid map(s) are helpful to locate and reach the accident site in minimum time. It is

recommended that grid maps reflect a distance of at least 1 000 m beyond the runway

threshold and the aerodrome’s perimeter.

(b) It is recommended that two grid maps are provided: one map depicting the confines of the

aerodrome access roads, location of water supplies, rendezvous points, staging areas, railways,

highways, difficult terrain, etc., and the other map of surrounding communities depicting

appropriate medical facilities, access roads, rendezvous points, etc., within a distance of

approximately 8 km from the centre of the aerodrome. In cases where more than one grid map

is used, the grids should not conflict, and must be immediately identifiable to all participating

agencies.

(c) Copies of the map(s) are kept at the emergency operations centre, at the aerodrome operations

office, at the air traffic control tower, at aerodrome and local fire stations in the vicinity, at local

hospitals and at other similar emergency centres in the area. Maps of this type are presented in

numbered grids and marked to easily identify any point within the map area.

Rationale

See rationale provided for AMC2 ADR.OPS.B.005(b).

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (C)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 10 of 20

An agency of the European Union

GM8 ADR.OPS.B.010(a)(2) Rescue and firefighting services

EXTINGUISHING AGENTS FOR AERODROMES WITH REGULAR HELICOPTER MOVEMENTS

For some aerodromes of the lower RFFS category numbers (1, 2 and 3) and regularly used by

helicopters, the amounts of the extinguishing agents determined in accordance with

AMC4 ADR.OPS.B.010(a)(2) may not be sufficient because of the more demanding helicopter(s).

Additional extinguishing agents may have to be considered as shown in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1

Heliport category

(1)

Helicopter maximum fuselage length

(2)

Helicopter maximum fuselage width

(3)

H0 0 m up to but not including 8 m 1.5 m

H1 8 m up to but not including 12 m 2 m

H2 12 m up to but not including 16 m 2.5 m

H3 16 m up to but not including 20 m 3 m

Table 2

Minimum usable amounts of extinguishing agents

Foam meeting performance

level B

Foam meeting performance

level C Complementary agents

Heliport

category

(1)

Water

(L)

(2)

Discharge rate foam

solution/ minute (L)

(3)

Water

(L)

(4)

Discharge rate foam

solution/ minute (L)

(5)

Dry chemical

powders (kg)

(6)

Gaseous

media

(kg)

(7)

H0 500 250 330 165 23 9

H1 800 400 540 270 23 9

H2 1 200 600 800 400 45 18

H3 1 600 800 1 100 550 90 36

Note 1: The minimum discharge duration in Table 2 is assumed to be two minutes. The discharge

rate of a performance level B foam is assumed to be based on an application rate of 5.5

L/min/m2, and for a performance level C foam and for water, is assumed to be based on

an application rate of 3.75 L/min/m2.

Note 2: The practical critical area is calculated by multiplying the helicopter fuselage length (m)

by the helicopter fuselage width (m) plus an additional width factor of 4 m. The

minimum usable amounts of water required for foam production are calculated by

multiplying the practical critical area by the applicable discharge rate and by the

duration of applicability of 2 minutes.

Note 3: For helicopters which exceed one or both of the dimensions for a category H3 heliport,

it will be necessary to recalculate the level of protection using the practical critical area,

which is calculated based on the actual fuselage length (m) and the actual fuselage

width (m) of the helicopter plus an additional width factor of 6 m.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (C)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 11 of 20

An agency of the European Union

Rationale

A comparison between the quantities of water required for foam production at aerodromes with

aerodrome RFFS category 1, 2 or 3 and at heliports with RFFS category H0 – H3, has shown that in

some cases the quantities required for helicopters are larger. If the extinguishing agents at an

aerodrome are determined based exclusively on the aerodrome category, they may not be sufficient

for all the types of helicopters regularly using the aerodrome. The proposed guidance material provides

additional clarification in this regard.

AMC1 ADR.OPS.B.016(c)(b)(4) Foreign object debris control programme

[…]

GM1 ADR.OPS.B.016(c)(b)(4) Foreign object debris control programme

[…]

Rationale

Following the publication of the Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/2148 of

8 October 2020 amending Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 as regards runway safety and aeronautical

data, point ‘(c)’ of point ADR.OPS.B.016 became point ‘(b)(4)’.

AMC1 ADR.OPS.B.016(c) and its related GM are amended with the correct reference.

GM1 ADR.OPS.B.027(e)(3) Operation of vehicles OPERATION OF VEHICLES AT HELICOPTER OPERATIONAL AREAS

For the establishment of a FATO safety area, a helicopter taxi route and a helicopter stand protection

area, see CS HPT-DSN.B.130, CS HPT-DSN.B.210 and CS HPT-DSN.D.310 respectively.

Rationale

See rationale provided for ADR.OPS.B.027.

AMC1 ADR.OPS.B.030(a) Surface movement guidance and control system IDENTIFICATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND COORDINATION WITH AIR NAVIGATION SERVICE PROVIDERS

When parts of the movement area are identified as not being suitable for use by certain aircraft types,

or combinations of such aircraft types, the aerodrome operator should:

(a) take appropriate mitigating measures;

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (C)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 12 of 20

An agency of the European Union

(b) provide the relevant air traffic service provider with the suitable aircraft types or combinations

of aircraft types for each of these parts of the movement area; and

(c) report any restrictions to the aeronautical information service provider.

GM1 ADR.OPS.B.030(a) Surface movement guidance and control system IDENTIFICATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND COORDINATION WITH AIR NAVIGATION SERVICE PROVIDERS

Regardless of the aerodrome reference code that can be defined for an aerodrome and published in

the terms of the certificate, there is the possibility that a part of the movement area of the aerodrome

can accommodate only smaller aircraft than the ones corresponding to the aerodrome reference code

(see point (e) of CS ADR-DSN.A.005). Such cases could include: narrower taxiways than required, areas

where there is insufficient space for the simultaneous movement of two aircraft, a runway holding

position which does not leave sufficient space for another aircraft to taxi behind it, or areas where the

pavement does not have sufficient bearing strength for all aircraft types.

These cases, where restrictions to certain aircraft types would need to be determined, can be

identified through a comparison between the facilities that are available and what would be required

based on the aircraft that intend to use the aerodrome. Considering, for example, a reference code

4E aerodrome, such cases could include:

(a) a taxiway with small width (e.g. 10.5 m);

(b) presence of obstacles in a taxiway strip (e.g. at a distance of 30 m from the taxiway centre line);

(c) a taxiway with reduced load bearing strength;

(d) parallel taxiways with reduced spacing (e.g. with a distance of 55 m between their centre lines);

and

(e) a runway – taxiway separation such that when an aeroplane is holding on the runway holding

point position, it does not leave sufficient space for another aeroplane to taxi behind it.

Regarding point (e), the forward field of view of the flight crews needs to be considered for the

calculation of the space occupied by an aeroplane holding at a runway holding point position,

assuming that the flight crews require to maintain the runway holding position marking or the stop

bar in sight.

Strategies to mitigate the risk at such areas include but are not limited to the following:

(a) additional visual aids (signs, intermediate holding position markings);

(b) establishment of intermediate holding positions or alternative routings;

(c) improvement of the load bearing strength of existing taxiways or the construction of new

taxiways.

Section AD 2.20 of the AIP is normally the appropriate section for the publication of the above-

mentioned restrictions.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (C)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 13 of 20

An agency of the European Union

Rationale

The proposed AMC and GM aim to ensure the aerodrome operator identifies any parts of the

movement area which are not suitable for use by certain aircraft types and the information regarding

any restrictions is communicated to the ATC.

The proposed regulatory material also aims to mitigate the risk associated with ground conflict events

(Ground conflict during aircraft taxiing operations (SI-1001), also included in EPAS 2026 Volume III) and

to address safety recommendation MALT-2019-002 issued by Malta’s Bureau of Air Accident

Investigation (BAAI) to EASA (see point 2.1.1 of the Explanatory Note (NPA (A)).

AMC1 ADR.OPS.B.037(a);(b) Assessment of runway surface condition and assignment of runway condition code ASSIGNMENT OF RUNWAY CONDITION CODE

(a) The aerodrome operator should:

(1) assign a RWYCC 6, if 25 less than 10 per cent or less of the area of a runway third is wet

or covered by contaminant. If an area equal to or more than 10 per cent and up to 25 per

cent of a runway third is wet or covered by contaminant, a RWYCC 5 should be assigned.

[…]

Rationale

The amendment is proposed to be implemented ahead of ICAO since it is considered important for

safety and to rectify a discrepancy that has been identified between the Aerodromes and the Air

Operations provisions (see GM1 CAT.OP.MPA.303) related to the assignment of a runway condition

code when a runway third is less than 25 % wet or contaminated.

GM1 ADR.OPS.B.037(b) Assessment of runway surface condition and assignment of runway condition code

SINGLE AND MULTIPLE CONTAMINANTS

When single or multiple contaminants are present, the RWYCC for any third of the runway is determined as follows:

(a) When the runway third contains a single contaminant, the RWYCC for that third is based directly on that contaminant in the RCAM as follows:

(1) If the contaminant coverage for that third is less than 10 per cent, a RWYCC 6 is to be generated for that third, and no contaminant is to be reported. If all thirds have less than 10 per cent contaminant coverage, no report is generated; or

(2) If the contaminant coverage for that third is greater than or equal to 10 per cent and less than or equal to 25 per cent, a RWYCC 6 5 is to be generated for that third and the contaminant reported at 25 per cent coverage; or

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (C)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 14 of 20

An agency of the European Union

(3) If the contaminant coverage for that third is greater than 25 per cent, the RWYCC for that third is based on the contaminant present.

5

Figure 1: Single contaminant

[…]

Rationale

Consequential amendment following the amendment to AMC1 ADR.OPS.B.037(a);(b).

GM1 ADR.OPS.B.071(d) Closed runways and taxiways, or parts thereof RUNWAY LIGHTING

Runway lighting includes both approach and runway lighting systems.

Rationale

The proposed guidance clarifies the meaning of ‘runway lighting’ in line with the Note to Standard 7.1.1.2 of ICAO Annex 14 Volume I Amendment 18 (ICAO State Letter 25/23).

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (C)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 15 of 20

An agency of the European Union

AMC1 ADR.OPS.B.071(a)(2) Closed runways and taxiways, or parts thereof CLOSED RUNWAY LIGHTING

(a) A closed runway lighting should be placed on the centre line near each extremity of the runway declared temporarily closed.

(b) The closed runway lighting should comply with CS ADR-DSN.R.855.

Rationale

The proposed AMC introduces the location where the closed runway lighting should to be placed in line with Standard 7.1.4.2 of ICAO Annex 14 Volume I Amendment 18 (ICAO State Letter 25/23).

GM1 ADR.OPS.B.071(a)(2) Closed runways and taxiways, or parts thereof CLOSED RUNWAY LIGHTING

The purpose of the closed runway lighting is to reduce the likelihood of unintended landings during

periods of poor visibility or whenever the runway lighting must be switched on for maintenance, or at

aerodromes with multiple runways, in particular those with parallel or near-parallel runways.

At dusk or in poor visibility conditions by day or by night, lighting can be more effective than markings.

The placement of a closed runway lighting aims to enhance flight crew situational awareness of the

runway closure.

The closed runway lighting may lead to interference with the radio navigation aids (in particular the

ILS localiser). Therefore, it is important to check and assess the location to prevent interference.

The closed runway lighting is intended to be controlled either automatically or manually by air traffic

services or by the aerodrome operator.

Rationale

The proposed guidance clarifies the purpose of the closed runway lighting in line with the Notes to Recommendation 7.1.4.1 of ICAO Annex 14 Volume I Amendment 18 (ICAO State Letter 25/23). It also draws the attention to potential radio navigation interference.

AMC1 ADR.OPS.B.071(f) Closed runways and taxiways, or parts thereof USE OF VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGNS

(a) Variable message signs should be provided where there is an operational need to indicate

temporary changes to the runway declared distances and/or taxiways and aprons.

(b) Existing signs should be removed or obscured if they provide inadequate or misleading

information regarding unserviceability areas.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (C)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 16 of 20

An agency of the European Union

(c) The information provided by variable message signs should not conflict with the information

provided by the appropriate aeronautical information services.

(d) The location of variable message signs should not visually obscure or provide conflicting

information with existing operationally required visual aids.

Rationale

The proposed amendment (stemming from ICAO State Letter 25/23 — Amendment 18 to Annex 14 Volume I) transposes the following SARPs: 7.4.3.1, 7.4.3.2, 7.4.3.3, 7.4.3.4 and 7.4.3.6 adjusted for variable message signs to reduce the risk of confusion and enhance the awareness of such temporary changes.

GM1 ADR.OPS.B.071(f) Closed runways and taxiways, or parts thereof TEMPORARY CHANGES

Temporary changes to the movement area may include among others reduction in the runway length,

reduction in the maximum allowable wingspan, taxiway closure or any other closure to the movement

area. Variable message signs provide relevant information to aerodrome users to maintain an

acceptable level of safety during aircraft and vehicle operations by reducing the risk of confusion and

enhancing the awareness of such temporary changes.

Rationale

The proposed guidance material is based on Note 1 to 7.4.3 in Amendment 18 to ICAO Annex 14 Volume I, adjusted for variable message signs, to provide examples of cases where variable signs are required.

See also rationale provided for AMC1 ADR.OPS.B.071(g).

AMC2 ADR.OPS.B.080(a) Marking and lighting of vehicles and other mobile objects

[…]

LIGHTING OF MOBILE OBJECTS OTHER THAN VEHICLES

(b) Lighting of mobile objects, other than vehicles, should be as follows:

[…]

(2) Low-intensity obstacle lights on objects with limited mobility, such as aerobridges

passenger boarding bridges, shall be fixed-red, and as a minimum be in accordance with

the specifications for low-intensity obstacle lights, Type A, in Table Q-1 of CS-ADR-DSN.

The intensity of the lights shall be sufficient to ensure conspicuity considering the

intensity of the adjacent lights and the general levels of illumination against which they

would normally be viewed.

Rationale

Replacement of the word ‘aerobridges’ with ‘passenger boarding bridges’ which is more appropriate and also in line with Amendment 18 (State Letter 25/23) to ICAO Annex 14 Volume I.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (C)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 17 of 20

An agency of the European Union

SUBPART C — AERODROME MAINTENANCE (ADR.OPS.C)

GM1 ADR.OPS.C.015(b);(c) Maintenance of visual aids and electrical systems

UNSERVICEABLE LIGHTS

[…]

The maintenance higher level gives aerodrome maintenance personnel advance warning that a light

unit is beginning to produce an output significantly below the required value. This level is always above

50 per cent of the specified intensity, which is the level at which the light is classified as being outside

specification tolerance and therefore to have failed from an operational perspective. Once the light

output reaches the maintenance level, corrective action can be scheduled. This prevents lights from

losing performance to the level where immediate maintenance action must be taken.

Guidance on maintenance criteria for aeronautical ground lights, on the use of a site standard and on

using a higher main beam average intensity is contained in Part 4 of the Aerodrome Design Manual

(ICAO Doc 9157).

Rationale

See rationale for point (c)(1) of ADR.OPS.C.015.

Additionally, ‘higher’ is replaced with ‘maintenance’ to avoid confusion with the terminology used in

point (c)(1) of point ADR.OPS.C.015.

SUBPART D — APRON MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS

AMC1 ADR.OPS.D.025(a) Aircraft stand allocation ALLOCATION OF AIRCRAFT TO AREAS OTHER THAN AIRCRAFT STANDS OR APRON AREAS

Sometimes it may be necessary to allocate aircraft to areas other than aircraft stands or apron areas

because of mass diversions, special events, adverse weather conditions, contingency requirements

and work in progress. In this case, the aerodrome operator should conduct a risk assessment to ensure

that parking of aircraft is done in a safe manner.

Rationale

The purpose of this proposed AMC is to allow aerodrome operators to allocate aircraft to stands

located other than the aircraft stand or apron areas when there is a high demand and no alternative

aerodrome is available to accommodate excess traffic, following a risk assessment conducted by the

aerodrome operator.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (C)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 18 of 20

An agency of the European Union

AMC1 ADR.OPS.D.040(f) Aircraft departure from the stand GUIDANCE OF AIRCRAFT DURING DEPARTURE FROM THE STAND

Either of the following means or a combination should be used to guide an aircraft during the

departure from the stand:

(a) marshaller; or

(b) lights; or

(c) markings.

Rationale

Proposed AMC1 ADR.OPS.D.040(f) contains acceptable means for aircraft guidance during departure

from the stand. The proposal is based partly on the Note corresponding to Standard 9.5.10 stemming

from Amendment 18 (State Letter 25/23) to ICAO Annex 14 Volume I; therefore, the docking guidance

system is not included.

See also the rationale provided for point (f) of point ADR.OPS.D.040.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (C)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 19 of 20

An agency of the European Union

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU)

2017/373 ANNEX IV — PART-ATS

SUBPART B — TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVIDERS

OF AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES (ATS.TR)

GM1 ATS.TR.265(a)(1) Control of aerodrome surface traffic in low-

visibility conditions

HOLDING POSITION LIMITS

The definition of holding position limits by intermediate holding positions markings or lights, or, stop

bars or taxiway intersection marking is established in accordance with EASA ED Decision 2014/013/R

‘Certification Specification and Guidance Material for Aerodrome Design’, as amended.

Rationale

‘Taxiway intersection marking’ is proposed to be removed to ensure consistency with the terminology

used in the Aerodromes rules and avoid any confusion.

See also rationale provided for ATS.TR.265(a)(1), GM2 ADR.OPS.A.005(a), GM1 ADR-DSN.M.770 and

CS ADR-DSN.N.800.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (C)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 20 of 20

An agency of the European Union

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) NO 965/2012

ANNEX IV (PART-CAT)

SUBPART B — OPERATING PROCEDURES

SECTION 1 – MOTOR-POWERED AIRCRAFT

GM1 CAT.OP.MPA.303 In-flight check of the landing distance at

time of arrival - aeroplanes

GENERAL

[…]

Table 1: Association between the runway surface condition and the RWYCC based on the reported

contaminant type and depth and on the OAT

Runway surface

condition

Surface condition

descriptor

Depth Notes RWYCC

Dry n/a Including wet and

contaminated runways

below 10 % coverage

in each runway third

6

Wet Damp

(any visible

dampness)

3 mm or less Including wet and

contaminated runways

equal to or more than

10 % and up to below

25 % coverage in each

runway third

5

Wet

[…] […] […] […] […]

Rationale

Consequential amendment following the amendment to AMC1 ADR.OPS.B.037(a);(b) and to rectify a

discrepancy that has been identified between the Aerodromes provisions and Aerodromes provisions

related to the assignment of a runway condition code when a runway third is less than 25 % wet or

contaminated.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency

Notice of Proposed Amendment 2026-01 (D)

issued in accordance with Article 6 of Management Board Decision 01-2022

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 1 of 33

An agency of the European Union

Proposed amendments to CS-ADR-DSN

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Contents

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 2 of 33

An agency of the European Union

Contents

Proposed amendments ........................................................................................................................... 3

List of abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ 4

CS ADR-DSN.C.215 Dimensions of runway end safety areas .............................................................. 4

CS ADR-DSN.C.236 Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) .................................................. 4

CS ADR-DSN.D.325 Grading of taxiway strips ..................................................................................... 5

CS ADR-DSN.E.345 General ................................................................................................................. 5

GM1 ADR-DSN.E.345 General ............................................................................................................. 6

GM1 ADR-DSN.E.350 Size of aprons ................................................................................................... 6

CS ADR-DSN.G.400 Clearance distances on a de-icing/anti-icing pad ................................................ 7

CS ADR-DSN.L.570 Enhanced taxiway centre line marking ................................................................ 8

CS ADR-DSN.L.605 Mandatory instruction marking ........................................................................... 9

GM1 ADR-DSN.M.615 General ......................................................................................................... 10

CS ADR-DSN.M.630 Precision approach Category I lighting system ................................................. 10

CS ADR-DSN.M.635 Precision approach Category II and III lighting system ..................................... 11

CS ADR-DSN.M.685 Runway end lights ............................................................................................. 14

CS ADR-DSN.M.690 Runway centre line lights .................................................................................. 15

GM1 ADR-DSN.M.700 Rapid exit taxiway indicator lights (RETILs) .................................................. 15

CS ADR-DSN.M.710 Taxiway centre line lights ................................................................................. 15

CS ADR-DSN.M.715 Taxiway centre line lights on taxiways, runways, rapid exit taxiways, or on other exit taxiways ............................................................................................................................ 17

CS ADR-DSN.M.725 Runway turn pad lights ..................................................................................... 19

CS ADR-DSN.M.735 Intermediate holding position lights ................................................................ 19

GM1 ADR-DSN.M.770 Road-holding position light ........................................................................... 19

CS ADR-DSN.N.775 General .............................................................................................................. 20

GM1 ADR-DSN.N.775 General .......................................................................................................... 22

CS ADR-DSN.N.800 Road-holding position sign ................................................................................ 23

CS ADR-DSN.N.801 Runway distance remaining signs (RDRS) .......................................................... 23

GM1 ADR-DSN.N.801 Runway distance remaining signs (RDRS) ...................................................... 24

CS ADR-DSN.Q.846 Lighting of fixed objects .................................................................................... 26

CS ADR-DSN.R.855 Closed runways and taxiways, or parts thereof ................................................. 26

GM2 ADR-DSN.R.855 Closed runways and taxiways, or parts thereof ............................................. 28

CS ADR-DSN.U.940 Aeronautical ground light characteristics .......................................................... 28

GM1 ADR-DSN.U.940 Aeronautical ground light characteristics ...................................................... 33

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 3 of 33

An agency of the European Union

Proposed amendments

The amendments are presented as follows:

— deleted text is struck through;

— new text is highlighted;

— an ellipsis ‘[…]’ indicates that the rest of the text is unchanged.

Where necessary, the rationale is provided in italics.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 4 of 33

An agency of the European Union

List of abbreviations

List of abbreviations

(used in CS-ADR-DSN)

[…]

RDRS Runway distance remaining sign

RELs Runway entrance lights

[…]

CS ADR-DSN.C.215 Dimensions of runway end safety areas

(a) Length of runway end safety area

(1) A runway end safety area should extend from the end of a runway strip to a distance of at least 90 m and, as far as practicable, extend to a distance of:

(i) 240 m where the code number is 3 or 4 and

(ii) 120 m where the code number is 1 or 2 and the runway is an instrument one; and

(2) A runway end safety area should extend from the end of a runway strip, as far as practicable, to a distance of 30 m where the code number is 1 or 2 and the runway is a non-instrument one.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions in (a)(1) above, the length of the runway end safety area may be reduced where an arresting system is installed, based on the design specifications of the system.

[…]

Rationale

In accordance with Recommendation 3.5.4 of ICAO Annex 14, Volume I, the length of the runway end

safety area (RESA) for a non-instrument runway code 1 or 2 cannot be reduced by installing an

arresting system.

CS ADR-DSN.C.236 Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS)

[…]

(e) Arresting performance:

(1) An EMAS should be designed to decelerate the design aircraft at an exit speed of 70 knots at both maximum take-off weight (MTOW) and 80 % maximum landing weight (MLW)

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 5 of 33

An agency of the European Union

without imposing loads that exceed the aircraft’s design limits, causing major structural damage to the aircraft or imposing excessive forces on its occupants.

(2) When there is insufficient space available for the design on an EMAS in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) (e)(1) above, an EMAS should be designed to achieve the maximum arresting performance of the critical aeroplane.

[…]

Rationale

Point (e)(2) of CS ADR-DSN.C.236 is amended to ensure the correct reference.

CS ADR-DSN.D.325 Grading of taxiway strips

[…]

(b) The centre portion of a taxiway strip should provide a graded area to a distance from the centre line of the taxiway of not less than that given by the following tabulation:

(1) 10.25 m where the OMGWS is up to but not including 4.5 m;

(2) 11 m where the OMGWS is 4.5 m up to but not including 6 m;

(3) 12.50 m where the OMGWS is 6 m up to but not including 9 m;

(4) 18.50 17 m where the OMGWS is 9 m up to but not including 15 m, where the code letter is D;

(5) 19 m where the OMGWS is 9 m up to but not including 15 m, where the code letter is E;

(6) 22 m where the OMGWS is 9 m up to but not including 15 m, where the code letter is F.

Rationale

The proposed change (stemming from ICAO State Letter 25/23 - Amendment 18 to Annex 14, Vol I to

Annex 14, Vol I) introduces a correction to the width of the graded portion of code letter D taxiway

strip based on the following formula: graded portion of taxiway strip = ½ (taxiway width + shoulder

width).

Using this formula, the width for taxiways + shoulder where the code letter is D equals 34 m (see CS

ADR-DSN.D.305), resulting in a graded portion of taxiway strip width of 17 m instead of 18.5 m.

CS ADR-DSN.E.345 General

(a) Aprons should be provided to permit the safe loading and off-loading of passengers, cargo, or

mail as well as the servicing of aircraft without interfering with the aerodrome traffic.

(b) The design of aprons should take into consideration criteria for safe ground handling, including:

(1) sufficient space between aircraft stands to enable personnel and equipment to move

safely and efficiently;

(2) adequate apron markings, apron signs and apron floodlighting;

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 6 of 33

An agency of the European Union

(3) adequate staging and storage areas for ground support equipment (GSE);

(4) positioning of fixed ground services;

(5) storage areas for unit load devices (ULD);

(6) adequate access and egress routes for fuel, GSE and emergency vehicles;

(7) clearly delineated and visible access and egress routes for passengers;

(8) new technologies (electric charging points, autonomous vehicles, etc.);

(9) wherever practicable, avoidance of service roads at the rear of aircraft stands; and

(10) appropriate protection for persons, equipment and infrastructure from jet blast,

propeller wash and rotor downwash.

GM1 ADR-DSN.E.345 General

intentionally left blank

Further guidance on apron design is given in the ICAO Doc 9157, Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 2,

Taxiways, Aprons and Holding Bays and in the ICAO Doc 9184, Airport Planning Manual, Part 1, Master

Planning.

For the apron markings, signs and floodlighting see Chapters L, M and N of CS-ADR-DSN.

Rationale

The Aerodromes and Ground handling Safety Risk Portfolio (EASA EPAS Volume III) contains a list of

safety issues that have been identified for these two domains, some specifically related to the design

of aprons and the activities taking place on this infrastructure: e.g. ground staff movement around

aircraft (SI-1019), poor or inadequate apron/stand design and layout (SI-1003) and downwash adverse

effects (SI-8041).

The proposed changes (stemming from ICAO State Letter 25/23 - Amendment 18 to Annex 14, Vol I)

ensure that the safety related aspects affecting ground handling activities are accounted in the design

criteria for aprons and the risks associated with the identified safety issues are mitigated (in

conjunction with the requirements of the Ground handling regulations).

