Emergency Medical Services Helipad Report · EMERGENCY MEDICAL HELICOPTER REPORT - PSH-AR-PRW-REP-0079-PDF[C] Monday, 18th January 2010 4 Landscaped site plan that indicates the position

Emergency Medical Services Helipad Report

Prepared by: GCUH ARCHITECTURE PDT + STH + HASSELL

Project number: 50631

18th January 2010

PSH-AR-PRW-REP-0079-PDF [C]

EMERGENCY MEDICAL HELICOPTER REPORT - PSH-AR-PRW-REP-0079-PDF[C]

Monday, 18th January 2010 1

INDEX

1.1 0B0B0BThe Report Objective...............................................................................................................2 1.2 1B1B1BHelipad Design ........................................................................................................................2

1.2.1 4B4B4BSite Context .......................................................................................................................3 1.2.2 5B5B5BBuilding Design Context ....................................................................................................4 1.2.3 6B6B6BIdentification of Design Aircraft..........................................................................................7 1.2.4 7B7B7BConsideration of Alternate Helicopter Types.....................................................................8 1.2.5 8B8B8BAssessment of Helicopter Performance Capabilities ........................................................9 1.2.6 9B9B9BAssessment of Site Winds and Helipad Usability............................................................10 1.2.7 10B10B10BConsideration of Flight Profile Options............................................................................11 1.2.8 11B11B11BHelicopter Platform Design and Technical Data .............................................................13 1.2.9 12B12B12BStructural Design and Loading........................................................................................13 1.2.10 13B13B13BSafety in Design – Obstacles in the helicopter flight path...............................................13 1.2.11 14B14B14BNoise ...............................................................................................................................14 1.2.12 5B15B15BFlight Operations beyond the Site Boundary ..................................................................16 1.2.13 16B16B16BConsideration within GCCC Planning Scheme...............................................................17 1.2.14 , Frequency of Use. .........................................................................................................18

1.1 2B2B2BConclusion .............................................................................................................................18 3B3B3BAPPENDIX A: Technical Data for Landing Pad.........................................................................20 3B3B3BAPPENDIX B: Acoustic Assessment of Level Flight Helicopter Noise Footprints .....................21



1.1 0B0B0BThe Report Objective This summary report has been developed to inform the relevant Gold Coast University Hospital Stakeholders of the helicopter landing pad design and its position in the precinct as a whole. The Stakeholders include, but are not limited to:

• Queensland State Government Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) – for Assessment of Amenity Impacts,

• Careflight, • EMQ Helicopter Rescue, • the Air Traffic Control Operations Team at Gold Coast Airport, Coolangatta, • the Gold Coast City Council Town Planners.

Aluminium Offshore Pte Ltd, a helipad manufacturer, who has recently completed the Mater Hospital Brisbane Helipad and is currently constructing the PA Hospital Helipad has provided information and a preliminary design for the Gold coast University Hospital. The aim of this summary document is to provide details of the Helipad Design and operations, so that:

• Helicopter operational parameters to and from the Gold Coast University Hospital can be understood,

• Where the helicopter flight paths require control or protection by the Gold Coast City Council, the Council are fully informed on the proposed operation of the Helipad.

The report is not a vehicle for seeking approval as formal authority approval is not required for such an installation; however it is prudent that all Stakeholders are aware that the design of the helicopter Pad is in full compliance with the QH HLS Policy and the QG Guidelines. This report is better served as a tool for Risk Management, to understand the Noise Impact issues and to ensure that the Local Gold Coast City Planning Authority are aware of the Air Corridor to ensure the flight path is future proofed and safe from being built out. It is also necessary that the conditions as relating to Helipad operations in the GCCC Planning Scheme, Part 7 (Codes), Division 3 (Constraint Codes), Chapter 1 – Gold Coast Airport and Aviation Facilities are considered in the Helipad planning. The detailed technical Reports developed by the design consultants such as PSNK Aeronautical Services and others are available, should additional detailed information be required.

