Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (Gnida)

GREATER NOIDA
INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (GNIDA)
MODIFIED FINAL PROJECT

REPORT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
HELIPORT AT GREATER NOIDA
MAY 2015
Development of Heliport at Greater NOIDA, (U.P.)
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................1
1.1 Study Objectives...............................................................................................................1
1.2 Field Study........................................................................................................................2
2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES.....................................................................................................5
2.1 Role of the Heliport..........................................................................................................5
3. PLANNING CRITERIA.......................................................................................................6
3.1 Planning Parameters..........................................................................................................6
3.2 Design Helicopter.............................................................................................................6
3.3 Performance Class 1 operations........................................................................................8
3.4 Taxiing Procedures...........................................................................................................9
3.5 Parking Apron...................................................................................................................9
3.6 Passenger Terminal.........................................................................................................10
3.7 Fueling............................................................................................................................10
3.8 Maintenance....................................................................................................................11
3.9 Navigational Aids...........................................................................................................11
4. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS..........................................................................................13
4.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................13
4.2 Identified Facility Requirements.....................................................................................13
4.2.1 Airfield.....................................................................................................................13
4.2.2 Touchdown and Liftoff (TLOF) area 29/01/2014...................................................13
4.2.3 Final approach and take-off (FATO) area...............................................................14
4.2.4 Safety Area...............................................................................................................15
4.2.5 Taxiway system.......................................................................................................16
4.3 Parking Apron.................................................................................................................16
4.4 Maintenance Facilities....................................................................................................17
4.5 Passenger Terminal Complex.........................................................................................17
4.6 Ground Access and Parking............................................................................................18
4.7 Support Facilities............................................................................................................18
4.7.1 ATC building...........................................................................................................18
4.7.2 Fuel system..............................................................................................................19
4.7.3 Navigational Aids....................................................................................................19
4.8 Crash Fire Rescue Facilities............................................................................................19
5. SITE EVALUATION.........................................................................................................21
5.1 Site Location...................................................................................................................21
5.1.1 Soil Investigations....................................................................................................21
5.2 Meteorology of the Area.................................................................................................22
5.3 Orientation......................................................................................................................22
5.4 Airside Facility Requirements for VFR & IFR operations.............................................22
5.5 Obstacle Limitation Surfaces..........................................................................................23
5.5.1 Annexure 1...............................................................................................................25
5.5.2 Obstructions in Approach funnel.............................................................................26
5.6 Existing and Proposed Roads around the Heliport.........................................................26
5.7 Presence of IGI Airport Control Zone............................................................................26
6. TRAFFIC DEMAND FORECAST....................................................................................27
6.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................27
6.2 Approach and Methodology...........................................................................................28
Final DPR i
6.3 Traffic and Travel Characteristics..................................................................................29
6.3.1.1 Primary Traffic and Travel Surveys.....................................................................29
6.3.1.2 The data collected and analyzed to assess the present traffic and travel
characteristics and movement pattern......................................................................................30
6.4 Classified Traffic Volume Count....................................................................................30
6.4.1 The location of classified traffic counts...................................................................30
6.4.2 Traffic Volume (Average Daily Traffic – 16hrs)....................................................30
6.5 Boarding & Alighting Counts.........................................................................................30
6.6 Willingness to Shift Survey............................................................................................31
6.6.1 Willingness Characteristics......................................................................................31
6.7 Origin and Destination Survey........................................................................................32
6.8 Helicopter Operator Survey............................................................................................34
6.9 Traffic Estimates.............................................................................................................35
6.10 Growth Rates................................................................................................................37
6.11 Traffic Projections........................................................................................................38
7. DEVELOPMENT PLAN....................................................................................................41
7.1 Development Plan / Master Plan.....................................................................................41
8. DESIGN OF PAVEMENT.................................................................................................43
8.1 Conclusion......................................................................................................................45
9. COST ESTIMATE..............................................................................................................46
10. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR GREATER NOIDA HELIPORT........................48
10.1 Objectives of EIA Study...............................................................................................48
10.2 Legal Provisions for Environment related to Infrastructure Projects...........................48
10.3 Environmental Clearance for Development Projects....................................................50
10.4 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act.........................................................51
10.5 Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act.............................................................53
10.6 Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules..........................................................54
10.7 Environmental Baseline Data.......................................................................................54
10.8 Physiography.................................................................................................................55
10.9 Analysis of Alternatives................................................................................................58
10.10 Impacts Assessment....................................................................................................63
10.10.1 Impacts on Land Environment.............................................................................63
10.10.2 Impact on Water Environment.............................................................................63
10.10.3 Impacts on Air Environment................................................................................63
10.10.4 Impact on Noise Environment.............................................................................64
10.10.5 General Mitigation Measures...............................................................................66
10.10.6 Impacts on Biological Environment....................................................................66
10.10.7 Socio- Economic Impacts....................................................................................67
10.11 Positive Impacts..........................................................................................................67
ANNEXURE 1........................................................................................................................68
ANNEXURE 2........................................................................................................................72
ANNEXURE 3........................................................................................................................76
11. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS...............................................................................................80
11.1. Introduction..............................................................................................................80
11.2. Methodology.............................................................................................................80
11.3. Capital Cost Estimates..............................................................................................80
11.4. Operation & Maintenance Cost Estimates................................................................81
Final DPR ii
11.4.1 Land Lease Charges.............................................................................................81
11.4.2 Repair & Maintenance........................................................................................82
11.4.3 Operating Costs...................................................................................................82
11.4.4 Other Costs..........................................................................................................82
11.5. Revenue Estimates....................................................................................................83
11.5.1. Flight Landing Charges.....................................................................................83
11.5.2. Passenger Fees...................................................................................................83
11.5.3. Aircraft Parking Charges...................................................................................84
11.5.4. Hanger Charges.................................................................................................84
11.5.5. Crew Retiring Rooms........................................................................................84
11.5.6. Vehicle Parking Charges...................................................................................84
11.5.7. Commercial Activities.......................................................................................84
11.6. Other Financing Parameters.....................................................................................85
11.6.1. CAPEX Phasing................................................................................................85
11.6.2. Inflation:............................................................................................................85
11.6.3. Other Financing Parameters..............................................................................85
11.7. Investment Analysis.................................................................................................88
11.8. Capital Expenditure Support....................................................................................88
11.9. User Development Fees............................................................................................89
11.10. Conclusion................................................................................................................91
12. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSIONS.......................................................92
12.1 General..........................................................................................................................92
12.2 Project Environment.....................................................................................................92
12.3 Contractual Practice......................................................................................................92
12.3.1 Contract packaging................................................................................................92
12.3.2 Choice of Bid process............................................................................................92
12.4 Conclusions..............................................................................................................94
13. DRAWINGS....................................................................................................................96
13.1 Layout Plan...................................................................................................................96
13.2 Obstacle Limitation Plan...............................................................................................97
13.3 Terminal Building Plan.................................................................................................98
13.4 ATC Tower Plan..........................................................................................................99
13.5 Fire Station Plan..........................................................................................................100
Final DPR iii