GM1 ADR-DSN.E.350 Size of aprons

(a) The total apron area should be adequate to permit safe and expeditious handling of aerodrome traffic at its maximum anticipated density.

(b) The amount of area required for a particular apron layout depends upon the following factors:

(1) the size and manoeuvrability characteristics of the aircraft using the apron;

(2) the volume of traffic using the apron;

(3) clearance requirements;

(4) type of ingress and egress to the aircraft stand;

(5) basic terminal layout or other aerodrome use;

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 7 of 33

An agency of the European Union

(6) aircraft ground activity requirements (see point (b) of CS ADR-DSN.E.345); and

(7) taxiways and apron service roads.

(c) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/20 Passenger aircraft lists the services that are carried out during the time the aircraft turnaround is parked in a stand position include: passenger handling, loading and unloading of catering galley; ,toilet and potable water servicinge;, baggage handling;, fuelling;, provision of air conditioning, oxygen, electrical power supply and starting air; and , aircraft towing and push-back, aircraft de-icing and anti-icing. Most of these functions services have a vehicle and/or equipment associated with them, or have some type of fixed installation established to conduct these services. Further guidance is given in ICAO Doc 9157, Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 2, Taxiways, Aprons and Holding Bays, paragraph 3.4.6.

[…]

Rationale

GM1 ADR-DSN.E.350 is updated with references to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/20

which lists the services provided by ground handlers during an aircraft’s turnaround.

CS ADR-DSN.G.400 Clearance distances on a de-icing/anti-icing pad

[…]

(b) A de-icing/anti-icing pad should provide the following minimum clearances between an aircraft using entering or exiting the stand and any adjacent building, aircraft on another stand and other objects:

Rationale

Point (b) is updated in line with the wording of point (b) of CS ADR-DSN.E.365.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 8 of 33

An agency of the European Union

CS ADR-DSN.L.570 Enhanced taxiway centre line marking

[…]

Figure L-6. Enhanced taxiway centre line marking

Rationale

The proposed changes (stemming from ICAO State Letter 25/23 - Amendment 18 to Annex 14, Vol I)

ensure the correct depiction of the enhanced taxiway centre line marking.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 9 of 33

An agency of the European Union

CS ADR-DSN.L.605 Mandatory instruction marking

[…]

(b) Location:

(1) The mandatory instruction marking on taxiways, where the code letter is A, B, C, or D OMGWS is up to but not including 9 m, should be located across the taxiway equally placed about the taxiway centre line and on the holding side of the runway-holding position marking as shown in Figure L-9(A). The distance between the nearest edge of the marking and the runway-holding position marking or the taxiway centre line marking should be not less than 1 m.

(2) The mandatory instruction marking on taxiways where the code letter is E or F OMGWS from 9 m up to but not including 15 m, should be located on the both sides of the taxiway centre line marking and on the holding side of the runway-holding position marking as shown in Figure L-9(B). The distance between the nearest edge of the marking and the runway-holding position marking, or the taxiway centre line marking should be not less than 1 m.

(c) Characteristics:

[…]

(4) The character height should be 4 m for inscriptions where the code letter is C, D, E, or F OMGWS is from 6 m up to but not including 15 m, and at least 2 m where the code letter is A or B OMGWS is up to but not including 6 m. The inscription should be in the form and proportions shown in Figures L-10A to L-10D.

[…]

Figure L-9. Mandatory instruction marking

A – Taxiways of code letters A, B, C and D B – Taxiways of code letters E or F A – Taxiways for aeroplanes with OMGWS up to but not including 9 m

B – Taxiways for aeroplanes with OMGWS from 9 m up to but not including 15 m

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 10 of 33

An agency of the European Union

Rationale

Following the changes introduced through CS Issue 4 to the aerodrome reference code methodology

(ARC), taxiways are now categorised in accordance with the OMGWS of the various group of

aeroplanes they were designed to operate and no longer by the code letters.

The proposed changes (stemming from ICAO State Letter 25/23 - Amendment 18 to Annex 14, Vol I)

ensure the provision of the mandatory instruction markings in accordance with the correct

categorisation of the taxiways.

GM1 ADR-DSN.M.615 General

[…]

(b) In dusk or poor visibility conditions by day, lighting can be more effective than marking. For lights to be effective in such conditions or in poor visibility by night, they should be of adequate intensity. To obtain the required intensity, it should usually be necessary to make the light directional, in which case the arcs over which the light shows should be adequate and so orientated as to meet the operational requirements. The runway lighting system should be considered as a whole, to ensure that the relative light intensities are suitably matched to the same end and are maintained over time. Guidance on maintenance criteria for aeronautical ground lights and on the use of a site standard is contained in the ICAO Doc 9157, Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 4, Visual Aids.

[…]

(k) The elements here above can be applied to solar panels. The following assumptions can be made:

(1) solar panels are inclined so as to efficiently capture the sunlight, conducting to a range of cross section surfaces;

(2) the maximum acceptable luminance value has been fixed to 20 000 cd/m2; and

(23) the surfaces varied from 100 m2 to several hectares.

[…]

Rationale

The value for the maximum acceptable luminance value is proposed to be removed since it needs to be

updated to reflect real-world conditions. This will be done through rulemaking task RMT.0751,

Protection of aerodrome surroundings. Point (b) is amended to include the reference to the

corresponding ICAO Document for further guidance.

CS ADR-DSN.M.630 Precision approach Category I lighting system

[…]

(c) Characteristics:

[…]

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 11 of 33

An agency of the European Union

(2) Where the serviceability level of the approach lights specified as a maintenance objective in ADR.OPS.C.015 (b)(6) can be demonstrated, each centre line light position should consist of either:

(i) a single light source; or

(ii) a barrette.

When barrettes are composed of lights approximating to point sources, the lights should be uniformly spaced at intervals of not more than 1.5 m. The barrettes should be at least 4 m in length.

[…]

Rationale

The reference to ADR.OPS.C.015 is proposed to be amended for additional clarity.

CS ADR-DSN.M.635 Precision approach Category II and III lighting system

(a) Location and composition:

(1) The approach lighting system should consist of a row of lights on the extended centre line of the runway, extending, wherever possible, over a distance of 900 m from the runway threshold. In addition, the system should have two side rows of lights, extending 270 m from the threshold, and two crossbars, one at 150 m and one at 300 m from the threshold, all as shown in Figure M-3A. Where the serviceability level of the approach lights specified as maintenance objectives in ADR.OPS.C.015 (b)(1) to (b)(3) can be demonstrated, the system may have two side rows of lights extending 240 m from the threshold, and two crossbars, one at 150 m, and one at 300 m from the threshold, all as shown in Figure M-3B.

[…]

(3) The lights forming the side rows should be placed on each side of the centre line, at a longitudinal spacing equal to that of the centre line lights and with the first light located 30 m from the threshold. Where the serviceability level of the approach lights specified as maintenance objectives in ADR.OPS.C.015 (b)(1) to (b)(3) can be demonstrated, lights forming the side rows may be placed on each side of the centre line, at a longitudinal spacing of 60 m with the first light located 60 m from the threshold. The lateral spacing (or gauge) between the innermost lights of the side rows should be not less than 18 m nor more than 22.5 m, and preferably 18 m, but in any event should be equal to that of the touchdown zone lights.

[…]

(b) Characteristics:

(1) The centre line of a precision approach Category II and III lighting system for the first 300 m from the threshold should consist of barrettes showing variable white, except that where the threshold is displaced 300 m or more, the centre line may consist of single light sources showing variable white. Where the serviceability level of the approach lights specified in ADR.OPS.C.015 (b)(1) to (b)(3) can be demonstrated, the centre line of a

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 12 of 33

An agency of the European Union

precision approach Category II and III lighting system for the first 300 m from the threshold may consist of:

[…]

[…]

(3) Where the serviceability level of the approach lights in ADR.OPS.C.015 (b)(1) to (b)(3) as maintenance objectives can be demonstrated beyond 300 m from the threshold, each centre line light position may consist of either:

(i) a barrette; or

(ii) a single light source;

all of which should show variable white.

[…]

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 13 of 33

An agency of the European Union

300

Figure M-3B. Inner 300 m approach and runway lighting for precision approach runways, Categories II and III, where the serviceability levels of the lights specified as maintenance objectives in ADR.OPS.C.015(b)(1) to (3) can be demonstrated.

Rationale

See rationale for CS ADR-DSN.M.690 for the proposed change of the RVR from 350 m to 300 m on

Figure M-3B. The references to ADR.OPS.C.015 are proposed to be amended for additional clarity.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 14 of 33

An agency of the European Union

CS ADR-DSN.M.685 Runway end lights

[…]

Figure M-8. Example of approach and runway lighting for runway with displaced thresholds

Rationale

Figure M-8 is amended to display yellow instead of white runway edge lights as required by point

(c)(1) of CS ADR-DSN.M.675.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 15 of 33

An agency of the European Union

CS ADR-DSN.M.690 Runway centre line lights

[…]

(c) Location: Runway centre line lights should be located along the centre line of the runway, except that the lights may be uniformly offset to the same side of the runway centre line by not more than 60 cm where it is not practicable to locate them along the centre line. The lights should be located from the threshold to the end at longitudinal spacing of approximately 15 m. Where the serviceability level of the runway centre line lights specified as maintenance objectives in ADR.OPS.C.015(b)(1) to (b)(3) or (b)(7) can be demonstrated, and the runway is intended for use in runway visual range conditions of 350 300 m or greater, the longitudinal spacing may be approximately 30 m.

[…]

Rationale

The proposed change (stemming from ICAO State Letter 25/23 - Amendment 18 to Annex 14, Vol I)

ensures that the spacing of the runway centre line lights is aligned with the CAT II RVR definition.

Furthermore, point (b)(7) is added to ADR.OPS.C.015. The longitudinal spacing of the runway centre

line lights may be approx. 30 m also for a runway meant for take-off in runway visual range conditions

less than a value of 550 m and where the maintenance objectives of point (b)(7) can be demonstrated.

GM1 ADR-DSN.M.700 Rapid exit taxiway indicator lights (RETILs)

[…]

(b) Rapid exit taxiway indicator lights should be considered on a runway intended for use in runway visual range conditions less than a value of 350 300 m where the traffic density is heavy.

[…]

Rationale

The proposed change (stemming from ICAO State Letter 25/23 - Amendment 18 to Annex 14, Vol I)

ensures the provision of RETILS aligned with the CAT II RVR definition. See also rationale provided for

CS ADR-DSN.M.710.

CS ADR-DSN.M.710 Taxiway centre line lights

[…]

(b) Applicability:

(1) Taxiway centre line lights should be provided on an exit taxiway, taxiway, de-icing/anti- icing facility, and apron intended for use in runway visual range conditions less than a value of 350 300 m in such a manner as to provide continuous guidance between the runway centre line and aircraft stands, except that these lights need not be provided where the traffic density is light and taxiway edge lights, and centre line marking provide adequate guidance.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 16 of 33

An agency of the European Union

(2) Taxiway centre line lights should be provided on a taxiway intended for use at night in runway visual range conditions of 350 300 m or greater, and particularly on complex taxiway intersections and exit taxiways, except that these lights need not be provided where taxiway edge lights, and centre line marking provide adequate guidance.

[…]

(4) Taxiway centre line lights should be provided on a runway forming part of a standard taxi- route and intended for taxiing in runway visual range conditions less than a value of 350 300 m, except that these lights need not be provided where the traffic density is light and taxiway edge lights, and centre line marking provide adequate guidance.

[…]

(c) Characteristics:

[…]

(4) Taxiway centre line lights should be in accordance with the specifications in CS ADR-DSN.U.940, Figure U-16, U-17, or U-18, as appropriate, for taxiways intended for use in runway visual range conditions of less than a value of 350 300 m; Figure U-19 or Figure U-20, as appropriate, for other taxiways.

(5) Where higher intensities are required, from an operational point of view, taxiway centre line lights on rapid exit taxiways intended for use in runway visual range conditions less than a value of 350 300 m should be in accordance with the specifications in CS ADR-DSN.U.940, Figure U-16. The number of levels of brilliancy settings for these lights should be the same as that for the runway centre line lights.

[…]

[…]

Rationale

According to ICAO, a study performed in a certified simulator provided evidence that flight crew could

maintain positive centre line guidance in conditions down to 300 m RVR on taxiways originally designed

to 350 m RVR specifications.

Mathematical comparisons also indicate that a human is not visually able to identify the difference

between an RVR of 350 m and 300 m with a taxiway centre line lighting of 30 m across all lighting

intensities.

Taxiway infrastructure harmonisation will:

a) not result in any change to the 300 m CAT II RVR value;

b) remove existing conflict and resultant ambiguity, between runway capability and supporting

aerodrome visual aid infrastructure; and

c) eliminate missed approaches and their associated risk, as well as diversions in conditions where a

landing can be carried out, but the aircraft cannot taxi to the apron as the taxiway lighting system is

not compliant with operations below RVR 350 m despite the runway being compliant with CAT II RVR.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 17 of 33

An agency of the European Union

CS ADR-DSN.M.715 Taxiway centre line lights on taxiways, runways, rapid exit taxiways, or on other exit taxiways

[…]

(b) Taxiway centre line lights on taxiways:

(1) Taxiway centre line lights on a straight section of a taxiway should be spaced at longitudinal intervals of not more than 30 m, except that:

(i) intervals less than 30 m should be provided on short straight sections; and

(ii) on a taxiway intended for use in RVR conditions of less than a value of 350 300 m, the longitudinal spacing should not exceed 15 m.

[…]

(3) On a taxiway curve the spacing of taxiway centre line lights should be as specified in the Table M-3.

RVR Radius of taxiway curve

Taxiway centre line lights spacing on taxiway curves

< 350 300 m

< 400 m Not greater than7.5 m. This spacing should extend for 60 m before and after the curve.

> 400 m Not greater than 15 m

> 350 300 m

< 400 m Not greater than 7.5 m

401 m to 899 m Not greater than 15 m

> 900 m Not greater than 30 m

Table M-3. Taxiway centre line lights spacing on taxiway curves

[…]

(e) Taxiway centre line lights on runways: Taxiway centre line lights on a runway forming part of a standard taxi-route, and intended for taxiing in runway visual range conditions less than a value of 350 300 m should be spaced at longitudinal intervals not exceeding 15 m.

[…]

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 18 of 33

An agency of the European Union

Figure M-10. Taxiway lighting

Rationale

For the proposed changes to points (b)(1), (b)(3) and (e) see rationale for CS ADR-DSN.M.710.

Figure M-10 is amended to ensure the correct depiction of the taxiway centreline lights pattern in line

with CS ADR-DSN.M.710.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 19 of 33

An agency of the European Union

CS ADR-DSN.M.725 Runway turn pad lights

[…]

(b) Applicability:

(1) Runway turn pad lights should be provided for continuous guidance on a runway turn pad intended for use in runway visual range conditions less than a value of 350 300 m to enable an aeroplane to complete a 180-degree turn, and align with the runway centre line.

[…]

[…]

Rationale

See rationale for CS ADR-DSN.M.710.

CS ADR-DSN.M.735 Intermediate holding position lights

(a) Applicability:

(1) Except where a stop bar has been installed, intermediate holding position lights should be provided at an intermediate holding position intended for use in runway visual range conditions less than a value of 350 300 m.

[…]

[…]

Rationale

See rationale for CS ADR-DSN.M.710.

GM1 ADR-DSN.M.770 Road-holding position light

Where a road intersects a taxiway where operationally required, a suitable holding position light may

be located adjacent to the road-holdingway/taxiway intersection position marking 1.5 m (±0.5 m)

from one edge of the road, i.e. left or right as appropriate to the local road traffic regulations.

Rationale

‘Taxiway intersection marking’ is proposed to be replaced by the correct datum for the placement of

the light, i.e. ‘road-holding position marking’ (in line with point (b) of CS ADR-DSN.M.770). See also the

rationale provided for GM2 ADR.OPS.A.005(a).

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 20 of 33

An agency of the European Union

CS ADR-DSN.N.775 General

[…]

(b) Applicability:

[…]

(2) A variable message sign should be provided where:

(i) the instruction or information displayed on the sign is relevant only during a certain period of time; and/or

(ii) there is a need for variable predetermined information to be displayed on the sign to meet the requirements of the implementation of surface movement guidance and control system (SMGCS) at an aerodrome. ;and/or

(iii) there is an operational need to indicate temporarily closed or restricted areas, as well as to provide information on operational restrictions to aerodrome users.

(c) Characteristics:

(1) Signs should be frangible. Those located near a runway or taxiway should be sufficiently low to preserve clearance for propellers and the engine pods of jet aircraft. The installed height of the sign should not exceed the dimension shown in the appropriate column of Table N-1, except for runway distance remaining signs (see CS ADR-DSN.N.801).

(2) Mandatory instruction signs and information Ssigns should be rectangular, as shown in Figures N-4 and N-6 with the longer side horizontal.

[…]

(7) The taxiing guidance signs should be in accordance with the specifications of paragraphs (c)(8) to (c)(22).

(87) The location distance for taxiing guidance signs including runway exit signs should conform to Table N-1.

Sign height (mm) Perpendicular distance from defined taxiway pavement

edge to near side of sign

Perpendicular distance from defined runway pavement edge to near side of sign Runway

code number

Legend Face (min)

Installed (max)

1 or 2 200 400 300 700 5–11 m 3–10 m

1 or 2 300 600 450 900 5–11 m 3–10 m

3 or 4 300 600 450 900 11–21 m 8–15 m

3 or 4 400 800 600 1 100 11–21 m 8–15 m

Table N-1. Location distances for taxiing guidance signs including runway exit signs

(98) Inscription heights should conform to the Table N-2.

[…]

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 21 of 33

An agency of the European Union

(109) Where a taxiway location sign is installed in conjunction with a runway designation sign (see CS ADR-DSN.N.785(b)(9)), the character size should be that specified for mandatory instruction signs.

(1110) The dimensions should be as follows for:

[…]

(1211) Sign luminance should be as follows:

[…]

(1312) The luminance ratio between red and white elements of a mandatory instruction sign should be between 1:5 and 1:10.

(1413) The average luminance of the sign is calculated by establishing grid points as shown in Figure N-1, and using the luminance values measured at all grid points located within the rectangle representing the sign.

(1514) The average value is the arithmetic average of the luminance values measured at all considered grid points.

(1615) The ratio between luminance values of adjacent grid points should not exceed 1.5:1. For areas on the sign face where the grid spacing is 7.5 cm, the ratio between luminance values of adjacent grid points should not exceed 1.25:1. The ratio between the maximum and minimum luminance value over the whole sign face should not exceed 5:1.

(1716) The forms of characters, i.e. letters, numbers, arrows, and symbols for mandatory instruction and information signs should conform to those shown in Figures N-2A to N- 2H. The width of characters and the space between individual characters should be determined as indicated in Table N-3.

(1817) The face height of signs should be as follows:

Legend height Face height (min)

200 mm 400 300 mm

300 mm 600 450 mm

400 mm 800 600 mm

(1918) The face width of mandatory instruction and information signs should be determined using Figure N-3 except that, where a mandatory instruction sign is provided on one side of a taxiway only, the face width should not be less than:

(i) 1.94 m where the code number is 3 or 4; and

(ii) 1.46 m where the code number is 1 or 2.

(19) The face width of RDRS should be determined using Figure N-4.

[…]

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 22 of 33

An agency of the European Union

Note: ‘H’ stands for the inscription height. Figure N-3. Sign dimensions

Note: ‘H’ stands for the inscription height. Figure N-4. Sign dimensions for RDRS

[…]

Rationale

A new point (b)(2)(iii) is added in line with point (g) of ADR.OPS.B.071.

The remaining proposed changes (stemming from ICAO State Letter 25/23 - Amendment 18 to Annex 14, Vol I) to point (c) are necessary due to the introduction of the RDRS, while the proposed changes to the face height of the signs (stemming from ICAO State Letter 20/35 - Amendment 15 to Annex 14, Vol I) ensure alignment with the corresponding SARPS of ICAO Annex 14, Vol I.

GM1 ADR-DSN.N.775 General

[…]

(e) Guidance on the width of characters and the space between individual characters for RDRS is contained in the Aerodrome Design Manual (Doc 9157), Part 4, Visual Aids.

Rationale

See rationale provided for CS ADR-DSN.N.775.

H/4 (min)

H/4 (min) H/4 (min)

H/4 (min)

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 23 of 33

An agency of the European Union

CS ADR-DSN.N.800 Road-holding position sign

[…]

(c) Where a road intersects a taxiway, a suitable sign may be located adjacent to the road- holdingway/taxiway intersection position marking 1.5 m from one edge of the road, i.e. left or right as appropriate to the local road traffic regulations.

Rationale

See rationale provided for GM1 ADR-DSN.M.770.

CS ADR-DSN.N.801 Runway distance remaining signs (RDRS)

(a) Applicability:

(1) The inclusion of detailed specification for RDRS is not intended to imply that RDRS have

to be provided at an aerodrome.

(2) Where installed, the purpose of RDRSs is to provide pilots with distance-to-go

information to the extremity of the runway, to enhance situational awareness and enable

pilots to decide whether to commence a go-around or to apply braking action for more

efficient rollout and runway exit speeds.

(b) Location:

(1) Where provided, RDRS should be located on one side of the runway, relative to the

direction of operation (take-off or landing). RDRS should be placed along the full length

of the runway, at longitudinal spacing of approximately 300 m (±30 m), parallel and

equidistant from the runway centre line as shown in Figure N-8. An RDRS may be omitted

if the sign cannot be placed within the tolerance of ±30 m.

(2) Displaced threshold areas that are used for take-off and/or roll-out should be treated as

part of the runway for purposes of locating the signs.

(3) RDRS should be placed outside the edges of the runway at a distance shown in Table N-

4.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 24 of 33

An agency of the European Union

Note 1. Example based on a 1950 m runway length.

Note 2. Signs less than 300 m from the take-off end as indicated by asterisks(*) may be omitted.

Figure N-8. Runway distance remaining signs

(c) Characteristics:

(1) Where provided, an RDRS should be single faced, consisting of an inscription in white on

a black background.

(2) The installed height of an RDRS should not exceed the dimension shown in the

appropriate column of Table N-4.

(3) All RDRSs on one runway should be of the same size.

Sign height (mm) Perpendicular distance from defined runway pavement edge to near side of sign Runway

code number

Legend Face (min)

Installed (max)

1 or 2 640 760 1 070 6–10.5 m

3 or 4 1 000 1 200 1 520 15–22.5 m

3 or 4 1 200 1 500 1 600 25 m or more

Table N-4. Location distances for RDRS

GM1 ADR-DSN.N.801 Runway distance remaining signs (RDRS)

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 25 of 33

An agency of the European Union

(a) RDRSs do not have to be provided at all aerodromes. An aerodrome operator considering the

installation of such signs may wish to assess their need, depending on factors such as aircraft

type (e.g. frequent turbojet aircraft operations, including military), runway length, aerodrome

elevation, aerodrome geometry, traffic levels, existing visual cues (e.g., runway edge lights,

centreline lights, runway markings), lack of runway end safety area, lack of runway friction and

climate. Aerodrome safety committees such as the local runway safety team (LRST) may be of

assistance in this process (see ADR.OR.D.027) together with the aerodrome’s competent

authority.

(b) Runway excursions may take place in all visibility or weather conditions. The use of RDRS signs

may be an effective runway excursion prevention measure. RDRS can provide pilots with

additional distance-related information, which can be crucial for decision-making during

approach and landing. When combined with existing visual cues (e.g., runway edge lights,

centreline lights, runway markings), RDRS can enhance situational awareness by providing

additional runway distance data, allowing pilots to better assess the runway length remaining

for landing or take-off. It is essential that pilots operating at aerodromes with RDRS be familiar

with the purpose of these signs.

(c) Declared distances do not affect the location of runway distance remaining signs.

(d) Guidance on installing RDRSs is given in the Aerodrome Design Manual (Doc 9157), Part 4.

(e) Provisions related to the identification of hazards and management of safety risks, including the

need for safety risk assessment related to runway safety, is available in PANS-Aerodromes (Doc

9981), Chapter 8.

Rationale

EASA is proposing to follow the same approach as ICAO (stemming from ICAO State Letter 25/23 -

Amendment 18 to Annex 14, Vol I), i.e. not to mandate the compulsory installation of RDRS at all

aerodromes. Instead, aerodrome operators should assess the need individually and discuss it in the

local runway safety team (LRST) as well as with their competent authority.

The proposed specifications for the location and characteristics are in line with the corresponding

SARPS of ICAO Annex 14, Vol I, with one exception: while ICAO is providing the possibility to choose

from 3 different configurations, EASA is proposing the one according to Figure N-8 (corresponding to

Configuration C of ICAO Annex 14, Vol I). The advantage of this configuration is that the runway

distance remaining is more accurately reflected for a runway length that is not an exact multiple of

300 m. Additionally, this configuration is better correlated with the colour coding of the runway edge

and centreline lights.

A pre-NPA consultation with the Commercial Aviation Community Steering Group (CA.CSTG), showed

that the organisations of this group (in particular flight crew ones) support the implementation of the

RDRS. When combined with existing visual cues (e.g., runway edge lights, centreline lights, runway

markings), RDRS can enhance situational awareness by providing additional runway distance data,

allowing pilots to better assess the runway length remaining for landing or take-off. However, to

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 26 of 33

An agency of the European Union

maximise the effectiveness of RDRS, training for the flight crews on how to interpret and use the signs

is essential.

CS ADR-DSN.Q.846 Lighting of fixed objects

[…]

(b) Low-intensity obstacle lights, Types A, B, C, and D and E, medium-intensity obstacle lights, Types A, B and C and high-intensity obstacle lights Types A and B, should be in accordance with the specifications in Table Q-1, CS ADR-DSN.U.930 and Figure U-1A or U-1B, as appropriate..

[…]

Rationale

Point (b) is amended to ensure that all types of lights are listed, including Type E which is already

included in Table Q-1.

CS ADR-DSN.R.855 Closed runways and taxiways, or parts thereof

(a) Closed runway and taxiway markings

Characteristics of closed markings: The closed marking should be of the form and proportions as detailed in Figure R-1, Illustration (a), when displayed on a runway, and should be of the form and proportions as detailed in Figure R-1, Illustration (b), when displayed on a taxiway. The marking should be white when displayed on a runway and should be yellow when displayed on a taxiway.

[…]

(b) Closed runway lighting

(1) Form and proportions: The closed runway lighting as viewed by the pilot should be of the

equivalent elevated form and proportions as detailed in Figure R-2, showing a minimum

of five lights uniformly spaced on each branch, with a minimum interval as specified by

Table R-2.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 27 of 33

An agency of the European Union

Figure R-2. Example of equivalent elevated closed runway lighting with five lights per branch

Number of lights per branch Minimum interval between centre of lights

5 1.5 m

7 1.0 m

9 0.8 m

Table R-1. Minimum interval between closed runway lights centres

(2) Lights characteristics:

(i) Closed runway lights should show flashing variable white in the direction of

approach to the runway.