1.2 1B1B1BHelipad Design The design the roof-top helicopter pad has progressed during Design Development of the Gold Coast University Hospital based on the following items:



1.2.1 4B4B4BSite Context The Gold Coast University Hospital is located on the Corner of Olsen Avenue and Parklands Drive, some 3 kilometres west of the current Gold Coast Hospital and 5 km’s North of Q1 (Surfers Paradise). The Hospital is directly north of Griffith University and forms the initial phase of the Health and Knowledge Precinct.

Photo-montage of the Gold Coast University Hospital The helicopter landing site, ‘helipad’, is located at roof level 08 of the GCUH hospital over an AHU Plant Room.

View of Gold Coast University Hospital over the Parklands area from the North-East The above image indicates the position of the Helipad on the GCUH. The helipad is located vertical above the following key hospital functional areas:

• Emergency Department on the Lower Ground Floor • Operating Theatres on Level 2 • Neonatal Intensive Care on Level 3 • Intensive Care on Level 4

Direct lift access is provided to each of these key department areas.



Landscaped site plan that indicates the position of the Helipad

1.2.2 5B5B5BBuilding Design Context The physical and operational characteristics for the helipad were identified in a study undertaken by PSNK Aeronautical Services. The key elements of the study which were developed into the building design context include:

• The planning & design details for the rooftop helipad for the range of twin engine EMS helicopters likely to operate at GCUH,

• The required physical and operational characteristics to meet the design aircraft characteristics which are based on the International Civil Aviation Organisation Standards and Recommended Practices for Heliports as published in Annex 14 Volume II. The design provisions adopted for the GCUH helipad include Amendment 14 to Annexure 14-II which was approved by the ICAO Council in March 2009 with an applicability date of 19 November 2009. The design criteria used for the GCUH helipad are compliant with the Queensland Government HLS Guidelines and the QH Helipad Policy which are based on the ICAO SARPs.

• The physical dimensions of the helipad and the orientation of the associated flight paths. • The overall usability of the facility has been assessed with reference to the records of average

hourly wind speed and direction generated by the meteorological module of the CSIRO’s TAPM computer program using synoptic data relevant to the GCUH site.

NORTH



View of Helipad from the North-West During the development of the Gold Coast University Hospital the impact of the helipad location has resulted in the following:

• The roof construction of the Air Handling Unit Plant Room Roof below the Helipad has become a reinforced Concrete roof slab with waterproof membrane

• The nearby associated light courts have been roofed over, whilst still providing natural light via skylights

• The structural design has been developed to reflect orientation and position of the helipad and the required loading requirements

• The structure has been designed for the incorporation of the required sprinkler tanks in case of a fuel spillage scenario or crash

• The helipad design and positioning has been based on the confirmed flight path parameters as provided by the aeronautical services consultant

• The Helipad design incorporates fire isolated hydraulic separators in order to safely store and discharge fuel contaminated water in the event of an incident.

Part Building Section of CSB



Cross Section A-A of Ward Block West and Clinical Services Building

Plan of Level 8 of Gold Coast University Hospital Clinical Services Building

Cross Section AA



1.2.3 6B6B6BIdentification of Design Aircraft The facility and flight-path requirements for an EMS helicopter are determined with reference to a Design Aircraft, representing the critical combination of characteristics of the range of helicopters that the facility in intended to serve. The design aircraft for the GCUH facility is a composite of the dimensions of:

• The Bell Textron B412EP model, and • The mass of the Agusta Westland AW139 model. • These aircraft have similar overall length dimensions – 17.1 meters (B412) compared to 16.8

metres (AW139). The Bell 412EP has:

• A certified maximum weight of 5400 kilograms. • One of largest helicopter types in regular use for civil aero-medical retrieval roles. • Future developments of the medium size helicopter types are unlikely to be larger than this

helicopter • The dimensions of the Final Approach and Take-Off (FATO) area operating in Performance

Class 1 is 22.9 metres by 26.5 metres The AW139 has:

• A current certified maximum mass of 6400 kilograms but is generally expected to be re-certified in the future with a maximum operating mass of 7 tonnes. That expectation is supported by the recently announced military variant of the AW139, the AW149, which has a maximum takeoff weight of 7.3 tonne (16,000 pounds).