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Study Objectives
Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA), intends to develop a

heliport for the operati ons at Greater NOIDA, ( UP), with the primary objecti ve of
providing independent helicopter operati ons from Greater NOIDA to Delhi,
Lucknow, Agra, Jaipur and other parts of the country . Accordingly, three sites
were selected by GNIDA for setti ng up of heliport.
Site I- Knowledge Park - II, Greater NOIDA opposite Galgoti a Insti tute.
Site II- Opposite the site 1 on NOIDA- Greater NOIDA highway and
Site III- Opposite Gautam Budh University at Greater NOIDA
A site evaluati on study was carried out by RITES Ltd; for all three sites and
following is brought out:
Site I had several obstructions in terms of existing structures, elevated proposed Metro line and
environmental concerns.
Site II also had several obstructi ons in terms of existi ng structures and proposed
HT line and environmental concerns.
Site III was found to be bett er than site I and II as it had very few existi ng
structures in the vicinity of heliport and would aff ect environment the least.
A comparative statement of all the three sites is placed in chapter 10.
As per this report, the site opposite Gautam Budh University, Greater NOIDA, is considered to
be most favorable amongst the three sites selected by GNIDA for preparation of DPR for the
development of proposed heliport.
RITES Ltd. ( A Government of India Enterprise), has been appointed by GNIDA, as

technical consultant, for preparing a Detailed Project Report for development of
the heliport at Greater NOIDA, ( UP).
The scope of work of this study is as under:
 Traffi c Surveys and demand esti mati on,

 Topographic survey of the selected site,
Final DPR 1
 Detailed obstructi on survey in approach areas and surrounding air space,
analysis and review of obstacle limitati on surfaces,
 Soil Investi gati ons,
 Identi fi cati on and assessment of infrastructural services needed,
 Preparati on of master plan showing FATO, TLOF, terminal building, hangar,
approach road, car parking, security fencing, boundary wall and drainage,
 Preliminary design of helipad pavements and conceptual plans for the building
works,
 Identi fi cati on of Air Traffi c Control, Communicati on, Navigati onal and Visual
Aids/ Equipments requirements,
 Identi fi cati on of Crash Fire Rescue system requirements,
 Power and water supply requirements,
 Refueling facility,
 Preparati on of Preliminary Cost Esti mates for development of the faciliti es,
 Financial Appraisal
 Assistance in draft ing of applicati ons for DGCA/MOD/MOEF/AAI and local
authoriti es as per requirement.
The objecti ve of the study is to evaluate the Technical Feasibility and preparati on
of Detailed Project Report for development of a Heliport at Greater NOIDA,
(UP).The study, as documented in this report, assesses the physical and
operati onal characteristi cs of commercial helicopter operations in India, identifies the
facility requirements of heliport along with its esti mated cost. The coverage of the
study also includes traffi c forecast, Environmental Impact Assessment, Project
Appraisal and issues concerning Implementati on of Project.
This Draft report is not intended to provide a detailed heliport design, but to
provide with the initi al fi ndings for early decision making purposes.
1.2 Field Study
The heliport site is located along Yamuna Express way from Greater NOIDA to
Agra opposite Gautam Bugh University in Greater NOIDA, having an area of 15.5
Acres. The site is situated at co-ordinates of 28° 27’ 17.77”N and 77° 29’ 43.48” E
with an elevati on of 195.0 m above mean sea level and the average gradient of
0.2 m per km. The terrain of the area is generally plain with a gradual slope
varying between 0 .2 -0.1 per cent from north-east to south-west. The area is fl at
and low lying.
Figure 1.1: Location of Heliport
The site is surrounded by Gautam Budh University in the East and residenti al fl ats
in the West. Kasna Village is situated in the North Directi on and Yamuna Express
way is in South Directi on.
A team of Engineers from RITES visited the site and carried out studies / surveys /
investi gati ons during October 2014. The input informati on gathered during the fi eld
study is discussed in subsequent paragraphs. The report comprises of the following:
 Project Objecti ves

 Evaluati on of site features
 Identi fi cati on of Planning parameters
 Establishment of Facility Requirements
 Development Plan
 Pavement Design
 Preliminary Cost esti mates
 Financial Appraisal
Project Objectives: The initi al step involved discussions with the GNIDA to
identi fy objecti ves for the project, including the defi niti on of the role of the heliport
facility, and number of operators to be accommodated.
Evaluation of site features: This step involved evaluation of the site and surrounding features
to accommodate the facility requirements.
Identification of Planning Parameters: The planning criteria for the Heliport were identified
through input from GNIDA representatives and documentation contained in Civil Aviation
Requirements by DGCA and ICAO .
Establishment of Facility Requirements: This step involved incorporati ng

planning criteria in accordance with the project objecti ves and requirement.
Development Plan: Based on the planning parameters, facility requirements

and site evaluati on, the opti ons available for development of the heliport are
discussed and suitable opti on recommended.
Design: Design of the helicopter movement area proposed.
Cost Estimate: An indicative Cost Estimate of the development works proposed.
Financial Appraisal: Financial appraisal of the proposed heliport. The study
documents these steps in the following sections.
*****
Final DPR 4
2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
2.1 Role of the Heliport
The primary objecti ve of the proposed Heliport is to provide an independent

facility for Helicopter Operati ons in Greater NOIDA primarily to facilitate passengers
coming from IGI Airport, New Delhi to Greater NOIDA and for further air travel to
various places such as Agra, Mathura, Jaipur, Lucknow etc .
The Heliport would provide a location for the voluntary basing of helicopter operators providing
commercial services from Greater NOIDA. The development
of the Heliport is also intended to support the tourism, medical, security and emergency services.
The heliport would be developed as VFR compliant facility . The GNIDA will provide
basic infrastructural faciliti es such as a landing space and parking of helicopters,
refueling yard, terminal building with faciliti es of check -in, security checking,
baggage claim and ATC. Provision of hangars for maintenance of helicopters GNIDA
will charge applicable fee to the operators for uti lizing the services. GNIDA will
arrange for security personnel and heliport managerial staff and ATC faciliti es.
*****
Final DPR 5
3. PLANNING CRITERIA
3.1 Planning Parameters
The purpose of this secti on is to identi fy the planning criteria for the proposed
heliport which will guide the development of generalized facility requirements for
the Heliport. Planning criteria is governed by the type of helicopter operati on
proposed such as Performance Class, VFR or IFR operati ons and the dimensions of
the helicopters intended to serve the heliport. The requirements for diff erent type
of operati ons are provided by Civil Aviati on Requirements ( CAR) of DGCA and ICAO.
The following parameters have been finalized:
 The heliport will be planned to accommodate the largest of f leet , presently in

use for commercial operati ons in India.
 The heliport is intended to be operated by helicopters in Performance Class 1
 The heliport will be planned for VFR operati ons.
3.2 Design Helicopter
Selecti on of design helicopter is the most important parameter, which is required

to be identi fi ed, before planning the faciliti es at the heliport. The criti cality of
the helicopter in terms of its weight and size is the major criteria for selecti on of
design helicopter from the available fl eet.
The helicopter ground faciliti es and associated fl ight paths need to be designed
with reference to a design helicopter. When designing a heliport, the criti cal
design helicopter, having the largest set of dimensions and the greatest maximum
take-off mass (MTOM) the heliport is intended to serve, would need to be
considered.
The range of helicopter types anti cipated to use the Heliport includes the current
fl eet of aircraft operated by various operators. The facility also needs to be
suitable for use by alternate helicopter types in current service with other
agencies and emergency services and a s well as the range of helicopter types that
could be used in the longer term future.
The list of helicopters presently in use is given in Table – 3.1.