(ii) Closed runway lights should simultaneously flash at a rate of one second on and

one second off.

(iii) Closed runway lights should automatically revert to fixed lights in the event of the

flashing system failure.

(iv) Closed runway lights should be in accordance with the specifications in CS ADR-

DSN.U.940, Figure U-30 and be able to switch between day and night intensities.

(v) Closed runway lights chromaticity should be in accordance with the specifications

in CS ADR-DSN.U.930 and Figure U-1A or U-1B, as appropriate.

(3) Elevated panels:

(i) The elevated panels of the closed runway lights should provide means for adjusting

and levelling to allow tilting to an angle of approximately 5 degrees from vertical.

(ii) The elevated panels of the closed runway lights should be frangible.

(4) Electrical system:

(i) The closed runway lighting should be provided with primary and secondary power

supply.

(ii) The electrical systems for the power supply and the control of the closed runway

lighting should be so designed that the closed runway lighting system is operated

independently of runway lighting systems.

(iii) The electrical circuit should be designed in such a way that the failure of a light

does not lead to the extinguishment of the assembly.

(iv) The maximum switch-over time between the primary and the secondary power

supply should be 15 seconds.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 28 of 33

An agency of the European Union

(5) Monitoring system: A system of monitoring should be employed to indicate the

operational status of the closed runway lighting.

Rationale

See rationale for point (f) of ADR.OPS.B.071.

The runway closed lighting has already been in use before the introduction of the dedicated SARPS in

Annex 14, Volume I (ICAO State Letter 25/23 – Amendment 18) with different variations of the design

characteristics. The proposed certification specifications were developed to accommodate these

existing systems where possible, while ensuring harmonisation with the new ICAO SARPS.

GM2 ADR-DSN.R.855 Closed runways and taxiways, or parts thereof

Closed runway lighting

A closed runway lighting is provided in accordance with ADR.OPS.B.071.

The closed runway lighting may be either fixed or mobile. The fixed version is characterised by lights provided on the runway surface usually connected to the aerodrome’s electrical system, while the mobile version is characterised by lights mounted on elevated panels powered by an external source (e.g. generator, battery, etc.).

The fixed closed runway lighting may be formed as if shadowed (i.e. stretched) from the equivalent elevated structure (see Appendix 3, Note 3). Guidance on the sizing of a fixed closed runway lighting is given in the Aerodrome Design Manual (Doc 9157), Part 4.

Where the closed runway lighting has its own primary and secondary power supply, the power supply is capable of a minimum of 24 hours continuous operation.

Guidance on the frangible design of visual and non-visual aids for navigation is given in the ICAO Doc 9157, Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 5, Electrical Systems.

The closed runway lighting is designed to resist to winds of at least 60 km/h and operate at temperatures between -40◦ C and +55◦ C.

Rationale

See rationale for point (b) of CS ADR-DSN.R.855.

CS ADR-DSN.U.940 Aeronautical ground light characteristics

Figure U-5. Isocandela diagram for approach centre line light and crossbars (white light)

Notes:

[…]

(d) See collective notes for Figures U-5 to U-15, U-29 and U-30.

Figure U-6. Isocandela diagram for approach side row light (red light)

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 29 of 33

An agency of the European Union

Notes:

[…]

(d) See collective notes for Figures U-5 to U-15, U-29 and U-30.

Figure U-7. Isocandela diagram for threshold light (green light)

Notes:

[…]

(c) See collective notes for Figures U-5 to U-15, U-29 and U-30.

[…]

Figure U-8. Isocandela diagram for threshold wing bar light (green light)

Notes:

[…]

(c) See collective notes for Figures U-5 to U-15 , U-29 and U-30.

[…]

Figure U-9. Isocandela diagram for touchdown zone light (white light)

Notes:

[…]

(c) See collective notes for Figures U-5 to U-15 , U-29 and U-30.

Figure U-10. Isocandela diagram for runway centre line light with 30 m longitudinal spacing (white light) and rapid exit taxiway indicator light (yellow light)

Notes:

[...]

(d) See collective notes for Figures U-5 to U-15 , U-29 and U-30.

Figure U-11. Isocandela diagram for runway centre line light with 15 m longitudinal spacing (white light) and rapid exit taxiway indicator light (yellow light)

Notes:

[…]

(d) See collective notes for Figures U-5 to U-15 , U-29 and U-30.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 30 of 33

An agency of the European Union

Figure U-12. Isocandela diagram for runway end light (red light)

Notes:

[…]

(b) See collective notes for Figures U-5 to U-15 , U-29 and U-30.

Figure U-13. Isocandela diagram for runway edge light where width of runway is 45 m (white light)

Notes:

[…]

(e) See collective notes for Figures U-5 to U-15 , U-29 and U-30.

Figure U-14. Isocandela diagram for runway edge light where width of runway is 60 m (white light)

Notes:

[…]

(e) See collective notes for Figures U-5 to U-15, U-29 and U-30.

[...]

Collective notes to Figures U-5 to U-15, U-29 and U-30

[…]

(b) Figures U-5 to U-14 as well as Figure U-29, show the minimum allowable light intensities. The average intensity of the main beam is calculated by establishing grid points as shown in Figure U-15 and using the intensity value measures at all grid points located within and on the perimeter of the ellipse representing the main beam. The average value is the arithmetic average of light intensities measured at all considered grid points.

[…]

(d) Average intensity ratio. The ratio between the average intensity within the ellipse defining the main beam of a typical new light and the average light intensity of the main beam of a new runway edge light should be as follows:

The average intensity within the ellipse defining the main beam of a new light is established as a ratio of the minimum (1.0) average intensity of a new runway edge light. The ratios also define the maximum allowed main beam average intensity for the lights in the lighting system supporting runway operations.

Figure U-5 Approach centre line and crossbars 1.5 to 2.0

2.0 to 3.0

(white light)

Figure U-6 Approach side row 0.5 to 1.0 (red light)

Figure U-7 Threshold 1.0 to 1.5 (green light)

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 31 of 33

An agency of the European Union

Figure U-8 Threshold wing bar 1.0 to 1.5 (green light)

Figure U-9 Touchdown zone 0.5 to 1.0 (white light)

Figure U-10 Runway centre line (longitudinal spacing 30 m) 0.5 to 1.0 (white light)

Figure U-11 Runway centre line (longitudinal spacing 15 m) 0.5 to 1.0

for CAT III

(white light)

0.25 to 0.5

for CAT I, II

(white light)

Figure U-12 Runway end 0.25 to 0.5 (red light)

Figure U-13 Runway edge (45 m runway width) 1.0 to 1.5 (white light)

Figure U-14 Runway edge (60 m runway width) 1.0 to 1.5 (white light)

[…]

Figure U-16. Isocandela diagram for taxiway centre line (15 m spacing), RELs, no-entry bar, and stop bar lights in straight sections intended for use in runway visual range conditions of less than a value of 350 300 m where large offsets can occur and for low-intensity runway guard lights, Configuration B

[…]

Figure U-17. Isocandela diagram for taxiway centre line (15 m spacing), no-entry bar, and stop bar lights in straight sections intended for use in runway visual range conditions of less than a value of 350 300 m

[…]

Figure U-18. Isocandela diagram for taxiway centre line (7.5 m spacing), RELs, no-entry bar, and stop bar lights in curved sections intended for use in runway visual range conditions of less than a value of 350 300 m

[…]

Figure U-19. Isocandela diagram for taxiway centre line (30 m, 60 m spacing), no-entry bar, and stop bar lights in straight sections intended for use in runway visual range conditions of 350 300 m or greater

[…]

Figure U-20. Isocandela diagram for taxiway centre line (7.5 m, 15 m, 30 m spacing), no-entry bar, and stop bar lights in curved sections intended for use in runway visual range conditions of 350 300 m or greater

[…]

Figure U-29. Isocandela diagram for take-off and hold lights (THL) (red light)

Notes:

[…]

(b) See collective notes for Figures U-5 to U-15 and Figure U-29 ,U-29 and U-30.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 32 of 33

An agency of the European Union

Figure U-30. Isocandela diagram for closed runway lights (white light)

Notes:

(a) Curves calculated on formula

2

2 + 2

2 = 1

(b) N is the total number of lights of the closed runway lighting.

(c) See collective notes for Figures U-5 to U-15, U-29 and U-30.

Rationale

See rationale for CS ADR-DSN.M.690 and GM1 ADR-DSN.M.700 regarding the changes to the RVR

value. The reference to Figure U-29 is added as it is currently missing.

The remaining proposed changes are stemming from ICAO State Letter 25/23 - Amendment 18 to

Annex 14, Vol I:

Point (d) of the collective notes to Figures U-5 to U-15 and U-29 establishes values for aeronautical

ground lights as a ratio of the minimum average intensity of a runway edge light, and is amended to

correspond with the changes to ADR.OPS.C.015.

The ratio given by point (d) does not correspond with the value in Figure U-5. This figure requires a

minimum average intensity of 20 000 cd, while point (d) requires a minimum average intensity of 1.5

times the minimum average intensity of a new runway edge light (10 000 cd) which is only 15 000 cd.

Point (d) is amended to require a minimum of 2.0 times the minimum average intensity of a new

runway edge light (10 000 cd) which is 20 000 cd and corresponds with the value in Figure U-5. As a

consequence, the current maximum value of 2.0 is also amended since this has become the minimum

value. Maintaining the current intensity difference of 1 to 2.66 (50 per cent of 1.5 to 2.0) would lead

a 10 15

b 10 15

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (D)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 33 of 33

An agency of the European Union

to a new ratio of 2.0 to 2.67. This maximum value of 2.67 is rounded to a value of 3.0. This will limit

the intensity difference to 1 to 3 (50 per cent of 2.0 to 3.0). An acceptable value, since it is used for the

threshold and using 3.0 and not 2.67 increases the ease of use of the ratios.

The ratios given by point (d) do not define a maximum intensity for the runway edge itself. It is

important to define a maximum intensity for the runway edge. This will maintain uniformity between

individual runway edge lights and maintain acceptable ratios with other lights to guarantee a uniform

image of the lighting system supporting runway operations. The intensity difference used for the

threshold, approach centre line and cross bars of 1 to 3 is used. Starting from the minimum value of

1.0 a maximum value of 1.5 for the runway edge is defined.

A new Figure U-30 is added containing the isocandela diagram for closed runway lights (white light).

GM1 ADR-DSN.U.940 Aeronautical ground light characteristics

intentionally left blank

Guidance on maintenance criteria for aeronautical ground lights and the use of a site standard is

contained in the ICAO Doc 9157, Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 4, Visual Aids.

Rationale

See rationale for CS ADR-DSN.U.940.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency

Notice of Proposed Amendment 2026-01 (E)

issued in accordance with Article 6 of Management Board Decision 01-2022

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 1 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Proposed amendments to CS-HPT-DSN

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Contents

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 2 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Contents

Proposed amendments ........................................................................................................................... 5

List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ 7

CHAPTER A — GENERAL .......................................................................................................................... 8

CS HPT-DSN.A.010 Applicability ........................................................................................................ 8

GM1 HPT-DSN.A.010 Applicability ................................................................................................ 8

CS HPT-DSN.A.020 Definitions .......................................................................................................... 9

GM1 HPT-DSN.A.020 Definitions ................................................................................................ 11

CHAPTER B — FINAL APPROACH & TAKE-OFF AND TOUCH-DOWN & LIFT-OFF AREASHELICOPTER

OPERATING AREAS ...................................................................................................................... 12

CS HPT-DSN.B.100 Final approach and take-off areas (FATOs) ...................................................... 12

GM1 HPT-DSN.B.100 Final approach and take-off areas (FATOs) .............................................. 15

GM2 HPT-DSN.B.100 Final approach and take-off areas (FATOs) .............................................. 17

CS HPT-DSN.B.110 Helicopter clearways ........................................................................................ 17

GM1 HPT-DSN.B.110 Helicopter clearways ................................................................................ 19

CS HPT-DSN.B.120 Touchdown and lift-off areas (TLOFs) .............................................................. 19

GM1 HPT-DSN.B.120 Touchdown and lift-off areas (TLOFs) ...................................................... 21

CS HPT-DSN.B.130 Safety areas ...................................................................................................... 22

GM1 HPT-DSN.B.130 Safety areas .............................................................................................. 25

CS HPT-DSN.B.140 Protected side slope ......................................................................................... 25

GM1 HPT-DSN.B.140 Protected side slope ................................................................................. 26

CHAPTER C — HELICOPTER TAXIWAYS AND TAXI-ROUTES .................................................................. 27

CS HPT-DSN.C.200 Helicopter ground taxiways and helicopter ground taxi-routes ...................... 27

GM1 HPT-DSN.C.200 Helicopter ground taxiways and helicopter ground taxi-routes .............. 30

CS HPT-DSN.C.210 Helicopter air taxiways and helicopter air taxi-routes ..................................... 30

GM1 HPT-DSN.C.210 Helicopter air taxiways and helicopter air taxi-routes ............................. 34

CS HPT-DSN.C.211 Helicopter ground taxi-routes .......................................................................... 34

GM1 HPT-DSN.C.211 Helicopter ground taxi-routes .................................................................. 35

CS HPT-DSN.C.212 Helicopter air taxi-routes .................................................................................. 35

GM1 HPT-DSN.C.212 Helicopter air taxi-routes .......................................................................... 37

CHAPTER D — HELICOPTER STANDS ..................................................................................................... 38

CS HPT-DSN.D.300 Helicopter stands ............................................................................................. 38

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Contents

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 3 of 108

An agency of the European Union

GM1 HPT-DSN.D.300 Helicopter stands ..................................................................................... 42

CS HPT-DSN.D.310 Protection areas ............................................................................................... 43

GM1 HPT-DSN.D.310 Protection area ......................................................................................... 49

CHAPTER E — OBSTACLE LIMITATION SURFACES AND REQUIREMENTS ............................................. 50

CS HPT-DSN.E.400 Applicability ...................................................................................................... 50

CS HPT-DSN.E.410 Approach surface .............................................................................................. 50

GM1 HPT-DSN.E.410 Approach surface ...................................................................................... 58

CS HPT-DSN.E.420 Take-off climb surface ...................................................................................... 59

GM1 HPT-DSN.E.420 Take-off climb surface............................................................................... 61

CS HPT-DSN.E.425 Transitional surface........................................................................................... 61

GM1 HPT-DSN.E.425 Transitional surface .................................................................................. 63

CS HPT-DSN.E.430 Obstacle limitation requirements ..................................................................... 63

GM1 HPT-DSN.E.430 Obstacle limitation requirements ............................................................. 65

CHAPTER F — VISUAL AIDS ................................................................................................................... 66

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.500 General ...................................................................................................... 66

CS HPT-DSN.F.510 Wind direction indicators ................................................................................. 66

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.510 Wind direction indicators ......................................................................... 67

CS HPT-DSN.F.520 Heliport identification marking ......................................................................... 68

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.520 Heliport identification marking ................................................................. 68

CS HPT-DSN.F.525 D-value marking ................................................................................................ 69

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.525 D-value marking ........................................................................................ 70

CS HPT-DSN.F.530 Final approach and take-off area perimeter marking or markers .................... 71

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.530 Final approach and take-off area perimeter marking or markers ............ 72

CS HPT-DSN.F.540 Final approach and take-off area designation marking .................................... 72

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.540 Final approach and take-off area designation marking ............................ 73

CS HPT-DSN.F.550 Aiming point marking ........................................................................................ 75

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.550 Aiming point marking ................................................................................ 76

CS HPT-DSN.F.560 Touchdown and lift-off area perimeter marking .............................................. 76

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.560 Touchdown and lift-off area perimeter marking ...................................... 76

CS HPT-DSN.F.570 Touchdown/positioning marking ...................................................................... 77

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.570 Touchdown/positioning marking .............................................................. 79

CS HPT-DSN.F.580 Heliport name marking ..................................................................................... 80

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Contents

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 4 of 108

An agency of the European Union

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.580 Heliport name marking ............................................................................. 80

CS HPT-DSN.F.590 Helicopter ground taxiway markings and markers ........................................... 80

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.590 Helicopter ground taxiway markings and markers ................................... 82

CS HPT-DSN.F.600 Helicopter air taxi-routeway markings and markers ........................................ 83

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.600 Helicopter air taxi-routeway markings and markers ................................ 84

CS HPT-DSN.F.610 Helicopter stand markings ................................................................................ 85

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.610 Helicopter stand markings ........................................................................ 89

CS HPT-DSN.F.620 Flight path alignment guidance marking .......................................................... 89

CS HPT-DSN.F.628 Lights - general .................................................................................................. 90

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.628 Lights - general .......................................................................................... 90

CS HPT-DSN.F.630 Approach lighting system.................................................................................. 91

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.630 Approach lighting system.......................................................................... 92

CS HPT-DSN.F.640 Flight path alignment guidance lighting system ............................................... 93

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.640 Flight path alignment guidance lighting system ....................................... 94

CS HPT-DSN.F.650 Visual alignment guidance system .................................................................... 94

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.650 Visual alignment guidance system ............................................................ 97

CS HPT-DSN.F.660 Visual approach slope indicator ........................................................................ 97

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.660 Visual approach slope indicator ................................................................ 99

CS HPT-DSN.F.670 Final approach and take-off area lighting systemsperimeter lights ............... 100

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.670 Final approach and take-off area lighting systemsperimeter lights ....... 100

CS HPT-DSN.F.680 Aiming point lights .......................................................................................... 101

CS HPT-DSN.F.690 Touchdown and lift-off area lighting system .................................................. 102

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.690 Touchdown and lift-off area lighting system .......................................... 104

CS HPT-DSN.F.695 Helicopter stand floodlighting ........................................................................ 105

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.695 Helicopter stand floodlighting ................................................................ 105

CS HPT-DSN.F.700 TaxiwayTaxi-route lights ................................................................................. 106

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.700 TaxiwayTaxi-route lights ......................................................................... 106

CS HPT-DSN.F.705 Signs ................................................................................................................ 107

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.705 Signs ........................................................................................................ 107

CS HPT-DSN.F.710 Visual aids for denoting obstacles .................................................................. 107

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.710 Visual aids for denoting obstacles .......................................................... 108

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 5 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Proposed amendments

The amendments are presented as follows:

— deleted text is struck through;

— new text is highlighted;

— an ellipsis ‘[…]’ indicates that the rest of the text is unchanged.

Where necessary, the rationale is provided in italics.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 6 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Certification Specifications

and Guidance Material

for

the design of surface-level

VFRvisual heliports located at aerodromes that fall under

the scope of

Regulation (EU) 2018/1139

(CS-HPT-DSN)

Rationale

The title of CS-HPT-DSN is amended to replace the term "VFR" with "visual." This revision serves two

purposes: first, to align with the terminology used in ICAO Annex 14, Volume II, and second, to avoid

inconsistencies arising from the new proposed design specification that are related to the use of PinS

approach and departure procedures (e.g. obstacle limitation surfaces).

See also rationale provided for CS HPT-DSN.A.010 and CS HPT-DSN.E.425.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 7 of 108

An agency of the European Union

List of abbreviations

(used in CS-HPT-DSN)

[…]

HAPI helicopter approach path indicator

HFM helicopter (aircraft) flight manual (also known as RFM)

[…]

MTOM maximum take-off mass

NVIS night vision imaging systems

OCS obstacle clearance surface

OLS obstacle limitation surface

PAPI precision approach path indicator

PinS point-in-space

PRP point-in-space reference point

RFM rotorcraft flight manual (also known as HFM)

RTOD rejected take-off distance

RTODAH rejected take-off distance available (helicopters)

TDPC touchdown/positioning circle

TDPM touchdown/positioning marking

TLOF touchdown and lift-off area

[…]

Rationale

Proposed addition of several new abbreviations that appear in CS-HPT-DSN.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 8 of 108

An agency of the European Union

CHAPTER A — GENERAL

CS HPT-DSN.A.010 Applicability

(a) The certification specifications (CSs) and the related guidance material (GM) (CS-HPT-DSN) are applicable to the design of surface-level VFRvisual heliports or parts thereof located at aerodromes that fall under the scope of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139.

[…]

Rationale

Several new provisions are proposed for inclusion in CS-HPT-DSN that are related to the use of PinS

approach and departure procedures. This is in line with the conclusions of recent aerodromes’ Advisory

Body meetings, where several Member States requested EASA to act towards the harmonisation with

the provisions of ICAO related to heliport design by a suitable transposition of the amendments of

Annex 14 Vol. II that were adopted after the first issue of the current CS-HPT-DSN. With the use of PinS

procedures, the term ‘VFR’ as an attribute of the term ‘heliports’ creates an incompatibility that can

be lifted with the use of the attribute ‘visual’. It should be mentioned that heliports utilising instrument

procedures other than PinS approach or departure procedures are still excluded.

GM1 HPT-DSN.A.010 Applicability

(a) The CSs and the related GM are applicable to the design of surface-level VFRvisual heliports, including those that are not open for public use or for commercial air transport, which are located at aerodromes that fall under the scope of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139.

(b) The dimensions included in the CS-HPT-DSN are based on consideration of single-main-rotor helicopters. For tandem-rotor helicopters the heliport design can be based on a case-by-case review of the specific models using the basic requirement for a safety area and protection areas specified in the Certifications Specifications.

(c) Several certification specifications, that are relevant to the areas intended to be used exclusively by helicopters within an aerodrome, are not included in the CS-HPT-DSN, but can be found in CS-ADR-DSN. Among these, Chapters M ‘Visual aids for navigation (lights)’ and N ‘Visual aids for navigation (signs)’ are of high importance.

Rationale

The substitution of the term ‘VFR’ with the term ‘visual’ in the existing GM is proposed to avoid any

misconception regarding the applicability of the present CS.

The addition of the second paragraph is proposed for clarity regarding the types of helicopters that the

Certifications Specifications are suitable for, and the steps to be followed in case a heliport is intended

to be used by tandem-rotor of helicopters.

Point (c) is proposed to be added as a guidance to the heliport designers and operators and to highlight

the fact that – since the present CS-HPT-DSN are applicable to heliports within aerodromes – it is

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 9 of 108

An agency of the European Union

imperative that the CS-ADR-DSN are also considered. See also the rationale under GM1 HPT-

DSN.F.628.

CS HPT-DSN.A.020 Definitions

For the purposes of CS-HPT-DSN, the following definitions should apply:

‘Ascent/Descent surface’ means an inclined plane or complex surface that slopes upward from the centre of the FATO to indicate the path helicopters are expected to follow when vertical procedures are utilized. It can consist of:

— an inverted triangle when there is no lateral component; or

— an inverted conical surface when there is a lateral component.

[…]

Note: ‘D’ is sometimes referred to in the text using the term ‘D-value’.

‘D-value’ means a limiting dimension, in terms of ‘D’, for a heliport or for a defined area within.

‘Declared distances’ — heliports means:

— Take-off distance available (TODAH). The length of the FATO plus the length of helicopter clearway or elevated helicopter clearway (if provided) declared available and suitable for helicopters to complete the take-off.

[…]

‘Design D’ means the D of the design helicopter.

‘Dynamic load-bearing surface’ means a surface capable of supporting the loads generated by a helicopter conducting an emergency touchdown on itin motion.

‘Elevated helicopter clearway’ means a helicopter clearway that has been raised to a level that provides obstacle clearance.

‘Elongated’, when used with TLOF or FATO, means an area which has a length more than twice its width.

[…]

‘Helicopter air taxiway’ means a defined path on the surface established for the air taxiing of helicopters.

‘Helicopter clearway’ means a defined area on the ground or water, selected and/or prepared as a suitable area over which a helicopter operated in performance class 1 may accelerate and achieve a specific heightspecified set of helicopter flight conditions.

[…]

‘Helicopter ground taxiway’ means a ground taxiway intended for the ground movement of wheeled undercarriage helicoptersdefined path on a heliport intended for the ground movement of helicopters and that may be combined with an air taxi-route to permit both ground and air taxiing.

‘Helicopter taxi-route’ means a defined path established for the movement of helicopters from one part of a heliport to another. A taxi-route includes a helicopter air or ground taxiway which is centred on the taxi-route.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 10 of 108

An agency of the European Union

— ‘Air taxi-route’ means a marked taxi-route intended for air taxiing.

— ‘Ground taxi-route’ means a taxi-route centred on a taxiway.

[…]

‘Initial departure fix (IDF)’ means the terminal fix for the visual segment and the fix where the instrument phase of the PinS departure begins.

‘Point-in-space (PinS) approach’ means an approach procedure designed for helicopters only that includes both a visual and an instrument segment.

‘Point-in-space (PinS) departure’ means a departure procedure designed for helicopters only that includes both a visual and an instrument segment.

‘Point-in-space (PinS) reference point (PRP)’ means a reference point for the point-in-space approach as identified by the latitude and longitude of the MAPt.

‘Point-in-space (PinS) visual segment’ means the segment of a helicopter PinS procedure between a point (MAPt or IDF) and the heliport.

‘Protection area’ means an area within a taxi-route and around a helicopter stand which provides separation from objects, the FATO, other taxi-routes and helicopter stands, for safe manoeuvring of helicoptersa defined area surrounding a stand intended to reduce the risk of damage from helicopters accidentally diverging from the stand.

[…]

‘Touchdown/positioning circle (TDPC)’ means a touchdown positioning marking (TDPM) in the form of a circle used for omnidirectional positioning in a TLOF.

‘Touchdown/positioning marking (TDPM)’ means a marking or set of markings providing visual cues for the positioning of helicopters.

‘Vertical procedures’ means take-off and landing procedures that include an initial vertical or steep climb and a final vertical or steep descent profile. The profile may or may not include a lateral component.

[…]

Rationale

The addition, amendment or deletion of definitions are proposed to maintain coherence with the ICAO

definitions that stem from amendments 9 and 10 of Annex 14, Vol. II.

The main additions are related to the potential existence of vertical procedures and of PinS procedures

and provide the definitions of the terms that appear in the related requirements in the following

Chapters.

Furthermore, the term ‘elongated’ is proposed to be introduced, to allow for the relaxation of the

stringent slope requirements that are currently included in the CS for FATOs and TLOFs.

The helicopter stand is proposed to be redefined in line with amendment 9 of Annex 14, Vol. II.

According to ICAO, the definition was amended to include the aspect of usage, since the term ‘apron’

– that contains the aspect of usage in Annex 14, Vol. I – is not included in Vol. II.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 11 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Moreover, ‘Design D’ is an attribute of the ‘design helicopter’ (see also GM1 HPT-DSN.A.020) in a set

of measurements used in the heliport design process. The note under the definition of ‘D’ is proposed

to be deleted due to the addition of a separate definition of ‘D-value’.