• One of largest helicopter types in regular use for civil aero-medical retrieval roles. • Future developments of the medium size helicopter types are unlikely to be larger than this

helicopter. The design aircraft for the GCUH helipad is based on the following characteristics:

• Length overall dimension with rotors turning (D);-17.1 metres • Maximum rotor diameter;-14.0 metres • Maximum operational mass. – Maximum Take–off Weight -7.6 tonnes

The length overall for the helicopter determines the overall dimensions of the Final Approach and Take-off (FATO) Area and associated Safety Area within which the helicopter can manoeuvre in an obstacle free environment on arrival, before touching down and at the start of the departure movement immediately after lift-off. The length overall and the associated FATO dimensions also determine the shape and dimensions of the flight path envelopes connected to the perimeter of the FATO area. The flight path envelopes associated with helicopters operating in Performance Class 1 at night are a trapezoidal shape with the inner edge coincident with the boundary of the helipad safety area with a lateral splay of 15% and a vertical gradient of 4.5% for Performance Class 1 operations. The maximum rotor diameter determines the final width of the helicopter flight path of 140 metres, 10 times the rotor diameter for flights conducted at night. The Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS) surrounding the helipad to safeguard the helicopter operations include a lateral surface sloping at 45º adjacent to the helipad and parallel to the flight path. The overall dimensions and layout of the helipad and associated flight paths are show in Figure 1.



Figure 1- Performance Class 1 helipad and flight paths

1.2.4 7B7B7BConsideration of Alternate Helicopter Types The need to cater for the larger military helicopter types such as:

• the 10 tonne Blackhawk SA70, and • the 10.6 tonne MRH90,

operated by the Australian Army has been included in the assessment of capability for the GCUH helipad. Whilst identified as a possibility, the anticipated use of the GCUH helipad by military helicopters is very low. Accordingly, the assessment of suitability for military helicopters, including the structural requirements, is based on normal landings rather than the emergency landing situation applied to the civil helicopter analysis. The operations manual for the helipad would include advice to military operators that the facility is designed to cater for normal landings by military helicopters in the 10



tonne range and that contingency plans for emergency situations would need to exclude use of the GCUH rooftop helipad. Advice provided to PSNK Aeronautical Services from the Australian Army indicates that the Black Hawk helicopter:

• Can operate to a Size 2 Landing Point which has a hard stand area of 11 meters diameter within an overall area of 37 meters diameter,

• Has an overall length of 19.8 metres, 0.2 metres greater than the alternative MRH90 type, and application of the civil helipad criteria published by ICAO in Annex 14 indicate a Touchdown and Lift-off (TLOF) area requirement of 16.4 metres, 0.83 times the overall length,

• The TLOF dimension is based on the ICAO standards is less than the dimensions proposed for the GCUH helipad to support civil helicopters operating in Performance Class 1.

Thus the GCUH helipad will therefore be of sufficient size to accommodate the SA70 and MRH90 military helicopters if necessary. It is proposed however that the facility be rated as a 7 tonne helipad with the approval to operate the military helicopters made as a special concession with the understanding that the capacity does not extend to the landing at the helipad in emergency situations such as one engine inoperative.

1.2.5 8B8B8BAssessment of Helicopter Performance Capabilities The operational capability of the helicopter types used for Emergency Medical Service flights is classified as Performance Class 1 (PC1) or Performance Class 2 (PC2) in recognition of the twin engine configuration of the helicopters. A helicopter operating in Performance Class 1has performance such that, in case of critical power-unit failure, it is able to land on the rejected take-off area or safely continue the flight to an appropriate landing area, depending on when the failure occurs. (Source: ICAO, Annex 6). The flight path envelopes required for a PC1 helicopter include areas upwind and downwind of a helipad to provide an obstacle free area for the one engine inoperative (OEI) fly-away manoeuvre if required as part of a landing or take-off. The Emergency Landing/takeoff profile for a Bell 412 EP helicopter is presented in Figure 2 as indicative of the typical OEI flight profile for a helicopter operating in Performance Class 1.