Table – 3.1: List of Helicopters with Non-Scheduled Operators in India
Helicopter Type Seat Capacity Number of Helicopters

Augusta 109 C 7 5
Augusta 109 S 6 4
Augusta 109 E 5 7
Augusta A119 7
Augusta 119 K 8 1
Augusta AW 139 15 8
AS355N ( H) 5 1
AS 350B3 5 10
Alloutte III 6 1
Helicopter 316 B
BELL 206B3 5 6
BELL 206L3 6 1
BELL 206L4 6 4
BELL 212 13 2
BELL 407 5 25
BELL 412 13 20
BELL 429 6 3
BELL 222 UT 6
BELL 230 7
BELL 430 5 1
Chetak 5 3
Dhruv ALH 8 1
Dauphin 2 13 17
Dauphin AS365N3 13 20
EC120 B 5
Eurocopter EC 130 B4 5
EC135P2+ 6 3
EC 155 B1 12 3
Enstrom 480 B 4 2
Ecureil AS355 F-1 5 3
Ecureil 350 B3 6 4
Hiller UH 012E 2 2
MBB BK 117 C2 (EC145) 8
MD900 7 1
MI-172 26 4
Robinson R44 3 1
R44 Raven II 3 1
Sikorsky S76C 6 4
SA 315B Lama 4 1
Helicopter Type Seat Capacity Number of Helicopters
SA 316B Chetak 6
Schweizer 300 C 2 1
Schweizer 300SP 3 1
Total 171
Source: LIST OF NON- SCHEDULED OPERATOR’ S PERMIT HOLDERS ( AS ON 05 . 12 . 2013 )
Analysis of the list of helicopters presented in

Table - 3.1 above reveals that MI-172 with 3%
maximum seati ng capacity of 26 is the

heaviest aircraft presently in use. But it 37% 26
13
consti tutes only 2% of the total <13
helicopters. Helicopters with seati ng 60%
capacity of 13 to 15 consti tute 39%, the

helicopters predominantly in use being Bell
412, Augusta AW 139 and Dauphin.
About 60% of the total helicopters are below 13 seats, the predominant being Bell
407 . Out of the helicopters predominantly in use, MI - 172 is the heaviest having the
largest helicopter dimensions. Therefore i t would be ideal to plan the faciliti es to
accommodate MI-172, to provide the separati on distances for planning the airside
faciliti es. The features related to planning & design of faciliti es of the important
helicopters in operati on is given below:
Table – 3.2: Helicopter Features
Helicopter Rotor Dia Length Height Tread Max. gross

(m) (m) (m) weight (kg)
Mi-172 21.29 25.35 5.54 4.51 13000
Bell 412 14.02 17.07 4.32 2.59 5397
Dauphin AS 11.94 13.68 3.52 1.90 4250
365
Bell 407 10.67 12.62 3.10 2.47 2268
3.3 Performance Class 1 operations
Performance Class 1 operati ons are those with performance such that, in the
event of failure of the criti cal power-unit, the rotorcraft is able to land within the
rejected take-off distance available or safely conti nue the fl ight to an appropriate
landing area, depending on when the failure occur.
Helicopters operati ng in Performance Class 1 (PC1 ) are able to conti nue fl ight or
land at a helipad with one engine inoperati ve ( OEI) and represent the highest
level of operati onal safety. PC1 fl ights require
a suitable combinati on of parameters including
wind speed and directi on, air temperature and
pressure, and aircraft operati ng weight. In
additi on, a suitably sized helipad is essenti al
to support PC1 fl ights.
In the event that any of the required criteria

for PC1 fl ights cannot be met, the aircraft
operates in Performance Class 2. PC2 aircraft
have a similar OEI accountability except for the
early stages aft er l ift off and the fi nal stages of
the approach to land during which a forced landing may be required in the OEI
situati on and is included in the conti ngency planning for such fl ights.
The design criteria adopted for the Heliport refl ect the standards and
recommended practi ces published by ICAO in Annex 14 – Volume II and the ICAO
Heliport Design Manual. The ICAO documentati on has specifi c applicati on and
details of the facility requirements for Performance Class 1 helicopters. As a
member state of ICAO, India adopts the ICAO unless alternate provisions and criteria
have been published. India published a C ivil Aviati on Requirement (CAR) Publicati on,
which presents guidelines for the establishment of Heliports.
3.4 Taxiing Procedures
Heliports accommodati ng scheduled commercial acti vity should provide for the
controlled movement of helicopters along obstructi on free corridors, or taxiway,
from maintenance and parking areas to fi nal approach and landing ar ea. The
width of the taxiway is based on the width of the main gear span of the design
helicopter, and diff er if the mode of taxiing is “hover” for s kid equipped
helicopters, or “ ground” for wheel equipped helicopters.
The typical mode of taxiing at the proposed Heliport will be ground taxiing and
air taxiing. The taxiways provide access between the FATO areas and the
helicopter parking apron. When taxiing within the apron area, the helicopter uses
a maneuvering aisle to reach the parking positi on centerline. The required width
and clearance requirements for the maneuvering aisle are based on taxiway
clearances for the largest helicopter to use that a isle.
3.5 Parking Apron
A heliport requires a paved apron for parking helicopters. Each helicopter has a defined parking
position with a clear path to the taxi way. This clear path is
defi ned by the centerlines of the parking positi on and the maneuvering aisle. The
size and layout of the parking positi on are based on the size of the helicopter and the
manner in which the helicopter maneuvers in and out of the parking positi on.
The size of the parking positi on is based on the largest overall dimension of the
design helicopter.
The primary methods of leaving a parking positi on are “taxi -thru,” “turn-around,”
or backing-out.” A parking Apron for two helicopters has been planned on the
North side of plot. Two helicopter stands of size 51m x 51 m are proposed for MI-
172 (26 Seater) type of helicopter.
3.6 Passenger Terminal
This facility typically includes a reception desk, check-in area, security check, departure hold area
for the potential 30 -minute passenger dwell time, cafeteria, washrooms, apron access points such
as a terminal or a gate, and office areas.
Generally, operators escort their passengers between the apron access point and
the helicopter. This may occur via a shutt le vehicle or via a pedestrian path,
depending on the distance to the helicopter parking positi ons. Operators prefer
to walk the passengers to the helicopter parking positi ons to minimize operati ng
costs and schedule.
For safety reasons, this passenger pathway should be well defi ned, by striping or
a change in material, and should not cross acti ve taxi routes, maneuvering aisles or
parking positi on centerlines.
3.7 Fueling
The feasible methods of fueling the helicopters were identi fi ed as either by fuel
truck, which brings fuel to the helicopter when requested, by providing a storage
fuel barrels in a re-fuelling bay upto which the helicopter should travel for fuelling
or by a hydrant system allowing “hot-fueling,” which allows the fueling of helicopters
without turning off power to the main rotor. In this scenario, a fuel dispensing
mechanism at the apron would be fed underground from a remote fuel tank.
Truck fueling is the current fueling method for helicopters at IGI Airport and is a
service provided by a Fixed Base Operator (FBO). Unlike truck fue ling, hot-fueling
allows the helicopter rotors to remain in operati on during fueling, which shortens
the turn ti me to the next fl ight and reduces wear associated with engine starts. It
also removes the potenti al delay of waiti ng for the fuel truck to service the
aircraft . This method, however, would require more intensive underground
infrastructure than truck fueling, which, in turn, would aff ect initi al constructi on
costs, environmental considerati ons, and long -term maintenance.
Initi ally at this heliport, i t is proposed to provide a Re-fuelling bay to house the
Mini Fuel Test Lab and storage for Refueling Equipment & its Spares. This shed can
be initi ally used to house 20 to 25 Nos, 200 ltr fuel barrels or the re- fueler
itself. This bay can be jointly used by various operators for storing of their fuel
barrels.
In case the traffic increases, the other methods of refueling can be taken up.
3.8 Maintenance
All commercial helicopter operators currently maintain their heli copters with their
own maintenance engineers in a dedicated (leased or owned) hangar. Maintenance
hangars are used by the tour operators to conduct light maintenance of their fl eet
on a daily basis. Heavy maintenance of all commercial helicopters would occur at
remote, manufactu rer-approved service stati ons. Light maintenance procedures for
tour operators typically occur daily aft er tour operati ons cease, and are oft en
performed during night ti me hours. Maintenance faciliti es would be required to
accommodate delivery vehicles, l i ght industrial equipment, and provide staging and
storage of aircraft parts.
The maintenance of helicopters requires relocati on from parking positi ons on the
apron to the maintenance hangar by placing skids beneath the undercarriage of
each helicopter and towing them into the maintenance hangar. Some models of
helicopter “fold” their main rotors along the line of fuselage, requiring less
clearance for maintenance.
Each operator maintenance hangar would be preferred to be directly adjacent to

