What are Helicopter Point in Space (PinS) Procedures?

So many helicopter accidents still happen because of weather related threats and decision making. Part of the issue is that the majority of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) infrastructure across the globe is designed with fixed wing aircraft in mind. But now, helicopter Point in Space (PinS) Procedures are here to change that! ✅

Imagine this: you take off under IFR from a hospital, you then fly a low level IFR route while in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), followed by an IFR approach into a private site or another hospital 🏥

Sounds insane? Well, not with PinS procedures around the corner!

PinS is a new development that builds upon the Performance Based Navigation (PBN) concept, but there’s a lot to unpack to fully understand it.

So what exactly are PinS procedures, how does it all work, and what does PBN have to do with it?

But most of all, what even is the point of it? 🤔

We take a dive into helicopter PinS procedures to answer all of these questions!

We don’t publish all our Notes from the Cockpit (like this one) publicly, some are shared only by email. Get the next one sent straight to your inbox ⤵️

What are PinS Procedures?

PinS procedures are IFR approaches, departures, and low level routes that are specifically designed for helicopters.

PinS procedures rely on flying from or to a point in space that is based on GNSS, to either depart or approach any site under IFR.

No ground based equipment is required at all!

This is especially handy for helicopters, as conventional Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs) and Standard Arrival Routes (STARs) are often way too lengthy and time consuming, and are extremely rare outside airport environments due to obstacles and many other reasons.

Between the departure and the approach, the procedures can be linked together using more points in space to create (low level) routes! 🚁

PinS procedures help increase overall safety levels when operating in challenging weather conditions, and allow for arrivals into sites that would otherwise not be accessible.

PinS Procedure Overview

So what does this look like?

There are two main sections to any PinS procedure; the visual segment and the instrument segment. The visual segment is always the first stage of the departure, and the final stage of the approach 👀

Let’s say we want to fly from hospital A to hospital B using a PinS procedure:

From Hospital A, you visually fly to a Point in Space called the Initial Departure Fix (IDF):

After you reach the IDF at or above the published minimum crossing altitude (MCA), you transition into the IFR phase to get to your destination.

This part of the procedure is designed based on Navigation Specification RNP 1 or RNP 0.3, while the missed approach is based on RNP APCH or RNP 0.3.

Remember those?

If not, have a quick peek at our PBN article here that will explain them:

The Ultimate Pilot Guide to Performance Based Navigation

When we get closer to the hospital, the PinS approach phase starts at the Initial Approach Fix (IAF).

Here you use a PBN type approach to arrive at the missed approach point (MAPt), which is the point where you make the decision to land or go-around.

After this point is reached, the final stage is another visual segment where you fly to the site and end up in the hover.

Tadaa! You’ve now flown an IFR flight between two sites that aren’t airports ✅

Of course we can do the exact same from and to airports as well, but again, helicopters often fly to and from sites that have nothing to do with airports.

Let’s zoom in a little bit further: how exactly can the ‘visual segment’ at the start and end of the procedure be flown? Let’s take a look ⤵️

Proceed Visually vs Proceed VFR

When we say ‘visual segment’ this can mean two different things for both the departure and approach phase: Proceed visually or proceed VFR.

So what’s the difference? They sound so similar!

🔸 Proceed visually: VMC is not required (we’re flying IFR but while using outside references, like at the bottom of an ILS)

🔸 Proceed VFR: VMC is required (we’re flying VFR)

Sounds a bit weird right? We’re somehow proceeding visually, but VMC is not required? Yep!

Let’s have a comparison between the two, they each have their pros and cons that we need to be aware of.

Because of these two ways of flying the visual segment, we end up with four different procedures:

Let’s have a look at how this affects both departures and approaches individually.

PinS Departures

So, the departure phase consists of the visual segment towards the IDF, followed by IFR section after we reached the IDF at the MCA.

Let’s dive into the two different ways we can fly this visual segment:

PinS Proceed Visually Departure

The main point to remember here is that for a proceed visually departure we do not need VFR conditions to fly the visual segment!

Instead, we fly this part of the procedure under IFR.

In order to do this though, we need a published visual flight procedure. This entire phase is protected by a specific obstacle protection area.

Here are the 2 options we have to fly this:

🔸 A Direct Visual Segment: This is a published leg from the ground directly to the IDF using a visual segment design gradient (VSDG, basically a climb gradient to fly) and an MCA. The VSDG and the MCA will both be published on the plate, and we will have to comply with them.

Or

🔸 A Manoeuvring Visual Segment: This is a visual manoeuvre to the IDF that is NOT direct. Again, the way we have to fly the manoeuvre will be specified on the plate, this time by showing direction and turning instructions, a bit like a conventional SID.

The operating minima for a proceed visually departure have to be determined by the operator you fly for.

PinS Proceed VFR Departure

Then there’s the Proceed VFR departure, which does require VFR conditions to get to the IDF!

Usually the reason this option is picked for the procedure is because the obstacle environment around the site is not compliant with a proceed visually procedure.