Figure 2 - Performance Class 1 profile for Bell 412 helicopters



A PC2 helicopter has performance such that, in case of critical power-unit failure, it is able to safely continue the flight, except when the failure occurs prior to a defined point after take-off or after a defined point before landing, in which cases a forced landing may be required. (Source: ICAO, Annex 6) PC1 flights are possible when the combination of ambient air temperature and pressure, the wind speed and direction and the aircraft operating weight are within limits prescribed in the relevant Flight Manual Supplement for the helicopter. If any of these operational criteria can not be met – such as in peak summer temperatures, high operating weights due to payload and fuel requirements or strong cross winds – the aircraft is unable to meet the PC1 criteria and will operate in accordance with the PC2 criteria. Whilst PC2 helicopters do not provide one-engine inoperative (OEI) accountability through all phases of flight, they are able to operate in a range of conditions not available to PC1 helicopters and greater flexibility can be anticipated in the choice of flight path directions as operations with tail winds or higher cross winds are possible. In all situations however, the choice of flight path and flight profile will be made by the pilot in command to provide the optimum safety conditions for the flight.

1.2.6 9B9B9BAssessment of Site Winds and Helipad Usability The assessment of the helipad usability needs to be considered with respect to a range of operating parameters applicable to the range of helicopters using the helipad. The design of the helipad and associated flight path areas has been based on the assumption that each of the helicopter types to regularly use the GCUH helipad will be a high performance twin-engine aircraft with inherent safety provisions, including the ability to continue the flight in a one engine inoperative (OEI) situation. The primary helicopter types to use the GCUH facility will be the AW139 and the Bell 412 with operations conducted in both Performance Class 1 and Performance Class 2 criteria. The helipad and associated flight paths for GCUH need to be designed to support operations by the helicopters if they need to follow OEI procedures in the vicinity of the helipad, including an OEI landing from an approach or a rejected takeoff. The GCUH master plan studies have identified the campus layout with the primary helicopter flight path alignment orientated on an axis of 175º/345º relative to True North. The site wind conditions have been identified through modelling based on actual weather as recorded by the Bureau of Meteorology and used as input to the meteorological module of The Air Pollution Model (TAPM). TAPM was developed by the CSIRO to model atmospheric dispersal of plumes and includes a meteorological module which has been accepted by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for use in aeronautical studies. The distribution of wind events identified in the TAPM analysis for the GCUH site area shown in Figure 3. The relative usability of the nominated flight path directions is a function of the prevailing wind with flights operating into wind for aerodynamic stability and associated safety. The summary plot in Figure 2 indicates that flights operating on the nominated flight paths will be subjected to crossing winds but that the frequency of any significantly strong cross–winds will be small.



WIND ROSE PLOT

GCUH, 25m, 2003-2007

NORTH

SOUTH

WEST EAST

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

Wind Speed (Knots)

> 17

14 - 17

10 - 13

6 - 9

2 - 5

0 - 1

COMPANY NAMEMODELER

PLOT YEAR-DATE-TIME

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Jan 1 - Dec 31Midnight - 11 PM

DATE

23/04/2008

DISPLAY

Wind SpeedUNIT

Knots

CALM WINDS

0.00%AVG. WIND SPEED

6.46 Knots

COMMENTS

PROJECT/PLOT NO.ORIENTATION

Direction(blowing from)

WRPLOT View 3.5 by Lakes Environmental Software - www.lakes-environmental.com

Figure 3 - GCUH Site wind conditions at 25metres above ground level

1.2.7 10B10B10BConsideration of Flight Profile Options The location of the helipad on the northern end of the main building on the hospital campus provides the opportunity to align the helicopter flight paths over areas which minimize the potential over flight of building areas. The standard Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) for helipads extends from the edge of the helipad operational surfaces at a gradient as low as 4.5% for helipads supporting Performance Class 1 operations. In some situations, particularly Performance Class 2 operations, helicopters will commence forward flight at a relatively low gradient from a hover point around 1.5 meters above the helipad. The alternative option to follow a confined area profile is also available. The selection of dimensions of rooftop helipads for Performance Class 1 flights by the design helicopter are made on the assumption that the helicopter will follow a confined area profile whereby the approach and departure path includes a defined point located above the helipad on the downwind side. The elevation of the defined point is dependent on the helicopter type and the extended elevations of the defined point are available to ensure the helicopter can operate clear of obstacles in the flight path with one engine inoperative.