each operator apron. Each maintenance hangar would require a minimum interior
height clearance of 11 m. Two maintenance hangars of size 25m x 40m are
proposed. One hangar space can be allocated to some fi rm who can maintain all
type of helicopters. The authority can ch arge suitable fee from this maintenance
agency.
3.9 Navigational Aids
Helicopter fl ight paths entering controlled airspace would be handled by existing Airport Traffic
Control Tower facilities at IGI Airport.
A wind sock would be required at the Heliport to show the directi on and
magnitude of the wind. Wind socks will be placed to provide a true indicati on of
surface wind and be clear of safety areas, TLOF and FATO areas, and heliport
transiti onal surfaces.
A heliport identification beacon will b e required to aid in locating the Heliport.
*****
4. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
4.1 Introduction
The purpose of this secti on is to identi fy, on a conceptual level, the requirements
of commercial helicopter operators at the initi al planning period for the Heliport.
Facility requirements have been developed in accordance with the standards and
recommended practi ces of ICAO.
4.2 Identified Facility Requirements
This secti on quanti fi es faciliti es for both airside and landside components of the
Heliport based on planning parameters for the project documented in Secti on III.
It identi fi es facility requirements for airfi eld, terminal faciliti es, maintenance
faciliti es, ground access, parking, support faciliti es, as well as landscaping.
4.2.1 Airfield
The airfi eld of the Heliport would be comprised of two components: the apron area
and the acti ve movement area.
The acti ve movement area extends from the edge of the apron to the outside
edge of the TLOF and FATO areas, and includes:
 TLOF/ FATOs and associated land area

 Safety areas
 Taxiways
4.2.2 Touchdown and Liftoff (TLOF) area 29/01/2014
Wherever it is intended that the undercarriage of a helicopter will actually touch

down on the surface of a heliport or leave the surface to achieve a hover, a
touchdown and lift -off area shall be provided. The dimensions of TLOF should be
1.5 ti mes length or width of the undercarriage, whichever is greater, of the
largest helicopter the heliport is intended to serve. However, as per amendment
presently under considerati on, the TLOF shall be of suffi cient size to contain a circle
of diameter of at least 0 .83D of the largest helicopter the area is intended to
serve.
The TLOF dimensions required for MI-172 for the proposed heliport will be of size is 21m
x 21 m.
4.2.3 Final approach and take-off (FATO) area
FATO is an area over which a helicopter completes the approach maneuver to a

hover or landing or commences movement into forward fl ight in the take -off
maneuver.
FATO is located within the safety area and provides the defi ned area over which
the fi nal phase of the approach maneuver to hover or landing is completed and
from which the take-off maneuver is commenced. Where the FATO is to be used
by helicopters operated in Performance Class 1 , the defi ned area includes the
rejected take-off area available.
A heliport should have an identi fi able, object free area for helicopter landing and
take-off . FATO should be so located that, it permits at least one clear approach /
take off path aligned with the prevailing winds. The size of FATO should not be
less than 1 .5 ti mes of the overall length/width whichever is greater of the
longest/ widest helicopter the heliport is intended to serve. However, as per
proposed amendment no.4, the width of a FATO shall not be less than the greatest
overall dimension (D) of the largest helicopter. In accordance with ICAO and CAR,
local conditi ons, such as elevati on and temperature, may need to be considered
when determining the size of a FAT O as per guidelines given in ICAO heliport manual.
The length requirement of FATO is also infl uenced by elevati on of heliport above
Mean Sea Level.
The surface of FATO should be
 Free from irregulariti es that would adversely aff ect the landing and take -off .
 Capable of sustaining the eff ect of rotor down wash.
 Have suffi cient bearing strength to sustain rejected take off .
The proposed formati on level of heliport will be kept atleast 3m above the
adjoining road and the reference temperature is 40.5 ° C. In accordance with ICAO
heliport manual, the FATO of size 30m x 30m is being considered and a total
paved area of 30m x 300m is proposed in the approach areas to cater for rejected
take off .
Accordingly, it is proposed to provide FATO of length 300 m x 30 m.

Further, when the FATO is designed to accept performance class 1 operati ons, i t must
be capable of withstanding a rejected take -off , which may well equate to an
emergency landing. The design load in this case should be taken as 1.66 ti mes the
maximum take-off mass of the heaviest helicopter for which the FATO is
intended. It is therefore proposed to pave the enti re area of 300m x 30m of FATO
to sustain the design loads of 21580 Kg.
4.2.4 Safety Area
The safety area provides an area within which the helicopter can operate clear of
obstacles, the primary functi on being to protect the rotor system from striking an
object.
A safety area surrounding Final Approach and Take -off (FATO) area intended to be
used in visual meteorological conditi ons (VMC) shall extend outwards from the
periphery of the FATO, for a distance of at least 3.00 m or 0. 25 ti mes the overall
length or width ( whichever is greater), of the largest helicopter intended to be
used at the heliport.
A safety area surrounding a FATO intended to be used by helicopter operati ons in

instrument meteorological conditi ons ( IMC) shall extend laterally to a distance of
a at least 45 m on each side of the centre line and longitudinally to a distance of
at least 60 m beyond the ends of the FATO.
No fi xed objects shall be permitt ed in the safety area. No mobile object shall be
permitt ed during helicopter operati ons.
The surface of the safety area abutti ng the FATO shall be conti nuous with the
FATO and the whole of the safety shall be treated to prevent loose stones and
any other fl ying debris caused by rotor downwash.
A safety area of size 420m x 90m (including FATO) is proposed for safety area.
4.2.5 Taxiway system
A helicopter ground Taxiway is pre-identi fi ed path having adequate strength to

