Heliport Certification and Safety Management Systems

Helipaddy’s response to the proposals

What the CAA is proposing (policy framework)

The CAA proposes a scaled heliport certification system that incorporates an SMS (safety management system), ranging from a self-declaration style certificate up to a certificate aligned with existing approval standards (e.g., CAP168 and UK Reg (EU) No.139/2014).

The certification basis is grounded in ICAO Annex 14 Volume II, which expects a heliport manual including an SMS as part of certification, with guidance in ICAO Doc 9261 (Heliport Manual) and SMS guidance in Doc 9859.

The CAA proposes four tiers of regulatory response:

• Licensed/Certificated Aerodrome (existing, with potential boundary adjustments)
• Certificated Heliport (audit schedule; proportionate ruleset)
• Declared Heliport (operator regularly confirms compliance; auditable, may not be on schedule)
• Unlicensed (subject only to Flight Operations regulation; best practice where practicable)

To enable this, the CAA proposes legislative changes (including to the Air Navigation Order 2016 and UK Basic Regulation) and flags proposals affecting air operator requirements and new operator requirements (including concepts like proximity to public assemblies and “significant daily movement numbers”, with industry engagement on thresholds).

The CAA also proposes to condense heliport guidance into a single document spanning small unlicensed heliports through to large complex certified heliports, including a best-practice section for HOS. It explicitly aims for scalability with multiple options per section.

An “urgent” early step is proposed: in 2026 the CAA intends to introduce a self-declaration heliport protocol, initially voluntary and aimed predominantly at NHS operations, ahead of the main regulatory package.

Implementation is described as a five-stage process (initial application, review, confirmation, audit, routine oversight), with the CAA noting it may defer a site to “unlicensed” where appropriate.

The CAA also proposes:

• Heliport data aligned to AIM policy and presented in the AIP, with a possible reduced scheme for smaller heliports
• For Declared heliports: basic AIP data (location/elevation) with a unique designator
• Review of airspace around heliports, scaled by heliport category, including provisions for restrictions of complex shapes to protect VTOL below 500 ft
• A Scheme of Charges consultation in 2026 for any additional fees
• A published definition of Hospital Helicopter Landing Sites (HHLS)

---

Annex A — the consultation questions

The CAA’s questions (Annex A) are:

1. Overall proposals and concepts regarding Heliport Regulation
2. Proposals regarding the Certification Basis
3. Duration of the proposed implementation periods
4. Rationale to condense heliport guidance into a singular document
5. Methodology to achieve a heliport certification system
6. Declared Heliport concept and process (Appendix A)
7. Approach to other heliport regulation issues
8. Heliport Scheme of Charges (ahead of the charges consultation)
9. Any other comments/observations about future heliport regulation
10. Publication of the definition of Hospital Helicopter Landing Sites

---

Helipaddy’s draft responses

1) Overall proposals and concepts

Support a risk-based, scaled framework and clearer categorisation, but keep private, low-intensity sites/HOS out of unnecessary regulation where Flight Ops controls are sufficient. The framework must not indirectly compel private sites via ambiguity or admin burden. Encourage explicit differentiation between private and commercial contexts.

2) Certification Basis

Support an ICAO-aligned basis (manual + SMS) for certificated heliports, but ensure proportionality in practice (templated/minimal routes for low complexity). Avoid drafting outcomes that make safe private sites unusable due to operator uncertainty.

3) Implementation periods

Support phased rollout provided there are no cliff-edges for private sites and criteria/thresholds are finalised early. Use transition periods to drive practical safety uplift (including voluntary tools and templates), not forced bureaucracy.

4) Single consolidated CAP

Support consolidation into one document if it is unambiguously structured by tier: mandatory vs guidance, clear evidence expectations, and scalable options. Include practical HOS best-practice. Encourage simple, standard disclosure of operational info that affects planning (including whether fees apply and how stated).

5) Methodology

Support the five-stage model and a machine-readable, authoritative status register (tier/status, dates, identifiers). Helipaddy can immediately help interoperability through HISC (6-character unique site identifier; software-compatible; public API) and recommends CAA adoption or official mapping. For private/HOS sites, recognise credible, lightweight safety evidence routes such as Helipaddy’s established 360 Survey. Encourage simple fee structures (Helipaddy’s payment system experience shows fee schedules can be needlessly complex).

6) Declared Heliport concept (Appendix A)

Support “Declared” as an optional, proportionate on-ramp (especially for higher utilisation/public service contexts), but it must not become the default for private sites. Keep it template-driven, digital, and auditable. Include stable identifiers (and mapping to HISC if CAA uses its own designators).

7) Other heliport regulation issues

Airspace restrictions must remain the responsibility of a competent aviation authority. Helipaddy would object to any model where heliports or the police approve RA(T)s (or equivalent restrictions). Restrictions should be evidence-based, time-limited, proportionate, and consistently applied. For private sites, prioritise best-practice adoption over regulatory creep.

8) Scheme of Charges

Strongly support charges that are proportionate and tier-based, and explicitly differentiated between private vs commercial operators/operations. Avoid a fee regime that indirectly shuts down private sites. Digital processes and templated submissions should keep regulatory cost (and therefore charges) down.

9) Other observations

Success depends on clarity (definitions + objective thresholds) and a shared data layer (authoritative status + identifiers). HISC provides a ready interoperability mechanism. Encourage the CAA to avoid unintentionally driving complexity in fee practices; simple fee models reduce friction and confusion.

10) HHLS definition publication

Support publishing a clear HHLS definition to remove ambiguity, but keep it tightly scoped so it does not spill into private sites. If HHLS data is published, keep it minimal and consistent, with stable identifiers (and mapping to HISC where helpful).