The proposed inclusion of the terms ‘touchdown/positioning circle (TDPC)’ and ‘touchdown/positioning

marking (TDPM)’ clarifies the objective and nature of the corresponding markings and highlights their

difference.

The definitions of taxiway, taxi-route, air taxi-route and ground taxi-route are proposed to be amended

in line with the change of usage. The simplification of the concept has allowed the removal of the term

‘helicopter air taxiway’. The taxiway is combined with a ground taxi-route to provide protection to the

whole helicopter while ground taxiing; it may also be combined with an air taxi-route to permit both

ground and air taxiing. Consequently, the definition of ‘protection area’ is proposed to be amended, so

as not to contain reference to taxi-routes. This is done with a rewording of the rest of the definition,

using the same terms as the ‘safety area’, which serves similar purpose.

GM1 HPT-DSN.A.020 Definitions

(a) Further information on operations of performance classes 1, 2 and 3 helicopters are given in Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations and in ICAO Annex 6, Operations of Aircraft, Part III, Helicopters.

(b) The design helicopter represents the largest dimensions, the greatest maximum take-off mass (MTOM) and the most critical obstacle avoidance criteria of the population of helicopters the heliport is intended to serve. For guidance on establishing a design helicopter see the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261).

(c) All runway-type FATOs are elongated, but not all elongated FATOs are runway-type FATOs.

(d) The design criteria for PinS procedures are established in the Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Aircraft Operations, Volume II (PANS-OPS, Doc 8168 – Volume II).

Rationale

The proposed addition of the ‘Design D’ definition introduces the term ‘design helicopter’. Since there

is no definition for this term, a description of what a ‘design helicopter’ is, is proposed to be added to

as point (b) of this GM, based on Note 2 of Chapter 1 of Annex 14, Vol. I, as amended by amendment

10. A reference to the Heliport Manual was also added, where more information can be found.

Proposed point (c) is based on the rationale of the state letter (SL 18/97) with which the term

‘elongated’ was introduced. It clarifies the relation between the terms ‘elongated’ and ‘runway-type’

FATO.

Furthermore, a reference to PANS-OPS Volume II was added as point (d), in relation to the proposed

addition of provisions for heliports utilising PinS procedures.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 12 of 108

An agency of the European Union

CHAPTER B — FINAL APPROACH & TAKE-OFF AND TOUCH-DOWN & LIFT-OFF AREASHELICOPTER OPERATING AREAS

Rationale

The term ‘operating area’ is not defined in the ICAO Annex 14 Vol. II or the Heliport Manual. In the

former, it is contained twice in relation to shipboard heliports only. In the latter, it is contained 15

times, but only twice in relation to onshore heliports and more precisely regarding RFFS provisions for

elevated heliports. Furthermore, it could be argued that this term also includes the taxiways, the taxi

routes, and the parking stands, which are covered in Chapters C and D.

Therefore, a new title is proposed that covers the most important of the areas that are included in

Chapter B. The fact that the rest of the areas included in the present Chapter are not mentioned in the

title should not be seen as a problem, since these areas are directly associated with the ones

mentioned. This arrangement has its equivalent in Chapter B of the CS-ADR-DSN: The title contains

only the term ‘runways’, but the Chapter includes provisions for the runway shoulders, runway strips

and runway turn pads.

CS HPT-DSN.B.100 Final approach and take-off areas (FATOs)

[…]

(b) Location: A FATO in proximity to other infrastructure and objects should be located so as to minimise:

(1) the influence of the surrounding environment, including structure-induced turbulence;

(2) the influence of, and on, the surrounding traffic, including wake turbulence, where simultaneous aircraft operations are intended.

(1) A FATO in proximity to other infrastructure and objects should be located so as to minimise:

(i) the influence of the surrounding environment, including structure-induced

turbulence;

(ii) the influence of, and on, the surrounding traffic, including wake turbulence, where

simultaneous aircraft operations are intended.

(2) Where a FATO is located near a runway or taxiway, and when simultaneous helicopter and aeroplane operations are planned, the separation distance between the edge of a runway or taxiway and the edge of a FATO should not be less than the appropriate dimension in Table B-1.

(3) A FATO should not be located:

(i) near taxiway intersections or holding points where jet engine efflux is likely to

cause high turbulence; or

(ii) near areas where aeroplane vortex wake generation is likely to exist.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 13 of 108

An agency of the European Union

If aeroplane mass and/or helicopter mass are Distance between FATO edge and runway edge or

taxiway edge

up to but not including 3 175 kg 60 m

3 175 kg up to but not including 5 760 kg 120 m

5 760 kg up to but not including 100 000 kg 180 m

100 000 kg and over 250 m

Note: The values specified in this table are primarily intended to mitigate risks of wake turbulence encounters. In addition to this table, when positioning a FATO intended to be used simultaneously with a nearby runway or taxiway, attention should be given to other CS ADR-DSN requirements such as the minimum runway strip width. Local environment should be taken into account when setting the separation between the FATO and nearby infrastructure elements to ensure the safety of simultaneous operations.

Table B-1. FATO edge to runway/taxiway edge minimum separation distance for simultaneous operations

(c) Characteristics:

(1) A FATO should be obstacle-free; however, when collocated with the touchdown and lift- off area (TLOF), TLOF arrays of segmented point source lighting (ASPSL) or luminescent panels (LPs) with a height not more than 5 cm can be provided for the installation of visual aids.A FATO should provide an area:

(i) free of obstacles, except for frangible essential objects which should not penetrate a horizontal plane at the FATO elevation by more than 5 cm and because of their function are located on it; and

(ii) of sufficient size and shape to ensure containment of every part of the design helicopter in the final phase of approach and commencement of take-off in accordance with the intended procedures.

(2) Where a FATO is intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 1, its minimum dimensions should be equal to:as prescribed in the helicopter (aircraft) flight manual (HFM) except that, in the absence of width specifications, the width should be not less than the greatest overall dimension (D) of the largest helicopter the FATO is intended to serve.

(i) the length of the rejected take-off distance (RTOD) for the required take-off procedure prescribed in the helicopter flight manual (HFM) of the helicopters for which the FATO is intended, or 1.5 Design D, whichever is greater; and

(ii) the width for the required procedure prescribed in the HFM of the helicopters for which the FATO is intended, or 1.5 Design D, whichever is greater.

(3) Where a FATO is intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 2 or 3, its minimum dimensions should be the lesser of:of sufficient size and shape to contain an area within which a circle can be drawn of diameter not less than:

(i) 1 D of the largest helicopter when the maximum take-off mass (MTOM) of helicopters the FATO is intended to serve is more than 3 175 kg;

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 14 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(ii) 0.83 D of the largest helicopter when the MTOM of helicopters the FATO is intended to serve is 3 175 kg or less.

(i) an area within which can be drawn a circle of diameter of 1.5 Design D; or

(ii) when there is a limitation on the direction of approach and touchdown, an area of sufficient width to meet the requirement of (c)(1) but not less than 1.5 times the overall width of the design helicopter.

(4) The surface of the FATO should:

(i) be resistant to the effects of rotor downwash;

(ii) be free of irregularities that would adversely affect the take-off or landing of helicopters;

(iii) have bearing strength sufficient to accommodate a rejected take-off by helicopters operated in performance class 1;

(iv) provide ground effect;

(v) have a mean slope in any direction which should not exceed 3 per cent; and

(vi) provide rapid drainage.

The surface of the FATO should be resistant to the effects of rotor downwash, provide ground effect, and:

(i) when collocated with a TLOF, is contiguous and flush with the TLOF, has bearing strength capable of withstanding the intended loads and ensures effective drainage; or

(ii) when not collocated with a TLOF, is free of hazards should a forced landing be required.

(5) The slope of the FATO should not exceed 2 per cent in any direction, except as provided in (i) and (ii) belowNo slope exceeding:

(i) 5 per cent where the heliport is intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 1;When the FATO is elongated and intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 1, the slope should not exceed 3 per cent overall or 5 per cent locally.

(ii) 7 per cent where the heliport is intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 2 or 3.When the FATO is elongated and intended to be used solely by helicopters operated in performance class 2 or 3, the slope should not exceed 3 per cent overall or 7 per cent locally.

(6) A FATO should be surrounded by a safety area.

Rationale

It is proposed to transfer the guidance material related to the location of a FATO to the certification

specifications. The objective is to achieve better coherence between the EASA and the ICAO regulatory

framework, considering that these two provisions are at the level of a Standard and a Recommended

Practice in Annex 14 Vol. II.

The rest of the proposed amendments of this provision are stemming from amendment 9 of Annex 14

Vol.II. In particular:

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 15 of 108

An agency of the European Union

The text of (c)(1) is proposed to be substituted by two sets of provisions. The first is related to the

requirement of the area to be free of obstacles except from frangible essential objects. This wording is

a generalisation of the old one, which referred only to visual aids and only when the FATO would be

collocated with a TLOF. The requirement for these to have a maximum height of 5 cm remains in the

new provision. The second provision is the requirement of the FATO to be of sufficient shape and size

to ensure containment of the helicopters. With the proposed wording the essence of the current text

is not changed, but at the same time the objective of the FATO becomes clearer.

The text of (c)(2) – for helicopters operated in performance class 1 – is also proposed to be substituted

by two sets of provisions. In relation to the length of the FATO, the proposed text still refers to the HFM

but also contains a minimum length of 1.5 Design D. In relation to the width, the proposed provision

contains a different minimum width of 1.5 Design D, instead of 1 D of the current provision.

Similarly, for helicopters operated in performance class 2 or 3, the minimum dimensions (length, width)

of the FATO included in (c)(3) are proposed to be increased to 1.5 Design D, when manoeuvring is not

restricted. If this is not the case, a narrower FATO might be possible. With this amendment the safety

of operations during take-off and final approach is increased and additionally alignment with Annex

14 Vol. II is maintained.

Current provision (c)(4) regarding the surface of the FATO is proposed to be reworded. The

requirements for resistance to the rotor downwash, ground effect, drainage and bearing strength

remain in this provision. Regarding the last two requirements:

- a distinction is proposed to be made for the cases of a FATO collocated or not collocated with a

TLOF and

- the applicability to only helicopters operated in PC1 for the bearing strength to be removed.

The current requirement for the FATO to be free of irregularities is covered by the proposed (c)(1) and

the proposed CS HPT-DSN.B.120(b)(1)(ii)(B). The requirement for the mean slope is proposed to be

transferred to (c)(5), since this already contains further requirements regarding the slopes.

Finally, the amended slope requirements of Annex 14 Vol. II are proposed to be included. The reduction

of the proposed maximum allowable mean slope from 3 % to 2 % is based on the fact that ICAO merged

the requirements of the elevated and the surface level heliports, partially due to lack of historical data

that would support the 3 % slope requirement. In contrast, for elongated FATOs, ICAO maintained the

3% maximum allowable mean slope considering that elongated FATOs are more challenging for the

designer.

GM1 HPT-DSN.B.100 Final approach and take-off areas (FATOs)

(a) General:

(1) A FATO may not be necessary to be provided at and aerodrome, where the runway is used for the purposes of final approach and take-off of helicopters.

(2) Where a FATO is located near a runway or taxiway, and when simultaneous helicopter and aeroplane operations are planned, the separation distance between the edge of a runway or taxiway and the edge of a FATO should not be less than the appropriate

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 16 of 108

An agency of the European Union

dimension in Table GM1-B-1.The design provisions given in CS HPT-DSN.B.100 assume that:

(i) when conducting operations to or from a FATO, no more than one helicopter will be in the FATO at the same time; and

(ii) when conducting operations to or from a FATO in proximity to another FATO, these operations will not be simultaneous. If simultaneous helicopter operations are required, appropriate separation distances between FATOs need to be determined, giving due regard to such issues as rotor downwash and airspace, and ensuring the flight paths for each FATO do not overlap.

(3) Operational limitations should be considered under certain wind conditions.

(4) Local conditions, such as elevation, temperature and permitted manoeuvring may need to be considered when determining the size of a FATO.

(5) Due consideration should be given to the effects of rotor downwash and other aspects of helicopter operations on third parties regarding the siting of a heliport and the location of the various defined areas. It must be pointed out that when helicopters are close to the ground, downwash is inherently connected to an outward flow of air (‘outwash’). Therefore, in the context of the CS-HPT-DSN the term ‘downwash’ should be understood as including also the ‘outwash’.

(6) The need for risk mitigation measures should be examined in the case of a runway-type FATO at an aerodrome having a runway with the same designation marking.

(7) An important factor affecting the selection of the siting and orientation of the FATO at a heliport is the interference of arrival and departure tracks with areas approved for residential use and other noise-sensitive areas close to the heliport.

(8) The RTOD is intended to ensure containment of the helicopter during a rejected take-off. Although some HFMs provide the RTOD, in others the dimension provided is the ‘minimum demonstrated … size’ (where ‘…’ could be ‘heliport’, ‘runway’, ‘helideck’, etc.) and this may not include helicopter containment. When this is the case, it is necessary to consider sufficient safety area dimensions as well as the dimensions of 1.5·D for the FATO, should the HFM not deliver data.

(9) Further guidance is given in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261).

If aeroplane mass and/or helicopter mass are Distance between FATO edge and runway edge or

taxiway edge

up to but not including 3 175 kg 60 m

3 175 kg up to but not including 5 760 kg 120 m

5 760 kg up to but not including 100 000 kg 180 m

100 000 kg and over 250 m

Note: The values specified in this table are primarily intended to mitigate risks of wake turbulence encounters. In addition to this table, when positioning a FATO intended to be used simultaneously with a nearby runway or taxiway, attention should be given to other CS ADR-DSN requirements such as the minimum runway strip width. Local environment should be taken into account when setting the separation between the FATO and nearby infrastructure elements to ensure the safety of simultaneous operations.

Table GM1-B-1. FATO minimum separation distance

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 17 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(b) A FATO should not be located:

(i) near taxiway intersections or holding points where jet engine efflux is likely to cause high turbulence; or

(ii) near areas where aeroplane vortex wake generation is likely to occur.

Rationale

It is proposed to add new Guidance Material based on the Notes of Annex 14 Vol. II. These are related

to factors that have to be taken into account in the process of selecting a suitable siting of the FATO

or a heliport as a whole. In comparison to the Notes of Annex 14 Vol. II, an addition is also proposed

regarding point (a)(5) and the term ‘downwash’; namely that it should be regarded in combination

with the ‘outwash’, i.e. the outward flow of air when the helicopter is close to the ground. This is an

important element that has to be considered, due to the high mean and peak velocity of the air flow

that has led to injuries in the past. (See also EPAS Vol. III, ed. 2025, SI-8041 ‘Downwash adverse

effects’.)

A further GM – not included in the Annex 14 Vol. II – is proposed in relation to the need of a safety

assessment in case of the existence of a runway-type FATO and a runway with the same designation

markings at an aerodrome.

For the proposed deletion of the GM regarding the location of a FATO, see the rational of the CS.

GM2 HPT-DSN.B.100 Final approach and take-off areas (FATOs)

(a) ‘Essential objects’ are visual aids (e.g. lighting) or others (e.g. firefighting systems) necessary for safety purposes.

(b) ‘Resistant’ implies that effects from rotor downwash neither cause a degradation of the surface nor result in flying debris.

Rationale

It is proposed to add new Guidance Material that are related to terms that appear in the proposed CS

(‘essential objects’ and ‘resistant’) and provide more insight in their context.

CS HPT-DSN.B.110 Helicopter clearways

(a) Applicability: When provided, a helicopter clearway should be located beyond the end of the FATO.The inclusion of detailed specifications for helicopter clearways in this section is not intended to imply that a clearway has to be provided.

(b) Characteristics:

(1) The width of a helicopter clearway should not be less than that of the FATO and associated safety area (see Figure B-1).

(2) A helicopter clearway should provide:

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 18 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(i) an area free of obstacles, except for frangible essential objects which because of

their function are located on it, and of sufficient size and shape to ensure

containment of the design helicopter when it is accelerating to achieve its safe

climbing speed;

(ii) when solid, a surface which is contiguous and flush with the FATO and safety area,

resistant to the effects of rotor downwash and free of hazards, if a forced landing

is required; or

(iii) when elevated, clearance above all obstacles.

(3) When a helicopter clearway is provided, the inner edge should be located:

(i) at the outer edge of the safety area; or

(ii) when elevated, directly above the outer edge of the safety area.

(2)(4) When the helicopter clearway is solid, Tthe ground in a helicopter clearway should not project above a surfaceplane having an overall upward slope of 3 per cent or having a local upward slope exceeding 5 per cent, commencing atthe lower limit of this surface being a horizontal line which is located on the periphery of the FATO.

(3)(5) An object situated in a helicopter clearway, which may endanger helicopters in the air, should be regarded as an obstacle and should be removed.

Rationale

The CS is proposed to be amended mainly with the introduction of the new provisions stemming from

both amendments 9 and 10 of Annex 14 Vol. II, in relation to the characteristics of the helicopter

clearways. In particular:

The current applicability provision contains a location requirement and is proposed to be substituted

with the statement that a clearway need not be provided. However, the current provision is not

proposed to be transferred in paragraph (b); see rationale for point (b)(3) below.

The terms ‘FATO and’ are proposed to be included in the current point (b)(1), to clarify the necessary

width.

Proposed point (b)(2) combines amendments 9 and 10 of Annex 14 Vol. II and provides the required

characteristics related to the area of the clearway, the clearway surface itself and the possibility to

define an elevated clearway, as introduced in amendment 10 of Annex 14 Vol. II.

Furthermore, the proposed point (b)(3) stems from amendment 10 of Annex 14 Vol. II and describes

more accurately the relative position of the helicopter clearway and the safety area, including the case

of the elevated helicopter clearway. The requirement that a helicopter clearway ‘should be located

beyond the end of the FATO’ is therefore no longer in line with Annex 14 Vol. II, and it is proposed to

be deleted.

Moreover, the proposed amendment of current provision (b)(2) (new point (b)(5)) – stemming from

amendment 9 pf Annex 14 Vol. II – provides consistency with the slopes of the FATO. A conditional

statement that this requirement is valid only when the helicopter clearway is solid, was also added for

clarity.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 19 of 108

An agency of the European Union

GM1 HPT-DSN.B.110 Helicopter clearways

General: A helicopter clearway would need to be considered when the heliport is intended to be used by helicopters operating in performance class 1.

Intentionally left blank

Rationale

The GM is proposed to be deleted in line with the deletion of the corresponding Note in Annex 14 Vol.

II with amendment 9, because according to ICAO it has led to misunderstanding by suggesting that

helicopter clearways are required for PC1 operations. See also the rationale for the amendment of the

CS.

CS HPT-DSN.B.120 Touchdown and lift-off areas (TLOFs)

(a) General:

(1) At least one TLOF should be provided at a heliport.

(2) One TLOF should be located within the FATO or one or more TLOFs should be collocated with helicopter stands.

(1) A heliport should be provided with at least one TLOF.

(2) A TLOF should be provided whenever it is intended that the undercarriage of the helicopter will touch down within a FATO or stand, or lift off from a FATO or stand.

(b) Characteristics:

(1) A TLOF should be of sufficient size to contain a circle of diameter of at least 0.83 D of the largest helicopter the area is intended to serve.

(2) Where the TLOF is within the FATO, the TLOF should be dynamic load-bearing.

(3) Where a TLOF is collocated with a helicopter stand, the TLOF should be static load-bearing and be capable of withstanding the traffic of the helicopters that the area is intended to serve.

(4) Slopes on a TLOF should be sufficient to prevent accumulation of water on the surface of the area and should not exceed 2 per cent in any direction.

(5) Where a TLOF is located within a FATO which can contain a circle of diameter more than 1 D, the centre of the TLOF should be located not less than 0.5 D from the edge of the FATO.

(1) A TLOF should be associated with a FATO or a stand and should provide:

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 20 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(i) an area free of obstacles and of sufficient size and shape to ensure containment of

the undercarriage of the most demanding helicopter the TLOF is intended to serve

in accordance with the intended orientation;

(ii) a surface which:

(A) has sufficient bearing strength to accommodate the dynamic loads

associated with the anticipated type of arrival of the helicopter at the

designated TLOF;

(B) is free of irregularities that would adversely affect the touchdown or lift-off

of helicopters;

(C) has sufficient friction to avoid skidding of helicopters or slipping of persons;

(D) is resistant to the effects of rotor downwash; and

(E) ensures effective drainage while having no adverse effect on the control or

stability of a helicopter during touchdown and lift-off, or when stationary.

(2) The minimum dimensions of a TLOF should be:

(i) when in a FATO intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class

1, the dimensions for the required procedure prescribed in the helicopter flight

manuals (HFMs) of the helicopters for which the TLOF is intended; and

(ii) when in a FATO intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance

classes 2 or 3, or in a stand:

(A) when there is no limitation on the direction of touchdown, of sufficient size

to contain a circle of diameter of at least 0.83 D of:

(a) in a FATO, the design helicopter; or

(b) in a stand, the largest helicopter the stand is intended to serve;

(B) when there is a limitation on the direction of touchdown, of sufficient width

to meet the requirement of (b)(1)(i) above but not less than twice the

undercarriage width (UCW) of:

(a) in a FATO, the design helicopter; or

(b) in a stand, the most demanding helicopter the stand is intended to

serve.

(3) Slopes on a TLOF should not exceed 2 per cent in any direction except as provided in (i) or (ii) below:

(i) when the TLOF is elongated and intended to be used by helicopters operated in

performance class 1; exceed 3 per cent overall, or have a local slope exceeding 5

per cent; and

(ii) when the TLOF is elongated and intended to be used solely by helicopters operated

in performance class 2 or 3, exceed 3 per cent overall, or have a local slope

exceeding 7 per cent.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 21 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(4) When a TLOF is within a FATO it should be:

(i) centred on the FATO; or

(ii) for an elongated FATO, centred on the longitudinal axis of the FATO.

(5) When a TLOF is within a helicopter stand, it should be centred on the stand.

(6) A TLOF should be provided with markings which clearly indicate the touchdown position and, by their form, any limitations on manoeuvring.

Rationale

Point (a) is proposed to be reworded for more clarity in line with Annex 14 Vol. II and considering

amendment 9 thereof.

Furthermore, the new provisions of Annex 14 Vol. II – stemming from amendment 9 – are proposed to

replace the current requirements in point (b). With the new proposed provisions, the attributes of the

TLOF are provided and the characteristics of the TLOF are better described in respect to its size, load

bearing, slopes and relative position in a FATO or a helicopter stand. In particular:

Regarding the size of the TLOF, the dimensions of a PC 1 TLOF, are based on the dimensions provided

in the HFM of the helicopter for which the TLOF is intended, while for PC2/3 TLOF the size remains at

0.83 D of the design helicopter. For the latter case, however, it is possible to reduce the width of the

TLOF to 2 UCW, if the TLOF or stand caters only for unidirectional positioning. In general, therefore,

the new proposed form of provisions offers both increased operational safety and flexibility to the

heliport designer, where this is possible.

The bearing strength is proposed to be suitable to accommodate dynamics loads both in the case of a

FATO collocated with a FATO and a stand, instead of the lower static load bearing that is now required

for the stands.

The proposed slopes in point (b)(3) ensure effective drainage and are in line with the proposed new

FATO slopes (see rationale for CS HPT-DSN.B.100).

The proposed provisions in points (b)(4) to (b)(6) regarding the relative position of the TLOF in a FATO

or a helicopter stand and the existence of the TDPM are related to ensuring the containment of the

helicopter. It should be mentioned that with the new provisions the position of the TLOF is always

centred on the FATO or the longitudinal axis of the FATO, to ensure containment.

GM1 HPT-DSN.B.120 Touchdown and lift-off areas (TLOFs)

Additional TLOFs may be located within runway-type FATOs.See CS HPT-DSN.F.570 and GM HPT-

DSN.F.570 regarding the markings that that should be used for the indication of the touchdown

position and any manoeuvring limitations.

Rationale

The provision of the current GM is proposed to be deleted, since it is incompatible with the proposed

(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the CS HPT-DSN.B.120 (see the corresponding rationale).

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 22 of 108

An agency of the European Union

In relation to point (b)(6) of the CS, a reference to the provisions regarding the touchdown/positioning

markings is proposed to be added.

CS HPT-DSN.B.130 Safety areas

(a) General: A FATO should be surrounded by a safety area which need not be solid.

(b) Characteristics:

(1) A safety area surrounding a FATO should extend outwards from the periphery of the FATO for a distance of at least 3 m or 0.25 D, whichever is greater, of the largest helicopter the FATO is intended to serve and:

(i) each external side of the safety area should be at least 2 D where the FATO is quadrilateral (see Figure B-1); or

(ii) the outer diameter of the safety area should be at least 2 D where the FATO is circular.

(i) extend outwards from the periphery of the FATO for a distance of at least 3 m or 0.25 Design D, whichever is greater (see Figure B-1); and

(ii) include the additional areas lying between the area defined in point (i) above, and the inner edge of the take-off climb/approach surfaces or the clearway(s), if the latter are provided, where:

(A) the FATO is not rectangular; or

(B) the FATO is rectangular, and the axes of the take-off climb/approach surfaces or the clearway(s) are oblique to the sides of the FATO.

(2) The surface of the safety area should be treated to prevent flying debris caused by rotor downwash.A safety area should provide an area free of obstacles, except for frangible essential objects which because of their function are located on it, to compensate for manoeuvring errors. Frangible essential objects located in the safety area should not penetrate a surface originating at the edge of the FATO at a height of 25 cm above the plane of the FATO sloping upwards and outwards at a gradient of 5 per cent.

(3) When solid, the surface of the safety area abutting the FATO should be continuous with the FATO.:

(i) where it abuts the FATO, be contiguous and flush with the FATO;

(ii) be resistant to the effects of rotor downwash;

(iii) ensure effective drainage; and

(iv) not project above a plane having an upward slope of 4 per cent, commencing at the edge of the FATO.

(4) When solid, the surface of a safety area should not project above a plane having an upward slope of 4 per cent, commencing at the periphery of the FATO.

(5) From the outer edge of the safety area to a distance of 10 m there should be a protected side slope rising at 45 degrees.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 23 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(6) The protected side slope should not be penetrated by obstacles, except that when obstacles are located to one side of the FATO only, they may be permitted to penetrate the side slope surface.

(7) No mobile object should be permitted on a safety area during helicopter operations.

(8) No fixed object should be permitted above the plane of the FATO on a safety area, except for frangible objects which, because of their function, must be located on the area.