facilitate surface movement of wheeled helicopter under its own power. The
purpose of providing a Ground taxiway is to provide a link between FATO and
helicopter parking positi on. The taxiway system of the Heliport would
accommodate the movement of helicopters between the apron areas and the
TLOF and FATO areas. Due to the number of anti cipated operati ons a dual taxiway
(ground) system is recommended. As per the amendment to Annex-14, the width
of a helicopter taxiway shall not be less than 1.5 ti mes the largest width of the
undercarriage (UCW) of helicopters the ground taxiway is intended to serve. It i s
proposed to provide a width of 7. 5 m. Air taxiways are not envisaged due t o
limited availability of space. Further, a helicopter ground taxiway route shall
extend symmetrically on each side of the centerline for at least 1 .5 ti mes the largest
overall width of the helicopters that it is intended to serve. Accordingly 40 m
wide ground taxi route is proposed.
Ground Taxiways of 7.5m width are proposed.
4.3 Parking Apron
The apron area extends from the face of the terminal facility to the edge of the taxiway, and
includes:
 Passenger walkways
 Helicopter parking positi ons
 Helicopter maneuvering aisles
Keeping the present fl eet of helicopters, it is proposed to accommodate more number of

smaller helicopters as they consti tute about 60 % of the total f leet, followed by the
medium helicopters. One parking positi on is proposed for MI - 172 and two parking
positi ons are proposed for Bell 412 / 407 type of helicopter.
4.4 Maintenance Facilities
The helicopter maintenance facility requirements have been developed assuming

each operator would maintain and operate a dedicated maintenance hangar that
would be located adjacent to the apron. Scheduled light maintenance work for
each operator’s fl eet would be complete d on a daily basis within each operator’ s
maintenance hangar. Each maintenance hangar would typically include the
following faciliti es:
 Large open space to maintain single helicopter

 Large open space for the storage of helicopter
 Work areas for parts maintenance
 Storage for parts and tools
 Offi ce space for records and inspecti ons
It is proposed that 2 hangars of 40 m x 25 m be constructed to meet the present

requirements. However space for future two more hangars of smaller size is earmarked
in the master plan.
4.5 Passenger Terminal Complex
The passenger terminal faciliti es accommodate public and private acti viti es for
each commercial helicopter operator. Whether the faciliti es are centralized in
one building, or decentralized in separate buildings, each operator will have
dedicated space which typically includes the following functi onal areas:
 Recepti on desk
 Check-in- counters
 Passenger lobby/ waiti ng area
 Shops, ATM faciliti es
 Washrooms
 Apron access point ( door or gate)
 Administrati ve space
The space requirements for each primary component of the passenger terminal
complex have been quanti fi ed based on the approximate requirements. While
each operator would require the same basic program elements for either a
centralized or decentralized passenger terminal complex, there is some effi ciency
associated with a centralized facility. Effi ciencies such as a consolidated food and
beverage for all operators and a reducti on in total restroom requirements
associated with centralized facility wou ld typically be off set by additi onal
circulati on space. Therefore, for the purposes of this report, centralized operator
requirements have been developed.
Based on initi al esti mates, an area of 500 sqm of terminal building including
administrati ve area is envisaged at the immediate stage with future expansion
possibiliti es. This building will cater for 20 incoming and 20 outgoing passengers.
4.6 Ground Access and Parking
The ground access requirements are comprised of the terminal curbside,

roadways, and vehicle parking for employees and visitors. The primary mode of
transportati on for passengers to and from the Heliport would be via cars. The
area requirements for the access roadway system would be based on a one- way,
single- level loop system.
It is proposed to provide car parking for 25 cars.
4.7 Support Facilities
Support facilities associated with the Heliport would potentially include the following:
 ATC building, Technical block, Met offi ce

 Fire stati on having space for Fire tender, Ambulance and a Jeep for heliport
staff .
 Fuel storage yard,
 Electric packaged sub-stati on, U.G. Tank
 Navigati onal aids
4.7.1 ATC building
ATC building will house the control tower on the top fl oor with clear visibility of
the approaches and a ground fl oor to accommodate the met briefi ng room.
104 sqm area of building with 36 sqm tower area is therefore proposed for ATC building.
The formati on level of FATO is about 204 .50 m. The plinth level of ATC building is f ixed
as 205 .00 m. The top of ATC tower is fi xed so that the ATC staff can have a clear look at
the surroundings.
4.7.2 Fuel system
Fueling services at the Heliport would comply with Aircraft Fuel Storage,
Handling, and Dispensing on Heliports.
Initially the preferred method for fueling helicopters would be thorough barrels.
It is proposed to provide a Re-fuelling bay 5 m wide x 8 m long x 5 m high shed

( Corrugated Al Alloy Sheet metal or brick walled structure) with hard fl ooring and
one room 3 m x 3 m x 5 m (within the shed) to house the Mini Fuel Test Lab and
storage for Refueling Equipment & its Spares. This shed can be initi ally used to
house 20 to 25 Nos, 200 ltr Fuel barrels or the re-fueler itself.
The electrical cables, light & fan fi tti ngs will be fi re & fl ame proof. The shed should
be well venti lated and preferably have shutt er doors. Either method would need to
comply with local f ire regulati ons.
4.7.3 Navigational Aids
As discussed in the preceding secti on, the Heliport would require a wind sock to
show the directi on and magnitude of the wind, heliport lighti ng of FATO, TLOF
and taxiways, and a heliport identi fi cati on beacon to aid in locati ng the Heliport
in accordance with ICAO.
For providing approach l ights 90 m of length of land is required beyond FATO for non-
instrument FATO and at least 210 m length for Non-Precision FATO. The land for this
facility is not available.
4.8 Crash Fire Rescue Facilities
As per ICAO classifi cati on the levels of protecti on to be provided at the proposed
heliport fall under “Category H3 ”. Under this category minimum usable amount of
exti nguishing agents and water needed for foam producti on is defi ned/ enumerated
as under:
Minimum usable amount of extinguishing agents
Minimum water needed 1600 Ltr.

Discharge rate Foam Soluti on 800 Ltr/ Min
Dry Chemical powder or halons 90 Kg
Or CO2 180 Kg
The following rescue equipment are also required to be provided at site:
Adjustable wrench 1 No.