The vertical takeoff profiles for the AW139 and the Bell 412EP helicopters are shown in the relevant Flight Manual extracts presented in Figure 4. Although a requirement to meet the Performance Class 1 criteria, the confined area profile is frequently followed by helicopters operating in Performance Class 2 in recognition that the profile provides the optimum recovery paths to the pilot in the event of an OEI situation.

Figure 4 - Vertical Takeoff Profile Examples



1.2.8 11B11B11BHelicopter Platform Design and Technical Data The GCUH helipad will be an Astech® Enhanced Safety Helideck designed and manufactured by Aluminium Offshore Pte Ltd, a specialist company in Helipad design, manufacture and construction. The helideck features an integral passive fire fighting capability which when coupled with a water based Deck Integrated Fire Fighting Sprinklers (DIFFS) system provides a unique and highly efficient fire control capability. The detailed design of the Helipad has been developed for the GCUH building with input from ‘Aluminium Offshore’. They provide:

• The requested material of the structural system and support frame for the helicopter platform and confirmation of the alignment of the helipad support frame with the GCUH building column grid.

• Slope and drainage requirements for the link to the lift lobby (the bed access ramp) • In association with the Aeronautical services consultant recommended a 1% minimum cross

fall for the link to the lift lobby. • Advised that the ramp does not require a slope. The surface material is punctured with holes

for drainage (equal to the ‘Mater Hospital’ helicopter platform decking). Stretcher wheel traversing is not a problem. The helipad is self draining as part of the fire control system and has no further drainage requirements.

• Confirmation of the top surface level of the helicopter platform in relation to the level of the adjoining lift lobby was sought from the aeronautical services consultant with regards to possible fuel spillage. The aeronautical consultant confirmed the helicopter platform top surface level on the same level RL. 56.980 as the building lift lobby.

• The required capacity of the Fire Fighting water tank is 15,000ltrs.

1.2.9 12B12B12BStructural Design and Loading During Design Development Phase details of the expected maximum structural point loads in the event of an emergency landing of a maximum sized helicopter were requested from ‘Aluminium Offshore’. Note that no decision has yet been made on the use of vibration isolation for the structure and that further analysis and investigation is required before this matter can be fully resolved. EJV Structural engineer’s confirmation was received that the provided locations and number of ten support points for the helipad frame is supporting the expected maximum loads. The sizing of the support columns was finalised and specification of cementitous grout between the helicopter deck anchor point base plate and the reinforced concrete columns and the base plate bolt locations, including a steel template for plinths and concrete edge positions, was requested and provided by ‘Aluminium Offshore’. The top of the helicopter platform support columns was finalised at 400mm above Level 07 RL. 53.300 due to waterproofing requirements of the AHU plant roof below. The positioning of the Wind direction indicator ‘windsock’ on the helicopter deck was requested from the Aeronautical services consultant. The consultant advised location of the windsock at level 11 RL. 67.660 in a position of good visibility on a proprietary system with access stairs from level 10 and power supply.

1.2.10 13B13B13BSafety in Design – Obstacles in the helicopter flight path The developed design finalised:

• The location of the ‘hot lifts’ numbers 11 & 12 that are serving the helicopter platform. • The height of the required lift overrun shaft and the necessity of the positioning of the lift

machine room above the lift overrun were confirmed by the vertical services consultant. Which is 11 metres above the helicopter platform top surface level and the close proximity of this building structure to the safety area - encroaching into the side clearance set at 45 degrees off the side of the helipad on the south western side (refer Scheme Design Report



Volume 2 page V2-81 – Revision: Version 8, Issue Date: 03 December 2008) - was identified by the Architectural Principal Consultant (APC) and highlighted to the Aeronautical services consultant. Confirmation for the acceptance of the lateral side slope encroachment was provided by the aeronautical consultant in accordance the provisions of Amendment 14 to ICAO Annex 14 Volume II based on the fact that the North East facing safety zone is obstacle free.