(9) Objects whose function requires them to be located on the safety area should not:

(i) if located at a distance of less than 0.75 D from the centre of the FATO, penetrate a plane at a height of 5 cm above the plane of the FATO; and

(ii) if located at a distance of 0.75 D or more from the centre of the FATO, penetrate a plane originating at a height of 25 cm above the plane of the FATO and sloping upwards and outwards at a gradient of 5 per cent.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 24 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Figure B-1. FATO and associated safety area

Rationale

The proposed amendments – apart from point (b)(1)(ii) – stem from amendment 9 of Annex 14 Vol. II.

Regarding the size of the safety area, proposed point (b)(1)(i) simplifies the current provision (b)(1)

without changing its essence. The removal of the overall size requirement provides flexibility to the

heliport designers in cases where the FATO is decreased while still ensuring containment. Use of the

new term 'Design D' is also made.

In addition, both Figure 3-2 of Annex 14 Vol. II (which is proposed to be modified and added to the CS-

HPT-DSN as Figure B-2) and Figure E-1 of the CS-HPT-DSN contain remarks regarding the need for the

area lying between the safety area and the take-off climb/approach surfaces to have the same

characteristics with the safety area regarding obstacle control. However, no provision has been

included to this effect. Point (b)(1)(ii) is, therefore, proposed to be introduced, based on which the

additional area, that is described above, is considered part of the safety area. This is in line with the

requirement of the protected side slope (see CS HPT-DSN.B.140) to ‘rise … outwards from the safety

area’ and of the lower edge of the transitional surface to lie ‘along the length of the side of the

helicopter clearway, when provided, and safety area, parallel to the centre line of the FATO’ (see CS

HPT-DSN.E.425). If this additional area is not considered to be part of the ‘safety area’, then the

descriptions of the protected side slope and of the transitional surface are problematic, in the cases of

a non-rectangular FATO and of a rectangular FATO, where the axes of the take-off climb/approach

surfaces or the clearway(s), where they are provided, are oblique to the sides of the FATO. It should be

mentioned, that with the proposed wording the additional portions of the safety area should satisfy

not only obstacle-related requirements, but also slope, drainage and resistance to the effects of the

downwash requirements. EASA considers that these should indeed be satisfied.

The current provision (b)(2) is proposed to be reworded and together with provision (b)(4) to be

combined with (b)(3), since all three provisions are related to the surface of the safety area. A new

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 25 of 108

An agency of the European Union

requirement regarding the drainage characteristics of the protection area is also proposed to be added

to (b)(3).

Furthermore, provisions (b)(5) and (b)(6) are related to the protected side slope, which is proposed to

be dealt with separately (new HPT-DSN.B.140).

Moreover, current point (b)(7) is related to an operational requirement and is proposed to be

transferred to ADR.OPS.B.027.

The current provisions (b)(8) and (b)(9) are related to the fixed objects on the safety area are proposed

to be deleted and a single new provision (b)(2) to be added, which has the same safety objectives,

especially when read in combination with CS HPT-DSN.B.100(c)(1)(i).

Finally, Figure B-1 is proposed to be substituted with the corresponding Figure in the Annex 14 Vol. II,

illustrating both cases of a square and of a circular FATO and safety area. In the new Figure, the text

related to the overall minimum dimensions of the FATO and safety area has been deleted in line with

the proposed deletion of the related provision (see above).

GM1 HPT-DSN.B.130 Safety areas

When only a single approach and take-off climb surface is provided, the need for specific protected side slopes should be determined by a safety assessment.

Intentionally left blank

Rationale

The text of the GM is proposed to be transferred to the new proposed GM1 HPT-DSN.B.140, since it

refers to the protected side slopes.

CS HPT-DSN.B.140 Protected side slope

(a) General: A heliport should be provided with at least two protected side slopes.

(b) Characteristics: The surface of a protected side slope should:

(i) rise at 45 degrees outward from the edge of the safety area and extend to a distance of 10 m (see Figure B-2); and

(ii) not be penetrated by obstacles.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 26 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Figure B-2. FATO simple/complex safety area and side slope protection.

Note: The light green areas surrounding the FATO and in the trapezoids indicate the safety areas and the take- off/approach surfaces respectively, the dark green areas indicate the side-slopes, and the blue areas indicate the additional part of the safety areas between a non-rectangular FATO and the take-off climb/approach surfaces.

Rationale

A separate paragraph concerning the protected side slope is proposed to be created, in line with the

structure of Annex 14 Vol. II and to increase the visibility of the provisions.

The proposed requirement is to have at least two protected side slopes in line with the new

Recommendation introduced by amendment 9, Annex 14 Vol. II.

GM1 HPT-DSN.B.140 Protected side slope

Intentionally left blank

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 27 of 108

An agency of the European Union

CHAPTER C — HELICOPTER TAXIWAYS AND TAXI-ROUTES

CS HPT-DSN.C.200 Helicopter ground taxiways and helicopter ground taxi-routes

(a) General: A helicopter ground taxiway should be designed to permit the surface movement of a wheeled helicopter under its own power.

(b) Characteristics:

(1) The width of a helicopter ground taxiway should not be less than 1.5 times the largest width of the undercarriage (UCW) of the helicopters the helicopter ground taxiway is intended to serve (see Figure C-1).

(2) The longitudinal slope of a helicopter ground taxiway should not exceed 3 per cent.

(3) A helicopter ground taxiway should be static load-bearing and capable of withstanding the traffic of the helicopters the helicopter ground taxiway is intended to serve.

(4) A helicopter ground taxiway should be centred on a helicopter ground taxi-route.

(5) A helicopter ground taxi-route should extend symmetrically on each side of the centre line for at least 0.75 times the largest overall width of the helicopters it is intended to serve.

(6) No fixed object should be permitted above the surface on a helicopter ground taxi-route, except for frangible objects, which, because of their function, must be located there.

(7) No mobile object should be permitted on a ground taxi-route during helicopter movements.

(8) Objects whose function requires them to be located on a helicopter ground taxi-route should not:

(i) be located at a distance of less than 50 cm from the edge of the helicopter ground taxiway; and

(ii) penetrate a plane originating at a height of 25 cm above the plane of the helicopter ground taxiway, at a distance of 50 cm from the edge of the helicopter ground taxiway and sloping upwards and outwards at a gradient of 5 per cent.

(9) The helicopter ground taxiway and the helicopter ground taxi-route should provide rapid drainage but the transverse slope of a helicopter ground taxiway should not exceed 2 per cent.

(10) The surface of a helicopter ground taxi-route should be resistant to the effect of rotor downwash.

(11) For simultaneous operations, the helicopter ground taxi-routes should not overlap.

(1) A helicopter taxiway should be associated with a taxi-route and should provide:

(i) an area free of obstacles and of sufficient width to ensure containment of the undercarriage of the most demanding wheeled helicopter the taxiway is intended to serve;

(ii) a surface which:

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 28 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(A) has bearing strength to accommodate the taxiing loads of the helicopters

the taxiway is intended to serve;

(B) is free of irregularities that would adversely affect the ground taxiing of

helicopters;

(C) is resistant to the effects of rotor downwash; and

(D) ensures effective drainage while having no adverse effect on the control or

stability of a wheeled helicopter when being manoeuvred under its own

power, or when stationary.

(2) The minimum width of a helicopter taxiway should be the lesser of:

(i) two times the undercarriage width (UCW) of the most demanding helicopter the taxiway is intended to serve; or

(ii) a width meeting the requirements of (b)(1)(i).

(3) The transverse slope of a helicopter taxiway should not exceed 2 per cent and the longitudinal slope should not exceed 3 per cent.

Figure C-1. Helicopter ground taxi-route/taxiway

Rationale

The amendment of the present paragraph and of the whole Chapter is based on amendment 9 of Annex

14 Vol. II and in particular on the new approach towards defining the taxiways and taxi-routes. In place

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 29 of 108

An agency of the European Union

of the previous separation between ground taxiways and taxi-routes on the one hand, and air taxiways

and taxi-routes on the other hand, ICAO’s new approach entails the use of the term ‘helicopter

taxiway’, without any distinction indicating its use (for ground-taxiing or air-taxiing), and of the terms

‘ground taxi-route’ and ‘air taxi-route’. The ‘helicopter taxiways’ correspond as a physical entity to the

‘taxiways’ as defined in CS-ADR-DSN. They are associated with ground taxi-routes or air taxi-routes. In

the former case, they can be used only by wheeled helicopters for ground taxiing. In the latter case,

they can be used by both wheeled and skidded helicopters for air taxiing and by wheeled helicopters

for ground taxiing. On the other hand, it is possible to define an air taxi-route that is not collocated

with a taxiway. However, in this case, ground taxiing is not permitted.

Due to the change of concept that was described above, current Chapter C of CS-HPT-DSN is proposed

to be completely re-organised: The present paragraph contains only the provisions for helicopter

taxiways. The ones for ground taxi-routes are proposed to be transferred to paragraph CS HPT-

DSN.C.210, which will cover the common requirements for both ground taxi-routes and air taxi-routes,

and the proposed new paragraphs CS HPT-DSN.C.211 and CS HPT-DSN.C.212, that contain the rest

individual requirements for ground taxi-routes and air taxi-routes. The following table indicates the

correspondence of the current provisions of CS HPT-DSN.C.210 with the proposed ones.

Current provision in CS HPT-DSN.C.200

Position of equivalent provision in the proposed paragraphs

Comments

(b)(1) CS HPT-DSN.C.200(b)(1)

CS HPT-DSN.C.200(b)(2)

The minimum width is increased to 2 times the UCW, but flexibility provision is also introduced, in line with Annex 14 Vol. II.

(b)(2) CS HPT-DSN.C.200(b)(3)

(b)(3) CS HPT-DSN.C.200(b)(1)(ii)(A)

(b)(4) CS HPT-DSN.C.211(a) Worded vice-versa: The taxi-route is centred on the taxiway.

(b)(5) CS HPT-DSN.C. 211(a)

(b)(6) CS HPT-DSN.C.210(a)(1)

(b)(7) - Operational requirement (ADR.OPS.B.029)

(b)(8) CS HPT-DSN.C. 211(b)

(b)(9)

CS HPT-DSN.C.200(b)(1)(ii)(D),

CS HPT-DSN.C.200(b)(3), and

CS HPT-DSN.C.210(a)(2)(i)(C)

CS HPT-DSN.C.211(c)

A specific maximum value for the longitudinal slope of the helicopter taxiway and for the transverse slope of the helicopter taxi-route have been added in line with Annex 14 Vol. II.

(b)(10) CS HPT-DSN.C.200(b)(1)(ii)(C)

(b)(11) CS HPT-DSN.C.210(b)

In addition to the above, a new provision is proposed to be included, in line with amendment 9 of Annex

14 Vol. II, by which the need for the surface of the helicopter taxiway to be free of irregularities is

expressed explicitly.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 30 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Furthermore, it was considered that Figure C-1 is more suitably placed in paragraph CS HPT-DSN.C.211

which is related to ground taxi-routes. Therefore, it is proposed to be moved there. Moreover, due to

the change of the concept and the requirements for taxiways, the term ‘ground’ has been deleted, the

factor ‘1.5’ in front of the term ‘UCW’ has been replaced by ‘2’, in line with the proposed amendment,

and a note referring to the minimum width according to CS HPT-DSN.C.200(b)(2)(ii) has been added.

GM1 HPT-DSN.C.200 Helicopter ground taxiways and helicopter ground taxi-routes

When a taxiway is intended for use by aeroplanes and helicopters, the provisions for aeroplane taxiways for aeroplanes, taxiway shoulders, taxiway strips, and helicopter ground taxiways and taxi- routes will be are taken into consideration and the more stringent requirements apply.

Rationale

The proposed amendment of the current GM aims at clarifying which aspects of the taxiways should

be considered, when considering the most stringent requirements to be applied.

CS HPT-DSN.C.210 Helicopter air taxiways and helicopter air taxi- routes

(a) General: A helicopter air taxiway should be designed so as to permit the movement of a helicopter above the surface at a height normally associated with ground effect and at ground speed less than 37 km/h (20 kt).

(b) Characteristics:

(1) The width of a helicopter air taxiway should be at least two times the largest width of the undercarriage (UCW) of the helicopters that the helicopter air taxiway is intended to serve (see Figure C-2).

(2) The surface of a helicopter air taxiway should be static load-bearing.

(3) The slopes of the surface of a helicopter air taxiway should not exceed the slope landing limitations of the helicopters the helicopter air taxiway is intended to serve.

(4) The transverse slope of a helicopter air taxiway should not exceed 10 per cent.

(5) The longitudinal slope of a helicopter air taxiway should not exceed 7 per cent.

(6) A helicopter air taxiway should be centred on a helicopter air taxi-route.

(7) A helicopter air taxi-route should extend symmetrically on each side of the centre line for a distance at least equal to the largest overall width of the helicopters it is intended to serve.

(8) No fixed object should be permitted above the surface on an air taxi-route, except for frangible objects, which, because of their function, must be located there.

(9) No mobile object should be permitted on an air taxi-route during helicopter movements.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 31 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(10) Objects above ground level whose function requires them to be located on a helicopter air taxi route should not:

(i) be located at a distance of less than 1 m from the edge of the helicopter air taxiway, or at a distance of less than 0.5 times the largest overall width of the helicopter for which the helicopter air taxi-route is designed from the centre line of the helicopter air taxiway, whichever is greater; and

(ii) penetrate a plane originating at a height of 25 cm above the plane of the helicopter air taxiway, and sloping upwards and outwards at a gradient of 5 per cent, at a distance of 1 m from the edge of the helicopter air taxiway, or at a distance of 0.5 times the largest overall width of the helicopter for which the helicopter air taxi- route is designed from the centreline of the helicopter air taxiway, whichever is lower.

(11) The surface of a helicopter air taxi-route should be resistant to the effect of rotor downwash.

(12) The surface of a helicopter air taxi-route should provide ground effect.

(13) For simultaneous operations, the helicopter air taxi-routes should not overlap.

(a) A helicopter taxi-route should provide:

(1) an area free of obstacles, except for frangible essential objects which because of their function are located on it, established for the movement of helicopters and with sufficient width to ensure containment of the largest helicopter the taxi-route is intended to serve;

(2) a surface which is resistant to the effects of rotor downwash, and

(i) when collocated with a helicopter taxiway:

(A) is contiguous and flush with the taxiway;

(B) does not present a hazard to operations; and

(C) ensures effective drainage; and

(ii) when not collocated with a helicopter taxiway and for the event of a forced landing:

(A) is free of hazards; and

(B) has sufficient bearing strength.

(b) For simultaneous operations, the taxi-routes should not overlap.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 32 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Figure C-2. Helicopter air taxi-route/taxiway

Rationale

See rationale for CS HPT-DSN.C.200.

The following table indicates the correspondence of the current provisions of CS HPT-DSN.C.210 with the proposed ones.

Current provision in CS HPT-DSN.C.210

Position of equivalent provision in the proposed paragraphs

Comments

(a) CS HPT-DSN.C.212(a)(1)

(b)(1) CS HPT-DSN.C.200(b)(2)

The minimum width remains equal to 2 times the UCW, but flexibility provision is also introduced, in line with Annex 14 Vol. II.

(b)(2) CS HPT-DSN.C.200(b)(1)(ii)(A) and

CS HPT-DSN.C.210(a)(2)(ii)(B)

(b)(3) CS HPT-DSN.C.200(b)(3) and

CS HPT-DSN.C.212(b)(3)

(b)(4) CS HPT-DSN.C.200(b)(3) and

CS HPT-DSN.C.212(b)(3)

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 33 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(b)(5) CS HPT-DSN.C.200(b)(3) and

CS HPT-DSN.C.212(b)(3)

(b)(6) CS HPT-DSN.C.212(b)(2)(i)

Worded vice-versa: The taxi-route is centred on the taxiway. However, the existence of a helicopter taxiway is not required in all cases.

(b)(7) CS HPT-DSN.C.212(b)(1)

(b)(8) CS HPT-DSN.C.210(a)(1)

(b)(9) - Operational requirement (Part-

OPS)

(b)(10) CS HPT-DSN.C.212(b)(2)(iii)

(b)(11) CS HPT-DSN.C.210(a)(2)

(b)(12) CS HPT-DSN.C.212(b)(4)

(b)(13) CS HPT-DSN.C.210(b)

Provision (a)(2) includes three new requirements in line with amendment 9 of Annex 14 Vol. II. In

particular, that the taxi-route surface should be contiguous and flush with the helicopter taxiway, and

should not present a hazard to operations, when collocated with a taxiway, and that it should be free

of hazards for the event of a forced landing, when not collocated with a helicopter taxiway.

Moreover, the current CS-HPT-DSN (and Annex 14 Vol. II before the adoption of amendment 5) includes

the requirement that the air taxiway should be static load bearing. With the change of concept, an air

taxiway is not defined, and therefore the abovementioned requirement has been deleted with

amendment 5 of Annex 14 Vol. II. This means that in cases of air taxi-routes not collocated with

taxiways, the central part of the taxi-route is not required to have any specific load bearing strength.

As a remedy, it is proposed that point (a)(2)(ii)(B) is included, based on which the taxi-route should

exhibit a sufficient bearing strength for the event of a forced landing.

Furthermore, it should be mentioned that with Annex 14 Vol. II, the provisions for ground and air taxi-

routes, that are equivalent to provision (b), were deleted. However, at the same time, a new Note was

added at the beginning of the section related to taxiways and taxi-routes, that states: ‘The

specifications for ground taxi-routes and air taxi-routes are intended for the safety of simultaneous

operations during the manoeuvring of helicopters. The effect of wind velocity/turbulence induced by

the rotor downwash would need to be considered.’ It is therefore implied that since the minimum width

of the taxi-routes is defined such that simultaneous operations are allowed, then the overlapping of

the taxi-routes is not allowed, since this in effect reduces its width. For clarity, the new proposed

provision (b) is based on the current wording of the relevant provisions. The second sentence of the

above-mentioned Note was added to the corresponding GM.

Finally, it was considered that Figure C-2 is more suitably placed in paragraph CS HPT-DSN.C.212 which

is related to air taxi-routes. Therefore, it is proposed to be moved there. Moreover, the Figure is

proposed to be supplemented with the depiction of the case of an air-taxi route not collocated with a

helicopter taxiway.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 34 of 108

An agency of the European Union

GM1 HPT-DSN.C.210 Helicopter air taxiways and helicopter air taxi-routes

The part of the helicopter air taxi-route that extends symmetrically on each side of the centre line from 0.5 times the largest overall width of the helicopters it is intended to serve to the outermost limit of the helicopter air taxi-route is its protection area.

In case of simultaneous operations, and in order to determine the required separation between taxi- routes, the effect of wind velocity/turbulence induced by rotor downwash needs to be considered. Because of potential interference, adjacent siting especially of air taxi-routes is not recommended. See also GM1 HPT-DSN.F.600.

Rationale

The current GM is proposed to be deleted, because the principle that a part of a taxi-route is defined

as the protection of the taxiway has been removed. The objective of the taxi-route compensates for

manoeuvring errors and ensures containment.

A new text is proposed to be added related to the factors that should be considered when intending to

design taxi-routes in the vicinity of each other. (See rationale for the corresponding CS.) A reference to

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.600 has also been added, which mentions the aspect of the accuracy of air-taxiing,

when only air taxi-route markers are available.

CS HPT-DSN.C.211 Helicopter ground taxi-routes

(a) A helicopter ground taxi-route should have a minimum width of 1.5 x the overall width of the largest helicopter it is intended to serve, and be centred on a taxiway (see Figure C-1).

(b) The essential objects, mentioned in CS HPT-DSN.C.210(a)(1), should not:

(1) be located at a distance of less than 50 cm outwards from the edge of the helicopter

taxiway; and

(2) penetrate a surface originating 50 cm outwards of the edge of the helicopter taxiway and

at a height of 25 cm above the surface of the taxiway and sloping upwards and outwards

at a gradient of 5 per cent.

(c) The ground taxi-route should not exceed an upward transverse slope of 4 per cent outwards from the edge of the taxiway.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 35 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Note – See also CS HPT-DSN.C.200(b)(2)(ii) regarding the width of the taxiway.

Figure C-1. Helicopter taxiway/ground taxi-route

Rationale

The current CS is proposed to be added, to include the provisions that are applicable exclusively to

ground taxi-routes. While points (a) and (b) have their equivalent in the current CS-HPT-DSN, point (c)

introduces a new requirement regarding the transverse slope of the ground taxi-routes in line with

Annex 14 Vol. II.

See also the rationale under CS HPT-DSN.C.200.

GM1 HPT-DSN.C.211 Helicopter ground taxi-routes

Ground taxi-routes are meant for use by wheeled helicopters, for ground taxiing only.

Rationale

The current GM is proposed to be added to clarify the intended use of the ground taxi-routes.

CS HPT-DSN.C.212 Helicopter air taxi-routes

(a) General: A helicopter air taxi-route should be designed so as to permit the movement of a helicopter above the surface at a height normally associated with ground effect and at ground speed less than 37 km/h (20 kt).

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 36 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(b) Characteristics:

(1) A helicopter air taxi-route should have a minimum width of twice the overall width of the

largest helicopter it is intended to serve (see Figure C-2).

(2) When collocated with a taxiway for the purpose of permitting both ground and air taxi

operations:

(i) the helicopter air taxi-route should be centred on the taxiway;

(ii) its surface should not exceed an upward transverse slope of 4 per cent outwards

from the edge of the taxiway; and

(iii) the essential objects, mentioned in CS HPT-DSN.C.210(a)(1), should not:

(A) be located at a distance of less than 50 cm outwards from the edge of the

helicopter taxiway; and

(B) penetrate a surface originating 50 cm outwards of the edge of the helicopter

taxiway and a height of 25 cm above the surface of the taxiway and sloping

upwards and outwards at a gradient of 5 per cent.

(3) When not collocated with a taxiway, the slopes of the surface of an air taxi-route should

not exceed the slope landing limitations of the helicopters the taxi-route is intended to

serve. In any event, the transverse slope should not exceed 10 per cent and the

longitudinal slope should not exceed 7 per cent.

(4) The surface of a helicopter air taxi-route should provide ground effect.

Figure C-2. Helicopter air taxi-route and combined helicopter taxiway/air taxi-route

Rationale

The current CS is proposed to be added, to include the provisions that are applicable exclusively to air taxi-routes. See also the rationale under CS HPT-DSN.C.210.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 37 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Point (b)(2)(ii) introduces a new requirement regarding the transverse slope of the air taxi-routes in line with Annex 14 Vol. II, which is identical to the ground taxiways. However, this requirement is not applicable in the case of air taxi-routes not collocated with taxiways for which point (b)(3) applies.

Furthermore, one change in the requirements, that should be pointed out, is related to the minimum

distance from the helicopter taxiway edge, that the essential objects could be installed. Based on the

current requirements this distance is 1 m. However, with amendment 9 of Annex 14 Vol. II, this distance

has been reduced to 0.5 m. It is proposed that the new requirement is included in the CS HPT-

DSN.C.212(b)(2)(iii), since such objects are frangible and their presence closer to the taxiway does not

constitute a hazard to the operations.

GM1 HPT-DSN.C.212 Helicopter air taxi-routes

(a) An air taxi-route not collocated with a taxiway is meant for use for air taxiing only. However, when collocated with a helicopter taxiway, it can be used both for air-taxiing and for ground taxiing (of wheeled helicopters).

(b) The effect of downwash on other users and infrastructure should be considered when siting an air taxi-route.

(c) Unpaved helicopter air taxi-routes have a reduced ability to accommodate markings and inset lights. This would lead to an inability to satisfy the provisions of CS-ADR-DSN at parts of the movement area, where such visual aids are important for the safety of the operations, e.g. at runway holding positions or complex taxiway intersections. At least the central part of the helicopter taxiway should be paved. In such a case, the pavement need not exhibit the bearing strength that a helicopter taxiway would have, if it were provided.

Rationale

The first point of the proposed GM clarifies the intended use of the air taxi-routes. The use of an air

taxi-route for ground taxiing is allowed by the fact that all the requirements of a ground taxi-route are

satisfied by the requirements of the air taxi-route, when the latter is collocated with a helicopter

taxiway.

The second point is related to the need to consider the effects of downwash to other users in an

aerodrome and to the aerodrome facilities. Although this is a consideration also in the case of ground

taxiing, it is mentioned specifically for the case of air-taxiing, since in this case, the downwash is

particularly strong.

Regarding the third point, see the rationale of the corresponding CS.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 38 of 108

An agency of the European Union

CHAPTER D — HELICOPTER STANDS

CS HPT-DSN.D.300 Helicopter stands

(a) Characteristics:

(1) When a TLOF is collocated with a helicopter stand, the protection area of the stand should not overlap the protection area of any other helicopter stand or associated taxi route.

(2) A helicopter stand should provide rapid drainage.

(3) The slope of a helicopter stand in any direction should not exceed 2 per cent.

(4) When used by helicopters turning in a hover, a helicopter stand should be of sufficient size to contain a circle of diameter of at least 1.2 D of the largest helicopter the stand is intended to serve (see Figure D-1).

(5) Where a helicopter stand is intended to be used for taxi-through and where the helicopter using the stand is not required to turn, the minimum width of the stand and associated protection area should be that of the taxi-route.

(6) Where a helicopter stand is intended to be used for turning, the minimum overall dimension of the stand and protection area should not be less than 2 D.

(7) Where a helicopter stand is intended to be used for turning, the helicopter stand should be surrounded by a protection area which extends for a distance of 0.4 D from the edge of the helicopter stand.

Figure D-1. Helicopter stand and associated protection area permitting the helicopter to turn in a hover when operating

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 39 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(8) For simultaneous operations, the protection areas of helicopter stands and their associated taxi-routes should not overlap (see Figure D-2).

(9) A helicopter stand and the associated protection area intended to be used for air taxiing should provide ground effect.

(10) No fixed object should be permitted above the surface of the ground on a helicopter stand, except for tie-down points with a height of less than 5 cm, which can be accommodated if needed.

(11) No fixed object should be permitted above the surface of the ground in the protection area around a helicopter stand except for frangible objects which, because of their function, must be located there.

(12) No mobile object should be permitted on a helicopter stand and the associated protection area during helicopter movements.

(13) Objects whose function requires them to be located in the protection area at a distance of less than 0.75 D from the centre of the helicopter stand, should not exceed 5 cm in height.

(14) Objects whose function requires them to be located in the protection area should not:

(i) if located at a distance of less than 0.75 D from the centre of the helicopter stand, penetrate a plane at a height of 5 cm above the plane of the central zone; and

(ii) if located at a distance of 0.75 D or more from the centre of the helicopter stand, penetrate a plane at a height of 25 cm above the plane of the central zone and sloping upwards and outwards at a gradient of 5 per cent.