Axe, rescue, non-wedge or Aircraft type 1 No.
Cutters, bolt 60 cm 1 No.
Crow bar, 105 cm 1 No.
Hook, Grab or salving 1 No.
Hack saw Heavy duty complete with 6 spare blades 1 No.
Blanket, Fire resistant 1 No.
Ladder ( length appropriate to Helicopter in use) 1 No.
Lifeline, 5 cms, 15m in length 1 No.
Pliers, side cutting 1 No.
Set of assorted screw drivers 1 No.
Harness knife complete with sheath 1 No.
Gloves, fire resistant 3 pairs
Power cutting tools 1 No.
*****
5. SITE EVALUATION
5.1 Site Location
The heliport site is located along Yamuna Express way from Greater NOIDA to
Agra opposite Gautam Bugh University in Greater NOIDA, having an area of 15.5
Acres with an elevati on of 195.0 m above mean sea level and the average gradient
of 0.2 m per km. The terrain of the area is generally plain with a gradual slope varying
between 0.2 -0.1 per cent from north-east to south-west. Presently, the area is being
used as an agricultural area
The Geographical Co-ordinates of the site are as given below;
 Geographical Co-ordinates ( WGS-84 System):
o Lat N 28°27’ 17.77”

o Long E 77°29’43. 48”
 Helipad Elevati on: 204.5 M (671 ft ) AMSL:
5.1.1 Soil Investigations
Soil investi gati ons were carried out at Site I- Knowledge Park - II, Greater NOIDA
opposite Galgoti a Insti tute. However this site was rejected on the grounds of
noise polluti on beyond permissible limits.
The proposed Site III - Opposite Gautam Budh University at Greater NOIDA , is in a
low lying area. In order to clear obstructi ons to fl ying of aircraft , the general
elevati on of the site will be raised by about 8 to 10m. The stresses due to load
transfer ( during landing and take-off of helicopter) dissipate within 3m from the
landing surface. As the depth of fi lling is more than 3m, no stresses will be
transferred to the original ground. Therefore the bearing capacity of the original
ground shall not have any eff ect on the design. Pavement design will have to be
undertaken based on bearing capacity of fi lled up material and soil investi gati on
of original ground will not be of any use.
5.2 Meteorology of the Area
The Met observatory to the proposed site is located at Palam airport. The data in
respect of climatological conditi ons recorded at Palam observatory and published
by meteorological department is discussed as under:
a) Visibility: It is noted from the meteorological tables that 82 .8% durati on of

year off ers visibility more than 4 kms and 20.98 % durati on of the year off ers
visibility more than 10 kms
b) Rainfall: The annual rainfall in the area is of the order of 794 mm.
c) Temperature: The maximum temperature recorded in the month of May is
47.2 C and the minimum temperature recorded in the month of
January/February is -2.2 C. The Mean of the maximum temperature in the
hott est month (May) is 40.5  C.
d) Winds: The surface winds are mostly East-West. The predominant wind
directi on is North West- South East.
5.3 Orientation
The helipad is required to be placed in the predominant w ind directi on to

facilitate smooth operati ons. The review of wind patt ern of the area, by analyzing
the wind data for New Delhi reveals that NW - SE should be the preferred directi on
for orienti ng the heliport. It is observed that the land is favorably oriented for
locati on of FATO and other faciliti es.
It is proposed to positi on the FATO strip in East West directi on. The size of paved
area is kept as 300 m x 30m. The area of northern side of plot has been kept
totally free from any structure to provide safe approach to the helicopter as
other two sides of plot are surrounded by buildings. The locati on of FATO is fi xed
in such a way that it is almost in the centre of plot and a he licopter taking off or
landing upto a slope of 3.33% can operate safely at the heliport. Thus the FATO
will be oriented in the directi on 14/32 . Also it causes least sound disturbance to
nearby habitants and is clear from obstructi ons.
5.4 Airside Facility Requirements for VFR & IFR operations
The land requirements for planning airside facility under various conditions of operations are
tabulated as below:
Table 5.1: Airside Facility land requirement
Category FATO Safety Length for Clearance Total

length (m) Area (m) approach from length
lights ( m) Boundary required
wall (m) (m)
VFR-Day 300 20 --- 140 460
(2 x 10 ) (2 x 70 )
VFR-Night 300 20 90 70 480
(2 x 10 ) (One end
only)
IFR – Day 300 120 --- 180 600
(Non-Precision) (2 x 60 ) (2 x 90 )
IFR – Night 300 120 210 90 720
(Non-Precision) (2 x 60 ) (one end
only)
5.5 Obstacle Limitation Surfaces
Protection of the flight paths associated with a helip ort is required through the provision of
obstacle limitation surfaces.
The aim of obstacle restricti on and removal is to defi ne the airspace around
heliports to be maintained free from obstacles so as to permit the intended
helicopter operati ons at the heliports to be conducted safely and to prevent the
heliports becoming unusable by the growth of obstacles around them. This is
achieved by establishing a series of obstacle limitati on surfaces that defi ne the
limits to which objects/ structures may project into the airspace.
In order to safeguard a helicopter during its approach to the FATO and in its climb
aft er take-off , it is necessary to establish an approach surface and a take -off surface
through which no obstacle is permitt ed to project, for each approach and take-off
path designated as serving the FATO.
The fl ight path envelopes required to support day and night fl ights by the design
helicopter operati ng in Performance Class 1 are defi ned by criteria presented in
ICAO Annex 14 volume II.
The obstacle-limiti ng surfaces, laid down by ICAO for ensuring safe landing take -
off and maneuvering of helicopters, are one of the most important aspects of heliport
planning. The obstacle limiti ng surfaces required to be laid down for IFR operati ons
are:
 take-off climb surface;

 approach surface;
 transiti onal surfaces and
 conical surface
It has further been recommended by ICAO that the following obstacle limitation surfaces should
be established for a non -precision approach FATO:
 inner horizontal surface; and

 conical surface
Approach Surface: An inclined plane or a combinati on of planes sloping upwards

from the end of the safety area and centered on a l ine passing through the centre
of the FATO
Take-off Climb Surface: An inclined plane, a combinati on of planes or, when a turn
is involved, a complex surface sloping upwards from the end of the safety area
and centered on a line passing through the centre of the FATO.
Transiti onal Surface: A complex surface along the side of the safety area and part
of the side of the approach surface, that slopes upwards and outwards to the inner
horizontal surface or a predetermined height.
Inner Horizontal Surface: A circular surface located in a horizo ntal plane above a FATO and its
environs.
Conical Surface: A surface sloping upwards and outwards from the periphery of
the inner horizontal surface or from the outer limit of the transiti onal surface i f
an inner horizontal surface is not provided.
The dimensions and slopes of obstacle l imitati on surfaces are given in

Annexure 1.
5.5.1 Annexure 1
5.5.2 Obstructions in Approach funnel
a. Approach 30
A visual Obstacle survey of the area has been carried out. Initi al examinati on
of the data reveals that there is no obstructi on towards western side of the
Heliport.
b. Approach 12
The area towards North-west side ( approach 12), the main obstructi on is a
High Tension Electric Transmission l ine of 220 KV passing through the
approach funnel at a distance of about 800m from the FATO. Few towers of
this line need to be buried underground.
5.6 Existing and Proposed Roads around the Heliport
It has been observed that the approach road to Gautam Budh University is passing through the
approach funnels of Heliport. It may be ensured that any vehicle of height more than 4m should
not pass from this road.
5.7 Presence of IGI Airport Control Zone
Examinati on of various Operati onal Charts and ATC Charts of IGI Airport such as
ATS route chart, TMA (Terminal Control Area) chart, FIR Charts and aerodrome
charts was carried out. It was seen that Greater NOIDA Proposed Heliport is also
not falling on approach funnels or take off climb surfaces of any of the runways
at IGI Airport. The helicopter approach paths of Greater NOIDA Heliport are also
clear of aircraft paths of IGI Airport. The heliport is not located on any Restricted,
Prohibited or Danger areas.
However, the proposed heliport is located inside the Control Zone of IGI Airport, Delhi, and thus
prior clearance from Airports Authority of India and coordination, permission & positive control of
ATC, IGI Airport for operations is consid ered essential.
Note: As far as possible, all the obstructi ons in operati ons of helicopter should be
removed. The high tension cable- Grid l ine which lies within the approach cone
and other high structures of Gautam Budh University will have to be marked with
Obstructi on Lighti ng and Other obstructi ons around would have to be marked
with standard patt ern painti ng.
*****
6. TRAFFIC DEMAND FORECAST
6.1 Introduction
It is an established fact that transport is backbone of economic development