• The Aeronautical services consultant confirmed that: o The design of the helicopter landing site stands in no conflict with relevant Australian

safety regulations. o The compliancy of “objectionable discharge” exhaust riser flues locations and heights

was sought from the Aeronautical services consultant. o None of the exhaust core riser stacks presents an obstacle to the helicopter flight

path and confirmed compliancy with all relevant regulations. o Further advised that obstacle lights are required to roof top antennas and similar roof

top items. o The acceptance of the position of exposed landscaped decks in the helicopter

approach and departure zones, in particular the ‘Admin and Volunteers deck’ located at GCUH building level 06 at RL. 48.820. The consultant reviewed the implications of issues including fuel/ liquid spillage, helicopter noise, deck material selections, cleaning methods and infection control. The ‘Admin and Volunteers deck’ is also partly positioned in the 30m recommended helicopter clearance zone radius.

Figure 5 - Helicopter Flight Path

1.2.11 14B14B14BNoise Profile Within Hospital Boundary The GCUH Design Team Acoustic Engineer has developed:

• The acoustic brief based on inputs from the Helicopter Consultant and prepared a study for the façade design in order to address helicopter noise disturbance issues with resting/sleeping patients, suitable work environments for staff, etc.

• An assessment of the vibrations likely to be induced on the Helipad against the Acoustic Design Brief and an allowance has been made for vibration isolation mounts to the Helipad supports with an isolation frequency of 10Hz or less, however, no decision has been finalised



for the use of vibration isolation of the structure. Further analysis and investigations are required.



Full details are included in the Acoustic Engineer’s Acoustic Design Brief which is available on request. The noise impact work only relates to the buildings within the site, our understanding is that no noise assessments beyond the site have been considered or is required. The advice from DERM and GCCC is that neither has an approval role related to noise assessment. The advice from AirServices Australia is the noise management in helicopters operation is part of the compliance certification of the operators and is covered in their operations plans.

1.2.12 5B15B15BFlight Operations beyond the Site Boundary Advice from PSNK Aeronautical Services confirms that the helicopter flight path is aligned with the primary axis of the helipad in the immediate vicinity of the helipad (as illustrated in Figure 5 but that flight paths beyond the site boundary are not as easily defined. Track changes and curved flight paths alignments can be accomplished by a combination of a straight segment and a medium radius curve or by a single large radius turn. The following diagram shows the indicative flights paths that may take place outside the site boundary of the GUCH. The diagram indicates the distances from the Helipad.

These flight paths for the Helicopter have been developed based on indicative flight paths that have been in a possible array of track options using overflight of current open areas. (Green Lines).



The area within the circular flight path (Blue Lines) is unlikely to have flight track as they are too close to the Helipad. An assessment of the noise impact of the Helipad operations beyond the boundary has been prepared and is included in Appendix B “Acoustic Assessment of level flight helicopter noise footprints” by PSNK Aeronautical Services. This assessment identifies the noise level impacts at any point based on the height of the helicopters flight path and the distance from the centreline of the flight path. Given this information, an approximate assessment of the noise level at any location on the ground can be determined. It is noted that noise levels are impacted by many factors and can vary considerably, factors such as: intensity and height of cloud cover, prevailing winds, humidity and time of day to just identify a few. The data presented in Appendix B has been provided to illustrate to Council the possible noise level impacts.

1.2.13 16B16B16BConsideration within GCCC Planning Scheme The GCCC Planning Scheme Part 7 (Codes), Division 3 (Constraint Codes), Chapter 1 – Gold Coast Airport and Aviation Facilities are considered in the Helipad planning, outlines restrictions placed on development in the vicinity of Aviation Facilities. It is considered relevant that some aspects of this section of the Planning Scheme may relate to the operation of the GCUH Helipad. It is requested that GCCC consider amendments to the Planning Scheme in the vicinity of the Hospital to deal with issues such as raised below. In particular reference is made to:

• “Ensuring that buildings and other structures do not encroach into sensitive areas around aviation facilities pursuant to International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards and recommended practices and Air Services Act 1996…..” as pertain to the operation of the GCUH helipad. This document identifies typical plan and elevation details of the possible flight paths, it is requested that development in the near vicinity of the Hospital recognise these operational constraints.