This means that we are relying on see and avoid and VFR limits to get to the IDF, after which we convert to IFR, just like in the proceed visually departure.

This also means that you are NOT protected from obstacles until you reach the IDF at the MCA.

The main catch here is that we need to be able to reach the IDF while not in IMC. So, if the cloud base is below the MCA at the IDF, then we can’t start the departure.

PinS Approaches

For the approaches, there is something to keep in mind that we have talked about in our PBN pilot guide as well:

Satellite Based Augmentation System (SBAS) is required to be able to carry out approaches to the lowest possible decision heights.

These approaches are called Localiser Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV). If you don’t have access to SBAS (since Brexit we don’t have access to SBAS in the UK for example), you can’t fly LPV approaches and can only fly to LNAV minima. See our PBN guide for more on this.

With that out of the way, let’s look at the two different types of PinS approaches, similar to the departures ⤵️

PinS Proceed Visually Approach

A proceed visually approach does NOT require VFR conditions after the MAPt. Similar to becoming ‘visual’ at the bottom of an ILS, you do not need VFR conditions in this phase in order to continue all the way to the site.

This means that you are protected from obstacles even during the visual segment here.

The weather minima used to fly this approach are set by the operator, but could easily deviate from VFR conditions.

You fly under IFR from the IAF towards the PinS (which is the MAPt) to the published Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) for an LVAV approach, or Decision Altitude (DA) for an LPV approach.

Yea we agree, a lot of terms and abbreviations so far!

From here, you check if you have the required visual references and if so, proceed to the site!

The visual segment, may be via a descent point (DP) after the MAPt that is published on the plate, like this:

You’ve now landed at a hospital helipad under IFR!

If references are not obtained, you carry out the missed approach like with any other instrument approach.

Similar to the proceed visually departure, the visual segment can be either a direct visual segment or a manoeuvring visual segment that we’ve covered earlier.

PinS Proceed VFR Approach

The proceed VFR approach has a visual segment that is flown under VFR.

This means that there won’t be any obstacle protections in place, and that you are responsible for your own terrain separation once arrived at the MAPt.

This unfortunately also means that you will need VFR conditions in order to continue the approach at the decision point.

This causes some issues in the case of night HEMS, where the cloud base requirement is usually 1200 feet. You can have a decision point that’s lower, but you’ll still need 1200 feet to continue! Pretty weird huh?

EASA has actually solved this by allowing HEMS to come down lower for a proceed VFR approach, but the UK CAA has not done this yet.

This just shows that some of the implementation of regulation still needs to mature a little, which will hopefully solve issues like this.

What are the Safety Benefits of PinS Procedures?

PinS procedures have the ability to revolutionise the helicopter industry. So many accidents are still happening because the IFR infrastructure is not tailored towards helicopters.

This means that pilots are often reluctant to convert to IFR. By rarely doing this, the problem gets worse as pilots might be current but don’t feel competent in flying IFR to comfortably utilise it.

With PinS, IFR is more customised for helicopters, and will therefore make IFR more ‘normal’.

The benefits?

🔸 Improved accessibility to sites otherwise unreachable due to weather

🔸 Customised flight procedures that save time compared to conventional IFR procedures

🔸 No ground based stations required, making implementation much cheaper than installing an ILS

🔸 More tools and infrastructure available to utilise IFR for helicopter pilots

🔸 High precision approaches to off-airport sites that use obstacle protection to avoid CFIT

🔸 Higher likelihood of safe outcomes in the event of Inadvertent Entry into IMC, one of the leading causes of accidents across the globe.

What are Threats of PinS Procedures?

No change comes without threats. PinS is no different of course.

The main threats of implementing PinS are:

🔸 Pilots will be exposed to IFR more, which will require a cultural shift from a VFR only mindset amongst many different industries

🔸 IFR currency and competency is not the strong side of the helicopter industry, this will have to change for PinS to become a reliable tool

🔸 Technical malfunctions while flying PinS procedures can lead to a loss of obstacle separation

🔸 Lack of weather information across operating areas will make decision making for PinS impossible unless weather stations are available

🔸 PinS can be flown in uncontrolled airspace, a controversial topic that still needs mitigations to get to an acceptable safety level due to other traffic

Conclusion

Helicopter PinS procedures can create a huge step forward in improving flight safety, especially in challenging weather conditions.

PinS allows for efficient and safe operations to and from sites that would otherwise be inaccessible, such as remote hospitals or other non-airport locations.

To implement this properly, it will require a cultural shift toward greater IFR proficiency within the helicopter industry, and investments in weather data and training.

If done properly, PinS procedures can definitely change how helicopters operate in low-visibility conditions, reducing accidents and increasing confidence in IFR operations.

For now, we’ll have to see how this development continues, and we’ll keep you up to date on this! If you want to read more, check out the PinS Safety case by Eurocontrol.

We don’t publish all our Notes from the Cockpit (like this one) publicly, some are shared only by email. Get the next one sent straight to your inbox ⤵️