(15) The central zone of a helicopter stand should be capable of withstanding the traffic of helicopters it is intended to serve and have a static load-bearing area:

(i) of diameter not less than 0.83 D of the largest helicopter it is intended to serve; or

(ii) for a helicopter stand intended to be used for taxi-through, and where the helicopter using the stand is not required to turn, the same width as the helicopter ground taxiway.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 40 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Figure D-2. Helicopter stands designed for hover turns with air taxi-routes/taxiways — simultaneous operations

(a) A helicopter stand should provide:

(1) an area free of obstacles and of sufficient size and shape to ensure containment of every part of the largest helicopter the stand is intended to serve when it is being positioned within the stand;

(2) a surface which:

(i) is resistant to the effects of rotor downwash;

(ii) is free of irregularities that would adversely affect the manoeuvring of helicopters;

(iii) has bearing strength capable of withstanding the intended loads;

(iv) has sufficient friction to avoid skidding of helicopters or slipping of persons;

(v) ensures effective drainage while having no adverse effect on the control or stability of a wheeled helicopter when being manoeuvred under its own power, or when stationary; and

(vi) when it is intended to be used for hover turning or air-taxiing, provides ground effect.

(b) The minimum dimensions of a helicopter stand should be:

(1) a circle of diameter of 1.2 D of the largest helicopter the stand is intended to serve; or

(2) when there is a limitation on manoeuvring and positioning, of sufficient width to meet the requirement of (a)(1) above but not less than 1.2 times overall width of the largest helicopter the stand is intended to serve.

(c) The mean slope of a helicopter stand in any direction should not exceed 2 per cent.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 41 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(d) Each helicopter stand should be provided with positioning markings to clearly indicate where the helicopter is to be positioned and, by their form, any limitations on manoeuvring.

(e) A stand should be surrounded by a protection area.

Rationale

With amendment 9 of Annex 14 Vol. II, the protection area has been made an associated attribute of

a helicopter stand. Therefore, as in Annex 14 Vol. II, it is proposed that the provisions for the protection

area are split from the ones for the stands and form a new paragraph CS HPT-DSN.D.310. The following

table indicates the correspondence of the current provisions of CS HPT-DSN.D.300 with the proposed

ones.

Current provision in CS HPT-DSN.D.300

Position of equivalent provision in the proposed paragraphs

Comments

(a)(1) CS HPT-DSN.D.310(d) and (e) The proposed provisions distinguish between simultaneous and non- simultaneous use of the stand.

(a)(2) CS HPT-DSN.D.300(a)(2)(v)

(a)(3) CS HPT-DSN.D.300(c)

(a)(4) CS HPT-DSN.D.300(b) Flexibility provision is also introduced, in line with Annex 14 Vol. II.

(a)(5) CS HPT-DSN.D.310(c)

(a)(6) CS HPT-DSN.D.300(b)(1) and

CS HPT-DSN.D.310(b)

(a)(7) CS HPT-DSN.D.310(b)

(a)(8) CS HPT-DSN.D.310(d)

(a)(9) CS HPT-DSN.D.300(a)(2)(vi) and

CS HPT-DSN.D.310(a)(2)(iv)

(a)(10) CS HPT-DSN.D.300(a)(1) Possibility of tie-down points extending above the surface has been deleted.

(a)(11) CS HPT-DSN.D.310(a)(1)

(a)(12) - Operational requirement.

(a)(13) CS HPT-DSN.D.310(f)(1)

(a)(14) CS HPT-DSN.D.310(f)

(a)(15) CS HPT-DSN.D.300(a)(2)(iii) and

CS HPT-DSN.C.200(b)(1)(ii)(A)

In addition to the above, and in line with amendment 9 of Annex 14 Vol. II, it is proposed that a few

new requirements are introduced in the current CS. In particular, that the surface of the stand is

resistant to the rotor downwash, is free of irregularities and has sufficient friction. All these

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 42 of 108

An agency of the European Union

requirements are safety-related and self-explanatory. Their addition improves the consistency of the

provisions across CS-HPT-DSN. Moreover, the requirement that the stand is provided with positioning

markings is also proposed to be added explicitly. Point (e) regarding the requirement that a stand is

surrounded by a protection area is proposed to be added. This is considered necessary, because of the

splitting of the provisions for stands and for protection areas in two different paragraphs.

It should be pointed out that the current possibility of having tie-down points that extend to a height

of 5 cm is proposed not to be maintained. This will align the CS with the Annex 14 Vol. II requirements.

In any case, suitably constructed in-pavement tie-down points are not an obstacle in the sense of CS

HPT-DSN.D.300(a)(1) or an irregularity in the sense of CS HPT-DSN.D.300(a)(2)(ii), and can still be used.

Furthermore, current Figures D-1 and D-2 are proposed to be deleted, and new Figures D-1 to D-5 to

be added, to provide illustrations of the relative position of the helicopter stands, the protection areas

and the taxiways in various cases. The new Figures are proposed to be placed after the new paragraph

on the protection areas.

GM1 HPT-DSN.D.300 Helicopter stands

(a) It is not considered good practice to locate helicopter stands under a flight path.

(b) Where non-simultaneous operations are envisaged, the protection areas of helicopter stands and their associated taxi-routes may overlap (see Figure GM1-D-1).For a helicopter stand intended to be used for taxi-through only, a width less than 1.2D but which provides containment and still permits all required functions of a stand to be performed, might be used.(c) Characteristics: For a helicopter stand intended to be used by wheeled helicopters for turning on the ground, the dimension of the helicopter stand and the protection area, including the dimension of the central zone, would need to be significantly increased.For a helicopter stand intended to be used for turning on the ground, the minimum dimensions may be influenced by the turning circle data provided by the manufacturer and are likely to exceed 1.2 D. See the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261) for further guidance.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 43 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Figure GM1-D-1. Helicopter stands designed for hover turns with air taxi-routes/taxiways − non-simultaneous operations

Rationale

The current text in point (b) – referring to the possibility of the protections areas to overlap – is

considered superfluous, because this is covered in the new proposed CS HPT-DSN.D.310(e). The

corresponding Figure GM1-D-1 is proposed to be deleted. It is proposed to be replaced by a reference

to the possibility to reduce the width of the stand, if taxi-through only (no turning) is intended, under

the condition that other relevant requirements are also satisfied. This is in line with amendment 9 of

Annex 14, Vol. II.

Furthermore, with amendment 9 of Annex 14 Vol. II, the requirement of a central zone has been

removed. Therefore, the current text in point (c) of the GM is proposed to be reworded based on Note

2 under point 3.1.45 of Annex 14 Vol. II.

CS HPT-DSN.D.310 Protection areas

(a) A protection area should provide:

(1) an area free of obstacles, except for frangible essential objects which because of their function are located on it; and

(2) a surface which:

(i) is contiguous and flush with the stand;

(ii) is resistant to the effects of rotor downwash;

(iii) ensures effective drainage; and

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 44 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(iv) when it is intended to be used for hover turning or air-taxiing, provides ground

effect.

(b) When associated with a stand designed for turning, the protection area should extend outwards from the periphery of the stand for a distance of 0.4D (see Figure D-1).

(c) When associated with a stand designed for taxi-through, the minimum width of the stand and protection area should not be less than the width of the associated taxi-route (see Figures D-2 and D-3).

(d) When associated with a stand designed for simultaneous use, the protection areas of adjacent stands and their associated taxi routes should not overlap.

(e) When associated with a stand designed for non-simultaneous use (see Figures D-4 and D-5):

(1) the protection areas of adjacent stands may overlap, but should not be less than the required protection area for the larger of the adjacent stands; and

(2) the adjacent non-active stand may contain a static object, but it should be wholly within the boundary of the stand.

(f) Essential objects located in the protection area should not:

(1) if located at a distance of less than 0.75 D from the centre of the helicopter stand, penetrate a surface at a height of 5 cm above the horizontal plane passing through the centre of the helicopter stand; and

(2) if located at a distance of 0.75 D or more from the centre of the helicopter stand, penetrate a surface at a height of 25 cm above the horizontal plane passing through the centre of the helicopter stand and sloping upwards and outwards at a gradient of 5 per cent.

(g)The slope of a protection area should not exceed an upward slope of 4 per cent outwards from the edge of the stand.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 45 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Figure D-1 Turning stands (with air taxi-routes) — simultaneous use

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 46 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Figure D-2 Ground taxi-through stands (with taxiway/ground taxi-route) simultaneous use

Figure D-3 Air taxi-through stands (with air taxi-route not collocated with a taxiway) simultaneous use.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 47 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Figure D-4 Turning stands (with air taxi-routes) non-simultaneous use — outer stands active.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 48 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Figure D-5 Turning stands (with air taxi-route) non-simultaneous use — inner stand active.

Rationale

See rationale of CS HPT-DSN.D.300 regarding the current provisions for which it is proposed to be

transferred to the new CS HPT-DSN.D.310.

In addition to these, it is proposed that a few new requirements are introduced in the current CS. In

particular, that the surface of the protection area is contiguous and flush with the stand surface, is

resistant to the rotor downwash and ensures effective drainage. All these requirements are safety-

related, self-explanatory and stem from amendment 9 of Annex 14, Vol. II. Their addition improves the

consistency of the provisions across CS-HPT-DSN.

Moreover, the requirement regarding the slope of the protection area is proposed to be added, since

the current CS-HPT-DSN do not specify any value. The requirement that this slope does not exceed an

upward 4 per cent value, is in line with Annex 14 Vol. II and is consistent with the corresponding value

of the safety area of the FATO.

Furthermore, point (2)(i) regarding the requirement that a protection area is contiguous and flush with

the stand is proposed to be added. This is considered necessary, because the stands and protection

areas are treated separately and not as a single unified surface.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 49 of 108

An agency of the European Union

GM1 HPT-DSN.D.310 Protection area

(a) To ensure that only one of the adjacent stands is active at a time, instruction to pilots in the AIP make clear that a limitation on the use of the stands is in force.

(b) Where it is intended that the protection area (or part thereof) is used as a taxiway/taxi-route, the requirements are the most stringent between those of protection area and those of the taxiway and taxi-route.

Rationale

The first of the proposed points is contained as a Note in Annex 14 Vol. II and aims to indicate the

necessary steps that should be taken by the aerodrome operator to assure that the helicopter flight

crews are aware of possible restrictions regarding stand use.

The second point clarifies the requirements that should be satisfied at the parts of the protection areas

that are used as taxiways or taxi-routes.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 50 of 108

An agency of the European Union

CHAPTER E — OBSTACLE LIMITATION SURFACES AND REQUIREMENTS

CS HPT-DSN.E.400 Applicability

The purpose of the obstacle limitation surfaces is to define the airspace around heliports to be maintained free from obstacles so as to permit the intended helicopter operations to be conducted safely.

Rationale

The proposed addition to the existing CS captures the essence of defining the obstacle limitation surfaces, that is missing in the present wording. An editorial addition is also proposed.

[…]

CS HPT-DSN.E.410 Approach surface

[…]

(b) Description: An inclined plane or a combination of planes or, when a turn isor turns are involved, a complex surface sloping upwards from the inner edgeend of the safety area and centred on a line passing through the centre of the FATO (see Figures E-1, E-2, E-3 and E-4 and Table E-1).

(c) Characteristics:

(1) The limits of an approach surface should comprise:

(i) an inner edge, horizontal and perpendicular to the centre line of the approach surface, with a minimum width equal in length to the minimum specified width/diameter of the FATO plus the safety area, perpendicular to the centre line of the approach surface and located at:

(A) the outer edge of the safety area; or

(B) when vertical procedures are being utilised, directly above the outer edge of the safety area;

(ii) two side edges originating at the ends of the inner edge diverging uniformly at a specified rate from the vertical plane containing the centre line of the FATO; and

(iii) an outer edge horizontal and perpendicular to the centre line of the approach surface and at:

(A) a specified height of 152 m (500 ft) above the elevation of the FATO.; or

(B) when a PinS approach procedure with proceed visually instruction is defined, a specified height above the elevation of the FATO.

(2) The elevation of the inner edge should be:

(i) the elevation of the FATO at the point on the inner edge that is intersected by the centre line of the approach surface; or. For heliports intended to be used by

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 51 of 108

An agency of the European Union

helicopters operated in performance class 1, the inclined plane may be raised directly above the FATO.

(ii) when vertical procedures are being utilised, the level at which obstacle clearance is achieved.

(3) The slope(s) of the approach surface should be measured in the vertical plane containing the centre line of the surface.

(4) In the case of an approach surface involving a turn or turns, the surface should be a complex surface containing the horizontal normals to its centre line and the slope of the centre line should be the same as that for a straight approach surface (see Figure E-3).

(5) In the case of an approach surface involving a turn, the surface should not contain more than one curved portion.

(6)(5) Where a curved portion of an approach surface is provided, the sum of the radius of the arc defining the centre line of the approach surface and the length of the straight portion originating at the inner edge should not be less than 575 m.

(7)(6) Any variation in the direction of the centre line of an approach surface should be designed so as not to necessitate a turn radius less than 270 m.

Note 1 - Dark grey shaded area requires the same characteristics as the safety area

Note 2 - Angle between take-off climb/ approaches surfaces from centreline to centreline depicted for illustration purposes only

Note 3 - Offset take-off climb/approach surface rotated around centre point of FATO

Figure E-1. Obstacle limitation surfaces — Take-off climb and approach surface

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 52 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Note – The total length of the surface is equal to the distance specified in Table E-1.

Figure E-2. Take-off climb/approach surface width

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 53 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Note 1 - Any combination of curve and straight portion may be established using the following formula: S+R ≥ 575 m and R ≥ 270 m where S = 305 m, where S is the length of the straight portion and R is the radius of turn. Note any combination ≥ 575 m will work.

Note 2 - The minimum length of the centre line of the curve and straight portion is 1 075 m but may be longer depending upon the slope used. See table E-1 for longer lengths.

Note 3 - Helicopter take-off performance is reduced in a curve and as such a straight portion along the take-off climb surface prior to the start of the curve should be considered to allow for acceleration.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 54 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Figure E-3. Examples of cCurved approach and take-off climb surface for all FATOs. (a) Minimum allowed radius of 270 m; the minimum allowed length of the straight portion after the inner edge is 305 m. (b) No straight portion after the inner edge; a radius of 575 m is the minimum allowed.

SURFACE AND DIMENSIONS SLOPE DESIGN CATEGORIES

A B C

APPROACH AND TAKE-OFF CLIMB SURFACE:

Length of inner edge Width of safety area Width of safety area Width of safety area

Location of inner edge Safety area boundary

(Helicopter cClearway boundary if provided)

Safety area boundary Safety area boundary

Divergence: (1st and 2nd section)

Day use only 10 % 10 % 10 %

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 55 of 108

An agency of the European Union

SURFACE AND DIMENSIONS SLOPE DESIGN CATEGORIES

A B C

Night use 15 % 15 % 15 %

First section:

Length 3 386 m 245 m 1 220 m

Slope 4.5 % (1:22.2) 8 % (1:12.5) 12.5 % (1:8)

Outer width (b) N/A (b)

Second section:

Length N/A 830 m N/A

Slope N/A 16 % (1:6.25) N/A

Outer width N/A (b) N/A

Total length from inner edge (a) 3 386 m(c) 1 075 m(c) 1 220 m(c)

TRANSITIONAL SURFACE:

Slope 50 % (1:2) 50 % (1:2) 50 % (1:2)

Height 45 m(d) 45 m(d) 45 m(d)

(a) The approach and take-off climb surface lengths of 3 386 m, 1 075 m and 1 220 m associated with the respective slopes, bring the helicopter to 152 m (500 ft) above FATO elevation.

(b) 7 rotor diameters overall width for day operations or 10 rotor diameters overall width for night operations.

(c) This length may be reduced if vertical procedures are in place or extended/reduced if the approach or take-off climb surface is extended/reduced to meet the OCS of the PinS procedure.

(d) See CS HPT-DSN.E.425(c)(1)(ii).

Note: The slope design categories depicted above represent minimum design slope angles and not operational slopes. Guidance on the application of slope categories is provided in GM1 HPT-DSN.E.420. Slope category ‘A’ generally corresponds with helicopters operated in performance class 1; slope category ‘B’ generally corresponds with helicopters operated in performance class 3; and slope category ‘C’ generally corresponds with helicopters operated in performance class 2.

Table E-1. Dimensions and slopes of obstacle limitation surfaces for all visual FATOs

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 56 of 108

An agency of the European Union

a) Approach and take-off climb surfaces – “‘A’” slope profile – 4.5 % design

b) Approach and take-off climb surfaces – “‘B’” slope profile – 8 % and 16 % design

c) Approach and take-off climb surfaces – “‘C’” slope profile – 12.5 % design

Figure E-4. Approach and take-off climb surfaces with different slope design categories

Rationale

The proposed amendments of the CS are based on amendment 10 of Annex 14 Vol. II, and are as

follows:

- In points (b) and (c)(4) the addition of the possibility of more than one turn is proposed.

According to ICAO, this was adopted to restore the practice of allowing more than one turn in

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 57 of 108

An agency of the European Union

the arrival and departure surfaces, which was removed, in error, in an earlier amendment to the

SARPs. In relation to this, point (c)(5) is proposed to be deleted.

- An improvement of the description the approach surface in point (b) is proposed which is

currently achieved with reference to the end of the safety area, instead of the inner edge. The

reference to the end of the safety area would be inaccurate in the case of vertical procedures.

- In point (c)(1)(i) an improvement of the description of the inner edge of the approach surface in

combination with a reorganisation of the text is proposed.

- In proposed points (c)(1)(i)(B) and (c)(2)(ii), the position and elevation of the inner edge is defined

in cases of vertical procedures. The introduction of these procedures facilitates the clearance

obstacles and improves the usability of a heliport. The second sentence in current point (c)(2) is

not required, and is proposed to be deleted.

- In proposed point (c)(1)(iii)(B) the elevation of the outer edge is provided where a PinS ‘proceed

visually’ procedure is defined. To provide continuity between the OLS and the OCS in such a case,

the outer edge of the approach surface should be extended/reduced to the point where the

approach surface meets the PinS OCS. In addition, the term ‘specified’ in current point (c)(1)(iii)

is proposed to be deleted.

- Figure E-2 is deleted in Annex 14 Vol. II with amendment 10. However, it is proposed to be

maintained in the CS-HPT-DSN and be modified, by deleting the reference to the distance where

the surface reaches the height of 152 m above FATO elevation. With the introduction of vertical

procedures and the requirements linked to PinS approach or departure procedures with a

proceed visually instruction, this height is no longer required in all cases. A note is proposed to

be added under the Figure, which references the new applicable requirements.

- Figure E-3 is deleted in Annex 14 Vol. II with amendment 10. However, it is proposed to be

maintained in the CS-HPT-DSN and be modified, so that the minimum length requirements are

not indicated. This is due to the fact that with the proposed amendments, the length of the

approach surface can be reduced below the indicated values in cases (if vertical procedures are

in place) or extended/reduced (if the approach or take-off climb surface is extended/reduced to

meet the OCS of the PinS approach or departure procedure). Furthermore, the caption of the

Figure is proposed to be modified, to provide a description of the illustrated surfaces.

- Table E-1 is proposed to be amended as follows:

o The term ‘clearway’ to be replaced by the ‘helicopter clearway’.

o Rows for the transitional surface to be added (see below in CS HPT-DSN.E.425).

o Two new footnotes to be added: one in relation to the total length of the take-

off/approach surface, in the case of vertical procedures and/or PinS procedures with a

proceed visually instruction, and a second one in relation to the different requirements for

the height of the transitional surface in case of vertical procedures.

o The note to be modified so that it references GM1 HPT-DSN.E.420, where a description of

the three slope design categories is provided.

Apart from the proposed amendments that are based on the amendments of Annex 14, Vol. II, the

following amendments are also proposed:

- An editorial amendment in (c)(1)(iii).

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 58 of 108

An agency of the European Union

- A renumbering of current points (c)(6) and (c)(7) due to the proposed deletion of point (c)(5).

GM1 HPT-DSN.E.410 Approach surface

(a) Consultations with helicopter operators could assist the aerodrome operator in determining the appropriate slope category to apply according to the heliport environment and the most critical helicopter type for which the heliport is intended.

Figure GM1-E-1. Example of raised inclined plane during operations in performance class 1

(b) The example shown in Figure GM1-E-1 does not represent any specific profile, technique or helicopter type and is intended to show a generic example. An approach profile and a back-up procedure for departure profile are depicted. Specific manufacturers operations in performance class 1 may be represented differently in the specific helicopter (aircraft) flight manual (HFM).

(c) The approach/landing profile may not be the reverse of the take-off profile.

(d) Additional safety assessment for obstacles might be required in the area that a back-up procedure is intended. Helicopter performance and the HFM limitations would determine the extent of the assessment required.

(e)(b) For heliports intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 2 and 3, it is good practice for the approach paths to be selected so as to permit safe forced landing or one- engine-inoperative landings such that, as a minimum requirement, injury to persons on the ground or water or damage to property are minimised. The most critical helicopter type for which the heliport is intended and the ambient conditions may be factors in determining the suitability of such areas.

(f) The approach and take-off surfaces should be offset from each other ideally by an angle of not less than 135 degrees.

(c) For further depictions of approach surfaces, including cases of PinS approach procedures, and for guidance on construction of turns in approach surfaces see the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261).

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 59 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Rationale

Points (b) and (d), and Figure GM1-E-1 are proposed to be deleted, because they are related to take-

offs.

In addition, point (c) is also proposed for deletion, since it can be considered superfluous: The

description of the approach surface in CS HPT-DSN.E.410 and of the take-off climb surface in CS HPT-

DSN.E.420 make it clear that there are differences between the two kinds of surfaces.

Moreover, point (f) is proposed for deletion; see the rationale for CS HPT-DSN.E.430.

A new point (c) is proposed to be added. It contains a reference to the Heliport Manual, regarding

further depictions and guidance for the design of approach surfaces.

CS HPT-DSN.E.420 Take-off climb surface

(a) Applicability: The purpose of the take-off climb surface is to protect a helicopter on take-off and during climb-out.

(b) Description: An inclined plane, a combination of planes or, when a turn isor turns are involved, a complex surface sloping upwards from the end of the safety area, or of the helicopter clearway, when provided, and centred on a line passing through the centre of the FATO (see Figures E-1, E-2, E-3, and E-4, and Table E-1).

(c) Characteristics:

(1) The limits of a take-off climb surface should comprise:

(i) an inner edge, horizontal and perpendicular to the centre line of the take-off climb surface, with aequal in length to the minimum specified width equal to the width/diameter of:

(A) when located at the outer edge of the safety area or helicopter clearway, the FATO plus the safety areaperpendicular to the centre line of the take-off climb surface and located at the outer edge of the safety area; or

(B) when located at the outer edge of the elevated helicopter clearway, the elevated helicopter clearway.

(ii) two side edges originating at the ends of the inner edge and diverging uniformly at a specified rate from the vertical plane containing the centre line of the FATO; and

(iii) an outer edge horizontal and perpendicular to the centre line of the take-off climb surface and at:

(A) a specified height of 152 m (500 ft) above the elevation of the FATO.; or

(B) when a PinS departure procedure with proceed visually instruction is defined, a specified height above the elevation of the FATO.

(2) The elevation of the inner edge should be:

(i) the elevation of the FATO at the point on the inner edge that is intersected by the centre line of the take-off climb surface; or. For heliports intended to be used by helicopters operated in performance class 1, the inclined plane may be raised directly above the FATO.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 60 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(ii) when located at the outer edge of the helicopter clearway, the elevation of the helicopter clearway.

(3) Where a clearway is provided the elevation of the inner edge of the take-off climb surface should be located at the outer edge of the clearway at the highest point on the ground based on the centre line of the clearway.

(3)(4) In the case of a straight take-off climb surface, the slope should be measured in the vertical plane containing the centre line of the surface.

(4)(5) In the case of a take-off climb surface involving a turn or turns, the surface should be a complex surface containing the horizontal normals to its centre line and the slope of the centre line should be the same as that for a straight take-off climb surface (see Figure E- 3).

(6) In the case of a take-off climb surface involving a turn, the surface should not contain more than one curved portion.

(5)(7) Where a curved portion of a take-off climb surface, that does not have its inner edge at the outer edge of a clearway, is provided, the sum of the radius of the arc defining the centre line of the take-off climb surface and the length of the straight portion originating at the inner edge should not be less than 575 m.

(6)(8) Any variation in the direction of the centre line of a take-off climb surface should be designed so as not to necessitate a turn of radius less than 270 m.

Rationale

The proposed amendments of the CS are based on amendment 10 of Annex 14 Vol. II, and are as

follows:

- In current points (b) and (c)(5) the addition of the possibility of more than one turn is proposed.

According to ICAO, this was adopted to restore the practice of allowing more than one turn in

the arrival and departure surfaces, which was removed, in error, in an earlier amendment to the

SARPs. In relation to this, point (c)(6) is proposed to be deleted.

- An improvement of the description the take-off climb surface in point (b) is proposed, by adding

the end of the helicopter clearway, where it is provided, as the start of the take-off climb surface.

- In point (c)(1)(i) an improvement of the description of the inner edge of the take-off climb surface

is proposed, in combination with a reorganisation of the text.

- In proposed points (c)(1)(i)(B) and (c)(2)(ii), the position and elevation of the inner edge is defined

in cases of an elevated clearway. The introduction of these procedures facilitates the clearance

obstacles and improves the usability of a heliport. The second sentence in current point (c)(3) is

not required, and is proposed to be deleted.

- In proposed point (c)(1)(iii)(B) the elevation of the outer edge is provided where a PinS ‘proceed

visually’ procedure is defined. To provide continuity between the OLS and the OCS in such a case,

the outer edge of the take-off climb surface should be extended/reduced to the point where the

approach surface meets the PinS OCS. In addition, the term ‘specified’ in current point (c)(1)(iii)

is proposed to be deleted.

Apart from the proposed amendments that are based on the amendments of Annex 14, Vol. II, the

following amendments are also proposed:

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 61 of 108

An agency of the European Union

- An editorial amendment in (c)(1)(iii).

- A renumbering of current points (c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(7) and (c)(8) due to the proposed deletion of

points (c)(3) and (c)(5).

GM1 HPT-DSN.E.420 Take-off climb surface

(a) Helicopter take-off performance is reduced in a turncurve, soand as such a straight portion along the take-off climb surface prior to the start of the curve allows for acceleration.

[…]

(c) The approach and take-off surfaces should be offset from each other ideally by an angle of not less than 135 degrees.Slope category ‘A’ generally corresponds with helicopters operated in performance class 1 and characterizes the limited performance that is available with one engine inoperative. Slope category ‘B’ corresponds with helicopters operated AEO (all-engines- operating). The first section slope permits acceleration to the best rate-of-climb speed whilst remaining outside the avoid area of the height velocity diagram after which the second section slope is applied. Slope category ‘C’ corresponds with helicopters operated AEO and characterizes

a helicopter with sufficient performance to permit both acceleration and climb at the required slope.