where each mode plays a vital role. On the one hand surface modes of transport,
such as; rail, road, costal shipping, inland waterways, pipe line, rope way, etc.
are most suitable to meet goods and passenger demand in bulk, airways is able
to contribute by off ering most ti me eff ecti ve services on the other. Since each
mode has a specifi c role to play, thereby, economy requires a balanced
development amongst the modes.
During the past decades, all the modes have shown steady growth. There has
been remarkable growth in the air transport sector in India. Due to open sky policy
and the public and private sector parti cipati on, air sector is able to off er latest
generati on aircraft s and ultra modern terminal faciliti es to its esteemed customers,
in- line with internati onal standards and practi ces. Although, more and more
citi es fi gure on our air-network, it fails to adequately provide personalized air
transport services required to be off ered through helicopters, as observed in the
case of other developing and developed economies.
Helicopters in their numerous forms have impacted our society in many ways.
Because their landing gear can be fi tt ed to best serve its purpose as skids,
wheels, or fl oats, and they have the ability to hover in a stati onary positi on and
even wench people up and down, they have an amazing fl exibility that allows
them to be uti lized nearly anywhere. Helicopters possess capabiliti es other aircraft
don’t have, such as fl ying backward, sideways, pirouetti ng on their own axis,
stopping mid- air, and hovering.
Helicopters have a tremendous future in India. Tourism and medical evacuati on

are going to be major drivers of helicopter growth in India in the years to come.
Given the ability of helicopters to fl y in varied environments and also due to the
fact that infrastructure for fi xed wing aircraft s can expand only incrementally, it
is but natural for helicopters to grow at an unprecedented pace.
Keeping in view the advantages of helicopter operati ons and conti nued economic
and infrastructural growth of the Nati onal Capital Region ( NCR), Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority ( GNIDA) has proposed 2 25 acres of land for
development of heliport faciliti es at Greater Noida Area to provide fast
connecti vity within and outside the region.
Final DPR 27
6.2 Approach and Methodology
Aviati on as an acti vity encompasses a wide variety of stakeholders ranging from

passengers to vendors of high and strategic technologies. The most important
stake holder in the sector is the common passenger whose aspira ti on and need
to travel is to deepen with ti me. He needs aff ordable, comfortable and safe
travel with a decent quality of customer services.
Presently helicopter services are regulated through Indira Gandhi Internati onal
(IGI) Airport at Delhi in Nati onal Capital Region (NCR). The services are highly
aff ected because of non-priority assigned to this segment of traffi c. The
helicopter operati ng agencies in and around NCR areas are unable to off er the
required services, as they are unable to adhere to the agreed schedule.
Since no authenti c data is available on number of fl ights operated as well as

number of passenger handled at IGI airport, an att empt has been made to collect
requisite informati on by interviewing selected helicopter operators, currently
operati ng in Delhi. The informati on on their current operati on, such as: fl eet of
helicopters maintained (owned and hired), areas of operati on ( indicati ng
important desti nati ons from Delhi) and purpose o f such visits have been elicited.
In additi on, informati on on the ongoing terminal operati ng practi ces (both
relati ng to taking off and landing) have been collected to esti mate the overall
terminal ti me involved, that can be reduced at proposed heliport fa cility.
To establish the demand of heliport facility in Greater Noida area, the agencies
were requested to provide informati on on their medium and long term business
plans, mainly relati ng to helicopter acquisiti oning, in the existi ng scenario as
well as with the proposed heliport faciliti es Greater Noida. Similarly, the
agencies were also requested to list out faciliti es required at the proposed
heliport.
As refl ected in the informati on provided by sample operator’s catchment area

(project infl uence area) of the proposed facility covers important locati ons in the
states/UT of Utt ar Pradesh, Utt rakhand, Chandigarh, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi and
Madhya Pradesh. Further, to arrive at base year transport demand, proposed
Heliport is assumed as one end of the jo urney and important desti nati ons are
grouped under diff erent regions in each State. States of Utt rakhand and Utt ar
Pradesh would be highly benefi ted by the proposed facility.
Further to establish the demand of heliport facility in Greater Noida area,

limited primary traffi c and travel surveys have been conducted as detailed in
subsequent paragraphs. Based on the informati on collected base year demand
has been esti mated. Four major highways are originati ng from the vicinity of the
Greater Noida viz Yamuna Expressway, NH 2, NH 24 and NH 58. It is assumed that
limited wealthy segment of car/taxi user along these highways may use the
proposed facility. Considering this the catchment areas of the Greater Noida
Heliport to following desti nati ons are considered as l isted in Table 6.1 below.
This also includes the opinion of various helicopter operators.
Table 6.1 Catchment Area of the Proposed Heliport at Greater Noida
S.No Origin Destination

State District
1 Greater Uttar Pradesh Mathura, Agra
Noida
Lucknow, Kanpur, Meerut Moradabad,
Modinagar, Muzzaffarnagar
Uttrakhand Dehradun, Mussoorie, Haldwani, Nainital,
Uttarkashi, Badrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri,
Yamunotri
Delhi IGI Airport
Himachal Shimla, Solan, Kullu, Baddi

Pradesh
Madhya Gwalior
Pradesh
Chandigarh Chandigarh
6.3 Traffic and Travel Characteristics
6.3.1.1 Primary Traffic and Travel Surveys
A number of primary traffic volume surveys have been conducted to collect the traffic data for
the present day scenario as part of existing traffic characteristics.
1 Classifi ed traffi c volume count along with origin -desti nati on survey at
Yamuna Expressway and NH 2 (near Palwal – Hodal). In additi on classifi ed
traffi c volume count along with origin -desti nati on survey at NH-24 & NH-
58 locati ons have been taken from secondary sources of the surveys done
in August – September 2013.
2 Boarding/alighti ng count and origin - desti nati on survey at IGI airport
terminals (T1 and T3 )
3 Tourist infl ow/outf low count and origin - desti nati on survey at TajMahal
(Agra)
4 Willingness to shift survey at IGI airport terminals (T1 and T3), NH -2 ,
Yamuna Expressway, TajMahal (Agra) and New Delhi Railway Stati on (1660
samples).
5 Helicopter operator survey
6.3.1.2 The data collected and analyzed to assess the present traffic and travel
characteristics and movement pattern.
6.4 Classified Traffic Volume Count
6.4.1 The location of classified traffic counts are presented in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2 List of Classified Traffic Volume at Selected Location
Location No. Mid-block Locations

1 Yamuna Expressway at Jewar Toll Plaza
2 National Highway No. 2 (at Km 75)
3* National Highway No. 24 (at Km 29)
4* National Highway No. 58 (at Km 27)
Source: * Primary survey data from secondary sources
6.4.2 Traffic Volume (Average Daily Traffic – 16hrs)
The traffi c counts both in terms of numbers of vehicles and passenger car units
(PCUs) have been computed for the total daily (24 hour) traffi c at various
secti ons and presented in Table 6 .3. It is observed that the traffi c at selected
locati ons varies from 16,336 PCU’s (9 ,707 vehicles) at Jewar Toll Plaza on
Yamuna Expressway to 59671 PCU’ s (46209 Vehicle) at Km 29 .1 on NH 24 .
Table 6.3 Daily Traffic Volume at Various Locations
Loc. No. Location Name Total Vehicles Nos. Total PCU’s.

