EB-105 & EB-105A Comparison (by #AMRG)

The FAA just released their updated EB-105 on Vertiport Design. It's a fairly substantial rewrite; as such, a side-by-side comparison can be helpful to decipher the differences. Let's take a look at what changed.

Highlights

The FAA calls out most of the significant changes in the document on the first page. These are:

• Infrastructure Classification: Vertiports are identified as a type of heliport, so vertiport guidance is intended to be a supplement to AC 150/5390-D Heliport Design
• Markings: The FAA has updated the vertiport markings.

• Geometry: The FAA has adopted "rotor diameter" (RD) in place of "controlling dimension" (D) when calculating landing area geometries.
• Parking: Larger parking areas are specified to accommodate hover taxiing rather than ground taxiing.
• Downwash and Outwash Caution Area (DCA): The FAA has added the DCA to design considerations. Vertiport sponsors will need to evaluate the dangers of downwash and outwash (DWOW) and the impact DWOW might have on the areas surrounding vertiports.

Other notable changes

There are changes to more than the topics listed above. A few worth checking out are:

• Lighting: The type of lighting needed at vertiports is described in more detail. Approach lighting described.
• Charging Infrastructure: The document references three NREL reports to supplement vertiport infrastructure requirements.
• Fire Fighting: EB-105A eliminates much of the language in this section, instead suggesting readers refer to NFPA Standards 418 (Heliports) & 855 (Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems).
• Electromagnetic Effects: Adds information about possible magnetic fields due to rebar, MRI machines, or other EMI hazards to VTOL aircraft navigation systems. Suggests a warning sign.
• ATC: Recognizes that AAM will fit into existing ATC. Suggests some reading of FAA Orders JO 7210.3 (Facility Operation and Administration) & 7110.65 (Air Traffic Control). This section includes a large amount of additional guidance which is summarized below.

When selecting a vertiport site, it is crucial for vertiport proponents to consider air traffic considerations that may impact the proposed operations. Wake turbulence separation, missed approach procedures for fixed-wing aircraft, departure procedures, and visual flight patterns are all important factors to consider. Vertiport FATOs located less than 700 feet from the runway centerline may impact both runway and vertiport operations. A vertiport FATO located between 700 and 2,499 feet (762 m) from a runway centerline may allow for more independent operations. Vertical separation is also critical, as VTOL aircraft operating VFR must be able to enter their vertiport ingress/egress routes at an altitude at least 500 feet (152 m) above/below aircraft arriving or departing from the runway.

If the vertiport is close enough to the runway and the above separation cannot be achieved, VTOL operations will need to be delayed until there is a sufficient gap in the arrival or departure sequence to the runway.

Adjacent to airport runways, vertiport locations adjacent to the runway centerline, between parallel runways, and off-the-end of airport runways present significant challenges for ATC.

Vertiports closer to the runway arrival threshold or departure ends will present greater difficulty than those farther away and incur more delays and/or operational restrictions. For example, if a vertiport is placed along the extended runway centerline, vertiport aircraft must be able to enter their ingress/egress routes at an altitude at least 500 feet (152 m) below traffic arriving or departing from the runway (1,000 feet when passing underneath a heavy/super aircraft).

Side-by-Side

You can view a side-by-side comparison of the two EB documents in the embedded PDF below.

We hope you found this helpful - brought to you by #AMRG

#faa #aam #uam #vtol #vertiport #evtol #heliport