(d) For further depictions of take-off climb surfaces including cases of PinS departure procedures, and for guidance on construction of turns in take-off climb surfaces see the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261).

Rationale

The proposed changes in point (a) are editorial and align the GM text with that of the Annex 14, Vol.

II.

Moreover, current point (c) is proposed for deletion; see the rationale for CS HPT-DSN.E.430.

In its place, it is proposed to insert the description of the slope design categories, that is currently

included as a note in Table E-1. The text that is proposed here is taken, however, from the Heliport

Manual, and offers more insight into the differences of the three slope design categories. This is in line

with the Annex 14, Vol. II, which – with amendment 10 – also contains a reference to the Heliport

Manual.

Finally, in proposed point (d) a reference to the Heliport Manual is included, where more examples

(and illustrations) of take-off climb surfaces can be found.

CS HPT-DSN.E.425 Transitional surface (a) Applicability: The purpose of the transitional surface is to provide protection against obstacles

to a helicopter which becomes displaced from the centre line while executing a PinS approach/departure procedure with proceed visually instruction.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 62 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(b) Description: A complex surface along the side of the safety area and helicopter clearway, when provided, and part of the side of the approach or take-off climb surface, that slopes upwards and outwards to a predetermined height (see Figure E-5 and Table E-1).

(c) Characteristics:

(1) The limits of a transitional surface should comprise:

(i) a lower edge beginning at a point on the side of the approach or take-off climb surface at a specified height extending down the side of the approach or take-off climb surface to the inner edge and from there along the length of the side of the helicopter clearway, when provided, and safety area, parallel to the centre line of the FATO; and

(ii) an upper edge located at:

(A) 45 m (150 ft) above the FATO; or

(B) when vertical procedures are being utilized, 15 m (50 ft) above the elevation of the upper edge of the ascent/descent surface.

(2) The elevation of a point on the lower edge should be:

(i) along the side of the approach or take-off climb surface — equal to the elevation of the approach or take-off climb surface at that point; then

(ii) if provided, along the helicopter clearway – equal to the elevation of the helicopter clearway; and

(iii) along the safety area — equal to the elevation of the FATO.

(3) The slope of the transitional surface should be measured in a vertical plane at right angles to the centre line of the FATO.

Figure E-5. Example of transitional surfaces for a square FATO with two opposing approach and take-off climb surfaces

Rationale

The proposed extension of the applicability of the CS-HPT-DSN to heliports, that utilise PinS approach

or departure procedures with proceed visually instruction, requires the introduction of the transitional

surface. The text, that is proposed to be added, is taken from Annex 14, Vol. II (up to and including

amendment 10). The text of point (a)(1) is taken from the Heliport Manual.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 63 of 108

An agency of the European Union

It should be mentioned that, although the Figure in Annex 14 Vol. II corresponding to the proposed

Figure E-5 is deleted with amendment 10, it is included here, so that at least a basic depiction of the

transitional surface is included in the CS-HPT-DSN.

GM1 HPT-DSN.E.425 Transitional surface Further depictions of transitional surfaces are included in the Heliport Manual.

Rationale

The Heliport Manual provides depictions of transitional surfaces for several arrangements of take-off and approach surfaces.

CS HPT-DSN.E.430 Obstacle limitation requirements

(a) General: The following obstacle limitation surfaces should be established for a FATO:

(1) take-off climb surface; and

(2) approach surface; and

(3) transitional surfaces, at heliports with a PinS approach or departure procedure with a proceed visually instruction.

(b) Characteristics:

[…]

(2) Where a heliport visual approach slope indicator is installed, additional obstacle protection surfaces should be provided, as specified in CS HPT-DSN.F.660, which can be more demanding than the obstacle limitation surfaces prescribed in Table E-1.Additional surfaces, which should be considered and can be more demanding than the obstacle limitation surfaces, include the following:

(i) the protected side slopes, as specified in CS HPT-DSN.B.140;

(ii) where a visual approach slope indicator is installed, the obstacle protection surface, as specified in CS HPT-DSN.F.660;

(iii) where PinS approach or departure procedures have been established, the corresponding PANS-OPS surfaces; and

(iv) where back-up or sideways procedures are used, the back-up or sideways area.

(3) Except fFor heliports facilitating performance class 1 operations, that have an approach/take-off climb surface with a 4.5 per cent slope design, objects can be permitted to penetrate the obstacle limitation surface, if after a safety assessment, it is determined that the object would not adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of operations of helicopters.

(4) New objects or extensions of existing objects should not be permitted above the approach or take-off climb surfacesany of the surfaces in (a), except when shielded by an

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 64 of 108

An agency of the European Union

existing immovable object or when after a safety assessment, it is determined that the object would not adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of operations of helicopters.

(5) Existing objects above the approach and take off climb surfaces any of the surfaces in (a), should, as far as practicable, be removed except when the object is shielded by an existing immovable object or when after a safety assessment, it is determined that the object would not adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of operations of helicopters.

(6) A heliport should have at least two approach and take-off climb surfaces, separated by not less than 135°.When only a single approach and take-off climb surface is provided, a safety assessment should be undertaken considering as a minimum, the following factors:

(i) the area/terrain over which the flight is being conducted;

(ii) the obstacle environment surrounding the heliport;

(iii) the performance and operating limitations of helicopters intending to use the heliport; and

(iv) the local meteorological conditions including the prevailing winds.

Rationale

The amendments proposed, apart from the one regarding point (b)(2), are based on amendment 10 of

Annex 14, Vol. II. In particular:

- The transitional surface is included in the surfaces to be protected, where PinS procedures with

proceed visually instruction are employed.

- Heliports facilitating performance class 1 operations and have an approach or take-off climb

surface of 4.5 % slope are excluded from the possibility to have objects penetrating the OLS

based on a safety assessment.

- New objects and extensions of existing objects can be permitted above the OLS only based on

the shielding principle. Such obstacles are not allowed to be developed in any other case.

- Existing objects penetrating the OLS should in general be removed. The only exception is based

on the shielding principle and no other safety assessment should be accepted.

- The requirements on the safety assessment that should be carried out, when a single approach

and take-off climb surface is provided, are deleted. With amendment 10 of Annex 14 Vol. II, the

requirement for at least two approach and take-off climb surfaces has been adopted by ICAO as

a recommended practice.

The new provisions increase the level of safety, while maintaining the usability of a helicopter for the

case of PC1 operations and 4.5% slope of the approach and take-off climb surfaces. The introduction

of the vertical procedures makes it possible to avoid the situation where objects penetrate the OLS and,

therefore, a safety assessment should not be required to accept such obstacles. Furthermore, the

deletion of the possibility for a safety assessment will align the heliport obstacle limitation

requirements with their equivalent in the CS ADR-DSN.J.470(c), 475(d), 480(f) and 485(d). Moreover,

according to ICAO, the adoption of the requirement for (at least) two approach / take-off climb surfaces

will lift the misunderstanding that a single approach and take-off climb surface is the norm. The value

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 65 of 108

An agency of the European Union

of 135o is a standard accepted by many countries and is already included in the EASA regulatory

material as guidance.

Finally, point (b)(2) is proposed to be extended so as to include further surfaces, that should be taken

into account, if applicable, and could introduce more stringent requirements for obstacle limitation.

GM1 HPT-DSN.E.430 Obstacle limitation requirements

Intentionally left blank

(a) The requirements for obstacle limitation surfaces are specified on the basis of the intended use of a FATO, i.e. approach manoeuvre to hover or landing, or take-off manoeuvre and type of approach, and are intended to be applied when such use is made of the FATO. In cases where operations are conducted to or from both directions of a FATO, then the function of certain surfaces may be nullified because of more stringent requirements of another lower surface.

(b) The application of curved approach or take-off climb surfaces and/or the utilization of vertical procedures may alleviate the problems created by objects infringing these surfaces. However, additional obstacle assessment might be required in other cases, e.g. in the area that a back-up procedure is intended. The helicopter performance and the HFM limitations will determine the extent of the assessment required.

(c) The Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Aircraft Operations, (PANS-OPS, Doc 8168), Volume II, Part IV details the design criteria of the PinS procedure.

Rationale

The text of the GM is taken from notes that are included in Annex 14, Vol. II, except for the last two sentences of point (b), which are transferred here from point (d) of GM1 HPT-DSN.E.410.

It is considered that their inclusion will be helpful to the heliport operator.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 66 of 108

An agency of the European Union

CHAPTER F — VISUAL AIDS

[…]

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.500 General

(a) When a runway is marked in accordance with the provisions of CS-ADR-DSN, and is utilised as a FATO, no additional runway markings or lighting are required for helicopter use.

(b) See GM1 ADR-DSN.L.520 concerning the improvement of the conspicuity of markings.

Rationale

A new GM is proposed to be added as a guidance for the aerodrome designer to be used in cases where

there is insufficient contrast between the marking and the pavement surface.

CS HPT-DSN.F.510 Wind direction indicators

Applicability: A heliport should be equipped with at least one wind direction indicator.

(a) Applicability: If the wind direction indicators serving the aerodrome do not clearly indicate the correct wind information at the heliport, additional wind direction indicators should be installed in order to provide wind information to the pilot during approach and take-off.

(b) Location:

(1) A wind direction indicator should be located so as to indicate the wind conditions over the FATO and TLOF and in such a way as to be free from the effects of airflow disturbances caused by nearby objects or rotor downwash. It should be visible from a helicopter in flight, in a hover or on the movement area.

(2) Where a TLOF and/or FATO are subject to a disturbed airflow, additional wind direction indicators located close to the area should be provided to indicate the surface wind on the area.

(c) Characteristics:

(1) A wind direction indicator should give a clear indication of the direction of the wind and a general indication of the wind speed.

(2) A wind direction indicator for the heliport should be a truncated cone made of lightweight fabric and should have the following minimum dimensions:

(i) Length 2.4 m,

(ii) Diameter (larger end) 0.6 m, and

(iii) Diameter (smaller end) 0.3 m.

(3) The colour of the wind direction indicator should be so selected as to make it clearly visible and understandable from a height of at least 200 m (650 ft) above the heliport, having regard to the background:

(i) where practicable, a single colour, preferably white or orange, should be used;

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 67 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(ii) where a combination of two colours is required to give adequate conspicuity against changing backgrounds, they should preferably be orange and white, red and white, or black and white, and should be arranged in five alternate bands, the first and last band being the darker colour.

(d) A wind direction indicator at a heliport intended for use at night should be illuminated.

Rationale

In Annex 14 Vol. II. provisions on WDI are at the level of standards and recommended practices.

Therefore, it is proposed to transfer the text of the GM1 HPT-DSN.F.510 to the CS in order to ensure

coherence with Annex 14 Vol. II. Furthermore, since the provision of accurate wind information is a

safety-related issue, the WDI-related regulatory material should not be at the level of guidance

material.

The use of the larger WDI satisfying CS ADR-DSN.K.490 is acceptable, since the dimensions of the WDI

for heliports are minimum dimensions and the colouring characteristics are identical.

The applicability provision describes the conditions under which the CS should be applied.

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.510 Wind direction indicators

(a) General: If the wind direction indicators serving the aerodrome do not clearly indicate the correct wind information at the heliport, additional wind direction indicators should be installed in order to provide wind information to the pilot during approach and take-off.

(b) Location:

(1) A wind direction indicator should be located so as to indicate the wind conditions over the FATO and TLOF and in such a way as to be free from the effects of airflow disturbances caused by nearby objects or rotor downwash. It should be visible from a helicopter in flight, in a hover or on the movement area.

(2) Where a TLOF and/or FATO are subject to a disturbed airflow, additional wind direction indicators located close to the area should be provided to indicate the surface wind on the area.

(c) Characteristics:

(1) A wind direction indicator should give a clear indication of the direction of the wind and a general indication of the wind speed.

(2) A wind direction indicator for the heliport should be a truncated cone made of lightweight fabric and should have the following minimum dimensions:

(i) Length 2.4 m,

(ii) Diameter (larger end) 0.6 m, and

(iii) Diameter (smaller end) 0.3 m.

(3) The colour of the wind direction indicator should be so selected as to make it clearly visible and understandable from a height of at least 200 m (650 ft) above the heliport, having regard to the background:

(i) where practicable, a single colour, preferably white or orange, should be used;

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 68 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(ii) where a combination of two colours is required to give adequate conspicuity against changing backgrounds, they should preferably be orange and white, red and white, or black and white, and should be arranged in five alternate bands, the first and last band being the darker colour.

(d) A wind direction indicator at a heliport intended for use at night should be illuminated.

Intentionally left blank

Rationale

See the rationale of the corresponding CS.

CS HPT-DSN.F.520 Heliport identification marking

(a) The objective of a heliport identification marking is to provide to the pilot an indication of the presence of a heliport by its form, its likely usage and the preferred direction(s) of approach. The latter corresponds to the median of the arrival surface(s).

[…]

Rationale

It is proposed to add the objective of the heliport identification marking in combination with what is

meant with the term ‘preferred direction of approach’. Due to this addition the rest of the points are

renumbered.

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.520 Heliport identification marking

(a) If the touchdown/positioning marking is offset, the heliport identification marking is established in the centre of the touchdown/positioning marking.

(b) On a FATO which is not a runway-type FATO, does not contain a TLOF and which is marked with an aiming point marking (see CS HPT-DSN.F.550), the heliport identification marking should be established in the centre of the aiming point marking as shown in Figure F-1.

Rationale

A guidance is proposed to be added regarding the position of the heliport identification marking in the

cases where the TDPM is offset. This is contained as a Note in Annex 14 Vol. II.

Moreover, a clarification is proposed to be added to the single provision of the current GM, namely

that the GM is applicable to other than runway-type FATOs. This is not contained in Annex 14, Vol. II,

but can be deduced by the fact that the heliport identification marking cannot have the required

dimensions (height of 9 m), if it is established in the centre of the aiming point marking. This is

supported also by the provisions of the Heliport Manual, where it is mentioned that the aiming point

for a runway-type FATO should be located ‘at the termination point of the intended approach’.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 69 of 108

An agency of the European Union

CS HPT-DSN.F.525 D-value marking

(a) The objective of D-value marking is to provide to the pilot the ‘D’ of the largest helicopter that can be accommodated on the heliport.

(b) Applicability: D-value markings should be provided at a heliport:

(1) for all FATOs except runway-type FATOs; and

(2) for all TLOFs not collocated with FATOs.

(c) Location:

(1) A D-value marking should be located within the TLOF or FATO and so arranged as to be readable from the preferred approach direction.

(2) Where there is more than one approach direction, additional D-value markings should be provided such that at least one D-value marking is readable from the approach direction.

(d) Characteristics:

(1) The D-value marking should be white.

(2) The D-value marking should be rounded to the nearest whole meter with 0.5 rounded down.

(3) The height of the numbers of the marking should be:

(i) for a D-value of less than 15 m, a minimum of 60 cm;

(ii) for a D-value between 15 m and 30 m, a minimum of 90 cm; and

(iii) for a D-value of more than 30 m, as shown in Figure F-4.

(4) For marking heights less than 150 cm (D-values of 30 m or less), the markings should be in the form shown in Figure F-4, with a proportional reduction in width and thickness.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 70 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Figure F-4. Form and proportions of numbers

Rationale

With amendment 9 of Annex 14, Vol. II, the application of section 5.2.4 regarding D-value markings

become a standard for surface-level heliports. As a result, it is proposed that a new CS is introduced

with the content taken from the above-mentioned section. Figure GM1-F-2 has been transferred here

as a new Figure F-4. This addition affects the numbers of all the following Figures.

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.525 D-value marking

Intentionally left blank

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 71 of 108

An agency of the European Union

CS HPT-DSN.F.530 Final approach and take-off area perimeter marking or markers

(a) The objective of final approach and take-off area perimeter marking, or markers, is to provide to the pilot, where the perimeter of the FATO is not self-evident, an indication of the area that is free of obstacles and in which intended procedures, or permitted manoeuvring, may take place.

[…]

(c)(d) Characteristics:

(1) For runway-type FATOs:

[…]

(v) A FATO perimeter marker should have dimensional characteristics as shown in Figure F-5.

[…]

Figure F-5. Runway-type FATO perimeter marker

Rationale

It is proposed to add the objective of the final approach and take-off area perimeter marking, or markers based on the corresponding text in Annex 14 Vol. II. Due to this addition the rest of the points are renumbered.

Furthermore, it is proposed to move the provision on the dimensional characteristics of the FATO perimeter markers from the GM to the CS, since the corresponding provision in Annex 14, Vol. II is at the level of a Standard.

In addition, the term ‘edge’ in the caption of current Figure GM1-F-1 is proposed to be replaced by the term ‘perimeter’ for consistency reasons.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 72 of 108

An agency of the European Union

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.530 Final approach and take-off area perimeter marking or markers

(a) Where a TLOF is coincident with a FATO, the TLOF marking can be used.

(b) FATO perimeter markers should be of a single colour, either orange or red, or the two contrasting colours of orange and white or, alternatively, red and white should be used except where such colours would merge with the background. A FATO perimeter marker should have dimensional characteristics as shown in Figure GM1-F-1.

Figure GM1-F-1. Runway-type FATO edge marker

Rationale

Regarding the deletion of the provision on the dimensional characteristics of the FATO perimeter

markers see the rationale of the corresponding CS.

CS HPT-DSN.F.540 Final approach and take-off area designation marking

(a) The objective of final approach and take-off area designation markings for runway-type FATOs is to provide to the pilot an indication of the magnetic heading of the runway.

[…]

Rationale

The objective of the FATO designation marking is proposed to be added based on the corresponding

text in Annex 14 Vol. II. Due to this addition the rest of the points are renumbered.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 73 of 108

An agency of the European Union

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.540 Final approach and take-off area designation marking

For a runway-type FATO, the numbers and the letter of the marking should have a white colour and should be in the form and proportion shown in Figure GM1-F-2.

Figure GM1-F-2. Form and proportions of numbers and letter

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 74 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Figure GM1-F-2. Form and proportions of numbers of the FATO designation marking

Rationale

In Annex 14 Vol. II and in the Heliport Manual the figure corresponding to the current Figure GM1-F-2 is mentioned only in relation to the maximum allowable mass marking and the D-value marking. The FATO designation marking is not linked to any Figure, since the adoption of amendment 5 of Annex 14 Vol. II by ICAO.

In contrast, in the current version of CS-HPT-DSN, the use of the shapes and proportions of Figure GM1- F-2 is included as a guidance material in relation to the FATO designation marking.

However, it can be observed that the shape of the markings in GM1-F-2 is not elongated, implying that these numbers are designed to be optimally viewed at a high angle, i.e. close to and above the marking. This renders them unsuitable for the FATO designation marking at runway-type FATOs, which would normally involve helicopters approaching at a relatively low angle. The marking, that could be considered to be suitable, is the one contained in CS ADR-DSN.L.525 for the runway designation

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 75 of 108

An agency of the European Union

marking. Indeed, the numbers are elongated and based on their height and space between the characters, they correspond perfectly with the marking illustrated in Figure F-2.

However, this was the figure that was removed from Annex 14, Vol. II with amendment 5. State letter 13/21 – proposing this deletion – did not provide a rationale. Furthermore, it could be argued that the similarity of the markings could lead to misidentification of a FATO as a runway.

Based on the above, there are two options:

- Option 1: Keep the shapes of the current Figure GM1-F-2 (proposed new Figure F-4) as the shapes to be used for the FATO designation marking.

- Option 2: Introduce Figure L-2 of CS ADR-DSN.L.525 as new Figure GM1-F-2 and use these shapes for the FATO designation marking.

Question to stakeholders:

EASA is inviting the stakeholders to share their views on which of the two options should be chosen.

CS HPT-DSN.F.550 Aiming point marking

[…]

(b) Applicability: An aiming point marking should be provided at a heliport where it is necessary for a pilot to make an approach to a particular point above a FATO before proceeding to a TLOF.

(c)(b) Location: Where provided, the aiming point marking should be located within the FATO (see Figure F-1 for other than runway-type FATOs).

(d)(c) Characteristics:

(i) The aiming point marking should be an equilateral triangle with a minimum side length of 9.0 metres, with the bisector of one of the angles aligned with the preferred approach direction.

(ii) The marking should consist of continuous white lines, 1.0 m in width and 9 m in length (see Figures F-1 and F-123).

Rationale

It is proposed that the applicability is added, which is transferred without changes from Annex 14, Vol.

II. Due to this addition the rest of the points are renumbered.

Furthermore, the reference to Figure F-1 is proposed to be complemented with a restriction that Figure F-1 applies only to FATOs that are not runway-type FATOs. See rationale for GM1 HPT-DSN.F.520.

Moreover, the length of the sides of the aiming point marking is mentioned only within current Figure F-12. It is proposed to be added explicitly in the text.

Finally, the amendment of the Figure number from F-12 to F-13 is based on the proposed addition of a new Figure F-4.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 76 of 108

An agency of the European Union

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.550 Aiming point marking

For all FATOs except runway-type FATOs, the aiming point marking should be located at the centre of the FATO, as shown in Figure F-1. For a runway-type FATO, the aiming point marking should be located at the termination point of the intended approach, except that, on a FATO equipped with a visual approach slope indicator system, the beginning of the marking should be coincident with the visual approach slope origin.

Rationale

The first part of the sentence, that was added, is based on the Heliport Manual, Part II, par. 5.2.6. The

second part of the sentence is based on the equivalent text of CS ADR-DSN.L.540, that is applicable for

the positioning of an aiming point marking on a runway. See also the rationale of GM1 HPT-DSN.F.520.

CS HPT-DSN.F.560 Touchdown and lift-off area perimeter marking

(a) The safety objective of the touchdown and lift-off area perimeter marking is to provide to the pilot a clear indication of a TLOF.The objective of the touchdown and lift-off area perimeter marking is to provide to the pilot an indication of an area that is free of obstacles; has dynamic load bearing; and in which, when positioned in accordance with the TDPM, undercarriage containment is assured.

[…]

Rationale

It is proposed that the text of the safety objective is replaced by the text contained in Annex 14 Vol. II,

since the latter is more detailed.

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.560 Touchdown and lift-off area perimeter marking

A TLOF perimeter marking should be provided on each TLOF collocated with a helicopter stand.

Intentionally left blank

Rationale

It is proposed to delete the current text of the GM. As stands will need a TDPM, there is no necessity

for marking the TLOF perimeter.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 77 of 108

An agency of the European Union

CS HPT-DSN.F.570 Touchdown/positioning marking

(a) The objective of a touchdown/positioning marking (TDPM) is to provide visual cues which permit a helicopter to be placed in a specific position.

(a)(b) Applicability:

(1) A touchdown/positioning marking should be provided where it is necessary for a helicopter to touch down and/or be accurately placed in a specific positioned.

(2) A touchdown/positioning marking should be provided on a helicopter stand designed for turning.The touchdown/positioning marking should be:

(i) when there is no limitation on the direction of touchdown/positioning, a touchdown/positioning circle (TDPC) marking (see Figure F-5(a)); and

(ii) when there is a limitation on the direction of touchdown/positioning:

(A) for unidirectional applications, a shoulder line with an associated centreline (see Figure F-5(b)); or

(B) for multidirectional applications, a TDPC marking with prohibited landing sector(s) marked (see Figure F-5(c)).

(b)(c) Location:

(1) A touchdown/positioning marking should be located so that when the pilot’s seat is over the marking, the whole of the undercarriage should be within the TLOF and all parts of the helicopter should be clear of any obstacles by a safe margin.

(2) On a heliport, the centre of the touchdown/positioning marking should be located at the centre of the TLOF, except the centre of the touchdown/positioning marking may be offset away from the centre of the TLOF where a safety assessment indicates such offsetting to be necessary, and providing that a marking that is so offset would not adversely affect safety.The inner edge/inner circumference of the touchdown/positioning marking should be at a distance of 0.25 D from the centre of the area in which the helicopter is to be positioned.

(3) For a helicopter stand designed for hover turning, the touchdown/positioning marking should be located in the centre of the central zone (see Figure D-1).Prohibited landing sector markings, when provided, should be located on the TDPM, diametrically opposite from the area where the tail rotor should not be placed.

(c)(d) Characteristics:

(1) A touchdown/positioning marking should be a yellow circle and have a line width of at least 0.5 m.

(2) The inner diameter of the touchdown/positioning markingcircle should be 0.5 D of the largest helicopter the areaTLOF and/or the helicopter stand is intended to serve.

(3) The length of a shoulder line should be 0.5 D of the largest helicopter the area is intended to serve.

(4) The TDPM should take precedence when used in conjunction with other markings on the TLOF except for the prohibited landing sector marking.

(5) The prohibited landing sector marking, when provided, should:

(i) be indicated by white and red hatched markings as shown in Figure F-5(c); and

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 78 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(ii) extend to the inner edge of the TLOF perimeter marking.

Figure F-5 Forms of touchdown/positioning markings: (a) Multidirectional TDPC with no limitations, (b) unidirectional marking shoulder line with associated centerline and (c) multidirectional TDPC with prohibited landing sector marking

Rationale

The objective of the TDPM is proposed to form new point (a) in line with other provisions in the CS-

HPT-DSN. Due to this addition the rest of the points are renumbered.

Furthermore, the current CS is proposed to be amended in line with amendment 9 of Annex 14 Vol. II.

The new structure of the CS reflects the proposed amendments in Chapter B and includes all forms of

TDPMs (circle, centre line with stop line and circle with prohibited landing sector). The latter is

proposed to be included in the CS, although it originates from the Annex 14 Vol. II provisions on

helidecks, considering that such restricted areas might be necessary at surface-level heliports, too.

The provision mentioning the position of the centre of the TDPM and the possibility to offset it are

proposed to be deleted, since these are already covered by the broader statement in point (c)(1) about

the location of the marking. However, a new point (a) has been added in the corresponding GM, to

maintain clarity. It should be mentioned that after amendment 5, Annex 14 Vol. II contains an explicit

reference to the possibility of offsetting the TDPM only where it is in a FATO. In place of the above-

mentioned provisions, a new provision is proposed to be added as point (c)(2) regarding the distance

of the inner circumference or inner edge of the marking from its centre.

Point (c)(3) of the CS is proposed to be deleted, because the concept of the central zone has been

removed from the CS-HPT-DSN (in line with Annex 14 Vol. II) and in addition, it has been judged that

the TDPM might not offer sufficient guidance for the turning in hover. Based on the Heliport Manual,

a new point (c) is proposed to be added in the corresponding GM in relation to this proposed deletion

(see below). In place of the deleted provision, a new requirement regarding the location of the

prohibited landing sector marking, where it is provided.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 79 of 108

An agency of the European Union

In point (d)(1) the term ‘circle’ is proposed to be deleted, and in (d)(2) the term ‘marking’ to be replaced

by ‘circle’, since the TDPM does not include circles only, but also shoulder lines. The latter are described

in the new proposed (d)(3).