• “Ensuring that artificial lighting sources will not exceed the maximum light source intensities….” as pertains to the operation of the GCUH helipad. It is requested that light sources in the general vicinity of the Hospital not be allowed that may limit the operations of the Helipad.

• “Minimising potential hazards to safety of aircraft operations resulting from the emission of smoke, dust or other particulate matter….” as pertains to the operation of the GCUH helipad.

• “Minimising potential hazards to safety of aircraft operations resulting from reflection of sunlight….” as pertains to the operation of the GCUH helipad. It is noted that large areas of reflective roof can create glare which may restrict the use of the Helipad.

• “Minimising potential impacts on residential and other noise sensitive development in close proximity to the facility….” as pertains to the operation of the GCUH helipad. It is generally understood that Emergency Helicopter operations can occur at any time of day and while every effort can be made to minimise noise, some noise is inevitable. It is requested that appropriate consideration be given in the planning scheme to allow these operations and that developments in the near vicinity be warned of these operations.

It is requested that GCCC give consideration to including development constraints or guidelines within the Planning Scheme in the vicinity of the Hospital to ensure that matters such as those identified above do not cause unreasonable constraints on the operation of the Helipad. The mechanism for flight path protection around EMS helipads adopted in Victoria is the use of design and development Overlays to the relevant planning schemes to trigger the referral of a development application to the Department of Human Services where the proposed development triggers the referral mechanism, generally a combination of location within the DDO area and a development height above the prescribed AHD elevation. It is believed a similar mechanism could and should be established with GCCC.



1.2.14 , Frequency of Use. The Helipad at the Gold Coast University Hospital is for Emergency Services only and will be primarily utilised for the receipt of critical ill or injured people. The Emergency Helicopter Service use the helipad as a critical patient transfer service from Gold Coast University to PA Hospital, Royal Brisbane Hospital or Royal Children’s Hospital will generally be a very small numbers transfers over the course of a year. These transfers would generally be for Burns or Spline Injury Patients and Neonates. The feedback from the operation personnel at each of the Hospitals highlighted that the frequency of flights vary from day to day with peak periods being on weekends, public holidays and school holiday periods. The helicopter service to existing Hospital is as follows:

• Mater Hospital Brisbane – approximately 1 to 2 per week. • Royal Brisbane Hospital – approximately 10.5 to 11 per week • PA Hospital – approximately 10 to 12 per week.

It is projected that the Gold Coast University Hospital would have an Emergency Helicopter service that would be lower than PA Hospital and Royal Brisbane Hospital. The magnitude of the operations has been estimated to be in the order of 5 to 6 per week. However, this is subject to variations based on services at the hospital and the impact of the frequency of the service is a variable that can occur in clusters due to unforseen events. (Eg. Major storms, heat waves etc,)

1.3 2B2BConclusion

This summary report indicates the planning and design parameters that have been the basis of the Helipad design for the Gold Coast University Hospital. It also outlines the journey that has been the design throughout schematic and detailed Design; it will now form the appendix for the Obstacle Limitations Application from Queensland Health to Gold Coast City

EMERGENCY MEDICAL HELICOPTER REPORT - PSH-AR-PRW-REP-0079-PDF

Tuesday, 10th November 2009 19

APPENDIX A: Technical Data for Landing Pad

EMERGENCY MEDICAL HELICOPTER REPORT - PSH-AR-PRW-REP-0079-PDF

Tuesday, 10th November 2009 20

APPENDIX B: Assessment of Level Flight Helicopter Noise Footprints

Documents

Emergency Medical Services Helipad Report · EMERGENCY MEDICAL HELICOPTER REPORT - PSH-AR-PRW-REP-0079-PDF[C] Monday, 18th January 2010 4 Landscaped site plan that indicates the position