Due to the importance of the TDPM, a new provision is proposed to be added as point (d)(4) in line

with amendment 9 of Annex 14 Vol. II, based on which the TDPM takes precedence over all other

markings apart from the prohibited landing sector ones.

In addition, the basic characteristics of the prohibited landing sector are proposed to be added as point

(d)(5).

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.570 Touchdown/positioning marking

Intentionally left blank

(a) The centre of the TDPM should normally be at the centre of the FATO or the helicopter stand. However, when a TLOF in a FATO is larger than the minimum dimensions, the TDPM may be offset while ensuring containment of the undercarriage within the TLOF and the helicopter within the FATO.

(b) Where an elongated Performance Class 1 FATO/TLOF contains more than one TDPM, measures

should be in place to ensure that only one can be used at a time.

(c) The touchdown/positioning circle (TDPC) should not be considered to be a reference for performing turns in hover. In view of the potential errors in turning, helicopter containment for hover turning should be set to 1.5D. Further guidance is provided in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261).

(d) The prohibited landing sector marking, when provided, is not intended to move the helicopter away from objects around the FATO, but to ensure that the tail is not placed in an orientation that might constitute a hazard. This is achieved by having the helicopter nose clear of the hatched markings during the touchdown.

Rationale

The proposed point (b) originates from a recommendation in Annex 14 Vol. II, that has an operational

aspect. It was therefore deemed appropriate not to be included in the present regulatory material as

a certification specification.

Point (d) provides more information about the intended use of the prohibited landing sector marking

and refers to the Heliport Manual for more information.

For paragraphs (a) and (c), see the rationale of the corresponding CS.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 80 of 108

An agency of the European Union

CS HPT-DSN.F.580 Heliport name marking

(a) Applicability: A heliport name marking should be provided at a heliport where there is insufficient alternative means of visual identification.

(b) Characteristics: A heliport name marking should consist of the name or the alphanumeric designator of the heliport as used in radio (R/T) communications.

Intentionally left blank

Rationale

The provisions are proposed to be deleted, since they are not applicable to the heliports within

aerodromes.

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.580 Heliport name marking

(a) Location: The heliport name marking should be displayed on the heliport so as to be visible, as far as practicable, at all angles above the horizontal.

(b) Characteristics:

(1) A heliport name marking intended for use at night or during conditions of poor visibility should be illuminated, either internally or externally.

(2) The colour of the marking should contrast with the background and preferably be white.

(3) Runway-type FATOs: The characters of the marking should be not less than 3 m in height.

(4) All FATOs except runway-type FATOs: The characters of the marking should be not less than 1.5 m in height.

Intentionally left blank

Rationale

The provisions are proposed to be deleted, since they are not applicable to the heliports within

aerodromes.

CS HPT-DSN.F.590 Helicopter ground taxiway markings and markers

(a) The objective of helicopter taxiway markings and markers is to provide visual cues enabling pilots to taxi safely along the taxiway by day and, if necessary, by night.

(a)(b) Applicability:

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 81 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(1) The specifications for runway-holding position markings defined in CS ADR-DSN.L.575 and for intermediate holding position markings defined in CS ADR-DSN.L.580 are equally applicable to taxiways intended for ground taxiing of helicopters.

(2) The centre line of a helicopter ground taxiway should be identified with a marking.

(3) The edges of a helicopter ground taxiway, if not self-evident, should be identified with markers or markings.

(b)(c) Location:

(1) Helicopter ground taxiway markings should be along the centre line, and, if provided, along the edges of a helicopter ground taxiway.

(2) Helicopter ground taxiway edge markers should be located at a distance of 0.5 m to 3 m beyond the edge of the helicopter ground taxiway.

(3) Where provided, helicopter ground taxiway edge markers should be spaced at intervals of not more than 15 m on each side of straight sections and 7.5 m on each side of curved sections with a minimum of four equally spaced markers per section.

(2) Where provided, helicopter taxiway edge markers should be:

(i) located at a distance of 1 m to 3 m beyond the edge of the helicopter taxiway; and

(ii) spaced at intervals of not more than 15 m on each side of straight sections and 7.5 m on each side of curved sections with a minimum of four equally spaced markers per section.

(c)(d) Characteristics:

(1) On a paved taxiway, aA helicopter ground taxiway centre line marking should be a continuous yellow line 15 cm in width. On an unpaved taxiway that will not accommodate painted markings, a helicopter taxiway centre line should be marked with flush in-ground 15 cm wide and approximately 1.5 m in length yellow markers, spaced at intervals of not more than 30 m on straight sections and not more than 15 m on curves, with a minimum of four equally spaced markers per section.

(2) Helicopter ground taxiway edge markings should be a continuous double yellow line, each 15 cm in width, and spaced 15 cm apart (nearest edge to nearest edge).

(3) A helicopter ground taxiway edge marker should not exceed the height of a plane originating at a height of 25 cm above the plane of the helicopter ground taxiway, at a distance of 0.5 m from the edge of the helicopter ground taxiway and sloping upwards and outwards at a gradient of 5 per cent to a distance of 3 m beyond the edge of the helicopter ground taxiway.

(4) Helicopter ground taxiway edge markers should be frangible to the wheeled undercarriage of helicopters and should not present a hazard for aircraft operations.

(5) A helicopter ground taxiway edge marker should be blue.

(6) If the helicopter ground taxiway is to be used at night, the edge markers should be internally illuminated or retro-reflective.

Rationale

The objective of the helicopter taxiway markings and markers is proposed to form new point (a), in line

with other paragraphs of the CS-HPT-DSN. Due to this addition the rest of the points are renumbered.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 82 of 108

An agency of the European Union

In line with the change of concept introduced with amendment 9 of Annex 14 Vol. II, the attribute

‘ground’ is proposed to be deleted.

Moreover, points (c)(2) and (c)(3) are proposed to be merged, since they both refer to the location of

the helicopter taxiway edge markers. It should be pointed out that – in line with amendment 9 of Annex

14 Vol. II – the minimum distance of such markers from the edge of the helicopter taxiway is proposed

to be increased from 0.5 m to 1 m.

Furthermore, the provision for centreline marking of unpaved taxiways is proposed to be added in point

(d)(1), in line with amendment 9 of Annex 14 Vol. II. A consequential addition regarding the text of

point (d)(1) – restricting its applicability to paved taxiways – is also proposed.

Regarding the frangibility of the markers, two amendments are proposed in point (d)(4):

- That the term ‘wheeled’ is deleted, so that the skidded helicopters are also included, and

- that the relevant point (c) of the GM is upgraded to a CS, due to its importance, especially

considering that the heliports under the scope of the CS-HPT-DSN are the ones within

aerodromes and therefore the aircraft in general (i.e. including the aeroplanes) should be taken

into account regarding the safety of operations.

An editorial change was also made in (b)(1).

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.590 Helicopter ground taxiway markings and markers

(a) Ground taxi-routes and air taxi-routes over a taxiway are not required to be marked.

(b) Where necessary, signage should be provided on an aerodrome to indicate that a ground taxiway is suitable only for the use of helicopters.

(c) A helicopter ground taxiway edge marker should not present a hazard for aircraft operations.Helicopter taxiway edge markers can be of the form described in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261).

Rationale

In line with the change of concept introduced with amendment 9 of Annex 14 Vol. II, the attribute

‘ground’ is proposed to be deleted.

Furthermore, the case of air taxi-routes over taxiways has also been added to the text, so that the

proposed guidance is related in general to taxi-routes collocated with helicopter taxiways. In this case,

the marking and markers are the ones of the helicopter taxiways, and no further markings or markers

are required, which is what is stated in point (a) of the GM.

Regarding the proposed deletion of the current text of point (c), see the rationale of the corresponding

CS. The new proposed text of point (c) contains a reference to the Heliport Manual for the form of the

helicopter taxiway edge markers that can be used on helicopter taxiways.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 83 of 108

An agency of the European Union

CS HPT-DSN.F.600 Helicopter air taxi-routeway markings and markers

(a) The objective of helicopter air taxi-route markings and markers is to provide visual cues enabling pilots to air-taxi safely by day and, if necessary, by night.

(a)(b) Applicability:

(1) The specifications for runway-holding position markings defined in CS ADR-DSN.L.575 and intermediate holding position markings defined in CS ADR-DSN.L.580 are equally applicable to taxiways intended for air taxiing of helicoptershelicopter air taxi-routes.

(2) The centre line of a helicopter air taxiway or, if not self-evident, the edges of a helicopter air taxiway, should be identified with markers or markings.The specifications for air taxi- route markings and markers are applicable in the case of air taxi-routes not collocated with a taxiway.

(3) The centre line of a helicopter air taxi-route should be identified with markers or markings.

(b)(c) Location:

(1) A helicopter air taxi-routeway centre line marking or flush in-ground centre line markers should be located along the centre line of the helicopter air taxi-routeway.

(2) Helicopter air taxiway edge markings should be located along the edges of a helicopter air taxiway.

(3) Helicopter air taxiway edge markers should be located at a distance of 1 m to 3 m beyond the edge of the helicopter air taxiway.

(c)(d) Characteristics:

(1) A helicopter air taxi-routeway centre line should be marked with a continuous yellow line 15 cm in width, when on a paved surface.

(2) The edges of a helicopter air taxiway, when on a paved surface, should be marked with continuous double yellow lines each 15 cm in width, and spaced 15 cm apart (nearest edge to nearest edge).

(3)(2) Where a helicopter air taxi-routeway is located on an unpaved surface and painted markings of a helicopter air taxi-routeway centre line cannot be provided, it should be marked with flush in-ground 15 cm wide and approximately 1.5 m in length yellow markers, spaced at intervals of not more than 30 m on straight sections and not more than 15 m on curves, with a minimum of four equally spaced markers per section.

(4) Helicopter air taxiway edge markers, where provided, should be spaced at intervals of not more than 30 m on each side of straight sections and not more than 15 m on each side of curves, with a minimum of four equally spaced markers per section.

(5) Helicopter air taxiway edge markers should be frangible.

(6) Helicopter air taxiway edge markers should not penetrate a plane originating at a height of 25 cm above the plane of the helicopter air taxiway, at a distance of 1 m from the edge of the helicopter air taxiway and sloping upwards and outwards at a gradient of 5 per cent to a distance of 3 m beyond the edge of the helicopter air taxiway.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 84 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(7) A helicopter air taxiway edge marker should be of a colour (or colours) that contrasts (contrast) effectively against the operating background. The red colour should not be used for markers.

(8)(3) If the helicopter air taxi-routeway is to be used at night, helicopter air taxiway edge markers should be either internally illuminated or retro-reflective.

Rationale

The objective of the helicopter air taxi-route markings and markers is proposed to be included in the

CS. Due to this addition the rest of the points are renumbered.

Additionally, in line with the change of concept introduced with amendment 9 of Annex 14 Vol. II, it is

proposed that:

- the provisions (b)(2), (c)(2), (c)(3), (d)(2), and (d)(4) to (d)(7) – related to the helicopter air

taxiway edge markings and markers – are deleted;

- the provisions (c)(1), (d)(1) and (d)(8) related to the helicopter air taxiway centreline markings

or markers are amended to read ‘taxi-route’; and

- the term ‘helicopter air taxiway edge markers’ in point (d)(8) is amended to ‘markers’. In this

way the provision applies to the air taxi-route centreline markers.

Due to the proposed deletions in paragraph (d) a further renumbering of the provisions is also required.

Similarly, point (b)(1) is proposed to be amended by substituting the terms ‘taxiways intended for air

taxiing of helicopters’ by ‘helicopter air taxi-routes’.

In addition, based on amendment 10 of Annex 14, Vol. II, the characteristics regarding the length and

the width of the markers included in point (d)(3) are proposed to be deleted, since they are related to

the air taxiway markers.

The following points are proposed to be added:

- The new text in point (b)(2) provides clarification about the applicability of the present

paragraph. When the taxi-route is collocated with a helicopter taxiway, the markings and

markers will be the ones of the taxiway. This is covered in CS HPT-DSN.F.590. The only other

case, where markings and markers would be required, is that of an air taxi-route not collocated

with a taxiway.

- The new point (b)(3) is carried over from the Annex 14 Vol. II and specifies the part of the air

taxi-route to be marked.

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.600 Helicopter air taxi-routeway markings and markers

(a) Helicopter air taxi-routes are not required to be marked.Further guidance on the characteristics of air taxi-route markers is provided in the Heliport Manual (Doc 9261).

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 85 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(b) Where a helicopter air taxi-routeway could be confused with a helicopter ground taxi-routeway, signage should be provided to indicate the mode of taxi operations that are permitted.

(c) Helicopter air taxiway edge markers should not be located at a distance from the centre line of the helicopter air taxiway of less than 0.5 times the largest overall width of the helicopter for which it is designed. When markers are used, the air taxi-manoeuvre may be less accurate than when following a centre line marking. For that reason, the designer should ensure that an air taxi-route with markers is not sited in close proximity to taxiways and other taxi-routes. See also GM1 HPT-DSN.C.210.

(d) Helicopter air taxiway edge markers should not penetrate a plane originating at a height of 25 cm above the plane of the helicopter air taxiway, at a distance from the centre line of the helicopter air taxiway of 0.5 times the largest overall width of the helicopter for which it is designed, and sloping upwards and outwards at a gradient of 5 per cent.

Rationale

The current text of point (a) is proposed to be transferred (appropriately amended) in GM1 HPT-

DSN.F.590. (See also the rationale of the corresponding CS.) In its place, the proposed new text provides

a reference to the Heliport Manual, where the characteristics of helicopter air taxi-route markers can

be found.

Point (b) is proposed to be amended by substituting the term ‘taxiway’ with the term ‘taxi-route’, in

line with amendment 9 of Annex 14 Vol. I and the proposed amendments in the corresponding CS.

Furthermore, for the same reason, the current text of points (c) and (d) are proposed to be deleted.

The proposed new text in point (c) originates from the Heliport Manual and is added here, because it

highlights the reduced accuracy of the air-taxiing, when markers are used instead of a centreline

marking, and the implications of this reduced accuracy regarding the determination of the appropriate

distances between air taxi-routes and taxiways or other air-taxi-routes. A reference to GM1 HPT-

DSN.C.210 has been added, which mentions the aspect of the wind velocity/turbulence induced by the

rotor downwash.

CS HPT-DSN.F.610 Helicopter stand markings

(a) The objective of the helicopter stand markings is to provide to the pilot a visual indication of an area that is free of obstacles and in which permitted manoeuvring, and all necessary ground functions, may take place; identification and D-value limitations, when required; and guidance for manoeuvring and positioning of the helicopter within the stand.

(a)(b) Applicability:

(1) A helicopter stand perimeter marking should be provided on all helicopter stands designed for turning. If a helicopter stand perimeter marking is not practicable, a central zone perimeter marking should be provided instead if the perimeter of the central zone is not self-evident.

(2) For a helicopter stand that is intended to be used for taxi-through and which does not allow a helicopter to turn, a stop line should be provided.A helicopter stand should be provided with the appropriate TDPM (see Figures F-5 and F-6).

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 86 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(3) Alignment lines and lead-in/lead-out lines should be provided on a helicopter stand (see Figures F-4 and F-5).

(b)(c) Location:

(1) The TDPM, alignment lines and lead-in/lead-out lines should be located such that every part of the helicopter can be contained within the helicopter stand during positioning and permitted manoeuvring.A helicopter stand perimeter marking on a helicopter stand designed for turning or, a central zone perimeter marking, should be concentric with the central zone of the stand.

(2) Alignment lines and lead-in/lead-out lines should be located as shown in Figure F-6.For a helicopter stand that is intended to be used for taxi-through and which does not allow the helicopter to turn, a stop line should be located on the helicopter ground taxiway axis at right angles to the centre line.

Figure F-4. Helicopter stand markings at a stand designated for hover turning

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 87 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Figure F-5. Taxi through helicopter stand markings

Figure F-6. Helicopter stand markings

(c)(d) Characteristics:

(1) A helicopter stand perimeter marking should be a consist of a continuous yellow circle line and have a line width of 15 cm.

(2) A central zone perimeter marking should be a yellow circle and have a line width of 15 cm, except when the TLOF is collocated with a helicopter stand, in which case the

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 88 of 108

An agency of the European Union

characteristics of the TLOF perimeter markings should apply.The TDPM should have the characteristics described in CS HPT-DSN.F.570 above.

(3) For a helicopter stand that is intended to be used for taxi-through and which does not allow the helicopter to turn, the yellow stop line should not be less than the width of the helicopter ground taxiway and should have a line thickness of 50 cm.

(3)(4) Alignment lines and lead-in/lead-out lines should be continuous yellow lines and should have a width of 15 cm.

(4)(5) Curved portions of alignment lines and lead-in/lead-out lines should have radii appropriate to the most demanding helicopter type the helicopter stand is intended to serve.

(5)(6) Stand identification markings should be marked in a contrasting colour so as to be easily readable.

(6)(7) Where it is intended that helicopters proceed in one direction only, arrows indicating the direction to be followed may be added as part of the alignment lines.

Rationale

The objective of the helicopter stand markings – as included in amendment 9 of Annex 14, Vol. II – is

proposed to be added in the CS. Due to this addition the rest of the points are renumbered.

For the rest, the amendment of this CS is based on amendment 9 of Annex 14 Vol. II. With this

amendment:

- The use of the helicopter stand perimeter line is generalised to all stands; not only to those

designed for turning.

- An appropriate form of the TDPM is provided at all stands, as already described in CS HPT-

DSN.F.570.

- The concept of the central zone is no longer applicable; the required attributes are satisfied

either through the existence of a TLOF with the corresponding marking, or the combination of a

ground taxiway attributes and the TDPM.

As a direct consequence of the above, provision (b)(1) is proposed to be amended by deleting the terms

‘for turning’ and the requirement of a central zone perimeter marking. An editorial change is also

proposed. Furthermore, point (b)(2) – related to the required stand markings, in the case of stands

intended to be used unidirectionally – is proposed to be amended so as to be generic. The proposed

deletion of the reference to Figures F-4 and F-5 is based on the fact that in the current place they seem

to refer only to the alignment and lead-in/out lines. A reference to figures D-1 to D-5 is proposed to be

added to the corresponding GM, considering that these figures contain further examples of stand

markings.

For the same reasons, provisions (c)(1) and (c)(2), that describe the location of the markings required

for turning or taxi-through, are proposed to be replaced by provisions related to the generic

requirement that the markings should assure containment of the helicopter within the stand and to

refer to Figure F-6 for the description of the location of the alignment and lead-in/lead-out lines.

Point (d)(1) is proposed to be generalised by substituting the term ‘circle’ with the term ‘line’. With this

change, the applicability of the provision is extended to all forms of the helicopter stand perimeter

markings. The requirement for a continuous line is also proposed for addition.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 89 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Point (d)(2) – referring to the central zone – is proposed to be deleted for the reasons explained above

and replaced by a reference to CS HPT-DSN.F.570.

Point (d)(3) – referring to the characteristics of the stop line – is proposed to be deleted, since these

requirements are already described in the CS HPT-DSN.F.570, that is also proposed for amendment as

described previously. Subsequent paragraphs are renumbered, due to this proposed deletion.

Finally, Figures F-4 and F-5 are proposed to be replaced by Figure F-6, which illustrates equivalent

information contained in both the Figures to be replaced, based on the new, proposed requirements.

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.610 Helicopter stand markings

(a) Examples of stands and their markings can be seen in Figures D-1 to D-5.

(b) Helicopter stand identification markings should be provided where there is a need to identify individual stands.

Rationale

A reference to Figures contained in Chapter D and illustrating various arrangements of stands and their

safety areas (including markings) is proposed to be added in point (a). (See also the rationale of the

CS.) The already existing provision becomes point (b).

CS HPT-DSN.F.620 Flight path alignment guidance marking

(a) The objective of a flight path alignment guidance marking is to provide the pilot with a visual indication of the available approach and/or departure path direction(s).

[…]

(c)(d) Characteristics:

(1) A flight path alignment guidance marking should consist of one or more arrows marked on the TLOF, FATO and/or safety area surface, as shown in Figure F-67. The stroke of the arrow(s) should be 50 cm in width and at least 3 m in length. When combined with a flight path alignment guidance lighting system, it should take the form shown in Figure F-67, which includes the scheme for marking the ‘heads of the arrows’, which are always of the same size, regardless of the stroke length.

[…]

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 90 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Figure F-67. Flight path alignment guidance markings and lights

Rationale

In line with previous paragraphs, the objective of the flight path alignment guidance marking –

introduced with amendment 9 of Annex 14 Vol. II – is proposed to be included in the CS as point (a).

Due to this addition the rest of the points are renumbered.

Re-numbering of two references to figure F-6 and of Figure F-6 itself is necessary, based on the

proposed addition of a previous figure.

CS HPT-DSN.F.628 Lights - general Intentionally left blank

Rationale

See rationale for the GM.

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.628 Lights - general

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 91 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(a) As helicopters will generally come very close to extraneous light sources, it is particularly important to ensure that, unless such lights are navigation lights exhibited in accordance with applicable regulations, they are screened or located so as to avoid direct and reflected glare.

(b) Systems addressed in CS HPT-DSN.F.640, CS HPT-DSN.F.660, CS HPT-DSN.F.670 and CS HPT- DSN.F.680 are designed to provide effective lighting cues based on night conditions. Where lights are to be used in conditions other than night (i.e. day or twilight), it may be necessary to increase the intensity of the lighting to maintain effective visual cues by use of a suitable brilliancy control. Guidance is provided in the Aerodrome Design Manual (Doc 9157), Part 4 — Visual Aids.

(c) In cases where operations into a heliport are to be conducted at night with Night Vision Imaging Systems (NVIS), it is important to ensure that all heliport lighting are compatible with the NVIS such as through the addition of infrared emitters to the heliport lighting. Where such additional measures are not practicable, helicopter operators using NVIS are to be made aware of it. See also ADR.OPS.A.070.

Rationale

The present paragraph is proposed to be added, to include guidance material that is applicable to lights

in general and would not be suitable to be added in any of the following paragraphs that are related

to specific light systems. All the proposed points stem from Annex 14 Vol. II.

Proposed point (a) highlights the necessity to screen or suitably locate extraneous light sources, since

helicopters routes may come closer to such lights sources and pilots are more likely to be subjected to

glare.

Point (b) is proposed to be added, to be pointed out that the intensity of the light systems, that are

mentioned, is determined based on night conditions. Furthermore, considering that the proposed CS-

HPT-DSN include the utilisation of PinS procedures, the meteorological conditions might necessitate

the use of lights with an increased intensity in comparison with the one suitable for VMC.

Point (c) is proposed to be added, to highlight the necessity to provide lights that are compatible with

NVIS and inform the helicopter operators about the provision (or non-provision) of such lights. The text

originates from a note in Annex 14, Vol. II that was introduced with amendment 9 and changed with

amendment 10. A reference to the related provision ADR.OPS.A.070 has been included.

CS HPT-DSN.F.630 Approach lighting system

(a) The objective of an approach lighting system is to allow the helicopter operator, by day and night, to visually identify the heliport and align the helicopter on the centreline of the FATO upon arriving at a prescribed point on the approach flight path.

(a)(b) Applicability: Where provided at a heliport, an approach lighting system should indicate a preferred approach direction.An approach lighting system should be provided at a heliport where it is desirable and practicable to indicate a preferred approach direction.

[…]

(c)(d) Characteristics:

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 92 of 108

An agency of the European Union

(1) An approach lighting system should consist of a row of three lights spaced uniformly at 30 m intervals and of a crossbar 18 m in length at a distance of 90 m from the perimeter of the FATO as shown in Figure F-78. The lights forming the crossbar should be as nearly as practicable in a horizontal straight line at right angles to, and bisected by, the line of the centre line lights, and spaced at 4.5 m intervals.

[…]

(5) The flashing lights should have a flash frequency of one per second and their light distribution should be as shown in Figure F-910, Illustration 2. The flash sequence should commence from the outermost light and progress towards the crossbar.

[…]

Figure F-78. Approach lighting system

Rationale

The objective of the approach lighting system – introduced with amendment 10 of Annex 14 Vol. II – is

proposed to be included in the CS. Due to this addition the rest of the points are renumbered.

The text included in the applicability is proposed to be reworded, in line with Annex 14 Vol. II, in order

to better indicate the conditions under which an approach lighting system should be provided.

In addition, the re-numbering of two references to figures and of Figure F-7 itself is necessary, based

on the proposed addition of a previous figure.

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.630 Approach lighting system

(a) Sequenced flashing lights may be useful where identification of the approach lighting system is difficult due to surrounding lights.

(b) The following intensity settings have been found suitable:

(1) steady lights — 100 per cent, 30 per cent and 10 per cent; and

(2) flashing lights — 100 per cent, 10 per cent and 3 per cent.

Additional guidance on light intensity controls is given in GM1 ADR-DSN.M.615.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 93 of 108

An agency of the European Union

Rationale

The two proposed points stem from Notes of Annex 14, Vol. II. They provide information to the heliport

designers regarding the conditions that might necessitate the use of sequenced flashing lights and the

intensity settings of the steady and flashing lights.

CS HPT-DSN.F.640 Flight path alignment guidance lighting system

(a) The objective of a flight path alignment guidance lighting system is to indicate, by day and night, available approach and/or departure flight path direction(s).

(a)(b) Applicability: Where provided at a heliport, a flight path alignment guidance lighting system (or systems) should indicate the available approach and/or departure path direction(s).Flight path alignment guidance lighting system(s) should be provided at a heliport where it is desirable and practicable to indicate available approach and/or departure path direction(s).

[…]

(c)(d) Characteristics:

[…]

(3) If more than one flight path alignment system is used to indicate the available approach and/or departure path direction(s), the characteristics for each system are typically kept the same (see Figure F-67).

[…]

(5) The distribution of the lights should be as indicated in Figure F-910, Illustration 5.

[…]

Rationale

In line with previous paragraphs, the objective of the flight path alignment guidance lighting system –

introduced with amendment 10 of Annex 14 Vol. II – is proposed to be included in the CS. Due to this

addition the rest of the points are renumbered.

The text included in the applicability is proposed to be reworded, in line with Annex 14 Vol. II, in order

to better indicate the conditions under which a flight path alignment guidance lighting system should

be installed.

In addition, the re-numbering of two references to figures is necessary, based on the proposed addition

of a previous figure.

European Union Aviation Safety Agency NPA 2026-01 (E)

Proposed amendments

TE.RPRO.00034-015 © European Union Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified.

Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 94 of 108

An agency of the European Union

GM1 HPT-DSN.F.640 Flight path alignment guidance lighting system

The flight path alignment guidance lighting can be combined with a flight path alignment guidance marking (or markings).

Intentionally left blank

Rationale