Yamuna Expressway at Jewar Toll
1 9707 16336
Plaza
National Highway No. 2 (at Km
2 19342 32149
75)
Nati onal Highway No. 24 (at Km
46209 59671
3* 29.1)
Nati onal Highway No. 58 (at Km
45072 58145
4* 27.2)
Source: RITES Primary Survey 2013 & * Primary survey data from secondary sources
6.5 Boarding & Alighting Counts
Boarding/In and alighti ng/Out counts are conducted for 48 hrs conti nuously at
IGI Airport (Terminal 1 and Terminal 3 ) and at Taj Mahal ( Agra) and shown in
Table 6.4.
Table 6.4 Boarding/IN and Alighting/OUT counts at Various Locations
Day 1 Day 2
Name of
S.No Average Boarding/ Alighting/ Total Boarding/ Alighting/ Total
Location
IN OUT IN OUT
1 IGI
Airport
36608 16543 21610 38153 16023 19040 35063
(Terminal
1)
2 IGI
Airport
56335 30171 25870 56041 28361 28267 56628
(Terminal
3)
Total 46714 47480 94194 44384 47307 91691
3 Taj
Mahal 50069 27951 28003 55954 22188 21996 44184
(Agra)
Source: RITES Primary Survey 2013
6.6 Willingness to Shift Survey
The analysis of the data collected from the willingness to pay surveys conducted at
various locati ons has been presented in this secti on. The survey has been carried
out to obtain preference of passengers/tourist about their opinion to shift to a
helicopter facility. About 1660 persons have been surveyed at various locati on i .e
IGI airport, Agra, Mathura, Yamuna Expressway, NH 2 and New Delhi Railway
Stati on.
6.6.1 Willingness Characteristics
The willingness to pay surveys were conducted in order to asse ss the potenti al
passenger demand. The respondents were asked about their willingness to shift
to proposed helicopter facility and pay extra fare in order to ti me saving with
respect to their existi ng mode used to reach their origin/desti nati on. The data
from surveyed passengers has been analyzed and presented in following
secti ons.
Table 6.5 shows that about 41 % of respondents are willing to shift to the
proposed helicopter facility where as about 17.9 % gave no response. This shows
that there is potenti al to explore demand for helicopter services.
Table 6.5 Willingness to Shift to proposed Helicopter Facility
S.No Response Number of Individuals Surveyed Percentage (%)

1 Yes 681 41.0
2 No 682 41.1
3 No response 297 17.9
Total 1660 100.00
Table 6.6 presents the willingness to pay extra fare for helicopter facility. The table
indicates that about 21 % respondents want the same fare for helicopter facility as
existi ng taxi fare, 49% are willing to pay 1.5 ti mes and 26.6 % are showing their
willingness to give 2 ti mes fare for helicopter facility in comparison to existi ng
taxi fare and 3.1 % are willing to pay upto/more than 4 ti mes or more fare in
comparison to existi ng taxi fare. The passengers who are willing to pay more than
four ti mes the existi ng amou nt they spent on travel is less than one percent (0.9
%) as shown in table below.
Table 6.6 Willingness to Pay Extra Fare in relati on to Existi ng Car/Taxi Fare
S.No Fare Number of Individuals Surveyed Percentage (%)

1 Same fare 144 21. 1
2 1. 5 Times 335 49. 2
3 2 Times 181 26. 6
4 4 Times 15 2. 2
more than 4
5 Times 6 0. 9
Total 681 100.00
6.7 Origin and Destination Survey
This survey was conducted for sample car and taxi users along all the four major
highways originati ng from the infl uence area i.e Yamuna Expressway & NH 2
going to Mathura and Agra and at NH 24 and NH 58 going to Lucknow, Kanpur,
Moradabad, Muzzaff arnagar, Haridwar, Rishikesh, Haldwani, Dehradun,
Mussoorie, Nainital, Badrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri, Yamunotri etc and at IGI
airport. The potenti al helicopter demand has been worked out using this origin
and desti nati on of the car and taxi users, willingness to pay and the feedback
provided by various helicopters operators met during the course of the study.
It will be appreciated that helicopter is very expensive mode of travel. For

working out the potenti al passenger demand it is assumed that some of the
passengers who are willing to pay more than four ti mes ( 0.9% as presented in
Table 2.6 above) of the existi ng amount spent by them on travel may like shift to
helicopter services. Further to arrive at more realisti c potenti al passenger
demand considering the high fare of helicopter services (i .e about 8 to 10 ti mes
of the present average expenditure) and inpu ts provided by helicopter operators, it
is assumed that about fi ft y percent of the 0.9 % of passengers who are willing to
shift with more than four ti mes of the existi ng amount spent by them on their travel
may shift (i .e about 0.45%) to the proposed helico pter services.
Based on the above criteria base year ( 2014) daily passenger demand has been
worked out assuming the proposed facility is available as on date and presented
in Table 6.7 below.
Table 6.7 Base Year (2014) Daily Potenti al Passenger Demand
S.No Location Daily Total Daily No. of Daily No. of Expected Daily No.
Volume of passengers in passengers of passengers
Car/Taxi the influence willing to willing to pay/shift
(both area as per pay/shift with with more than 4
direction) Origin more than 4 times the existing
Destination times the fare (about 0.45%)
Survey existing fare
(about 0.9%)
Yamuna
1 Expressway at 5919 2190 (37 %) 20 10
Jewar Toll Plaza
National
2 Highway No. 2 5793 1796 (31 %) 16 8
(at Km 75 )
National
3 Highway No. 24 13716 631 (4.6 %) 6 3
(at Km 29 .1)
National
4 Highway No. 58 15323 6083 (39.7 ) 55 27
(at Km 27 .2)
Total
Volume of
Boarding
and
Alighting
Passenger
5 IGI Airport T1 38153 2823 (7.4 %) 25 13
6 IGI Airport T3 56041 3194 (5.7 %) 29 14
6.8 Helicopter Operator Survey
The limited helicopter operator’ s survey was conducted by meeti ng them and
asking their views about the proposed heliport facility at Greater Noida. The
points/issues raised by the operators are summarized below:
1. The Helicopter operators welcome and appreciated the initi ati ve taken by
GNIDA for development of heliport facility at Greater Noida.
2. The operators informed that presently there is no dedicated heliport for
providing the helicopter services in Delhi NCR area. However, they also
appraise that this mode of transport is presently being used by wealthy
segment of the society as it is very expensive mode of travel.
3. Presently the helicopter operati ons are controlled at IGI Airport, Delhi and
being assigned the least priority.
4. The repair and maintenance faciliti es are only at IGI airport. This facility
should be made available at the proposed heliport.
5. They also indicate that this sector presently is non - scheduled sector in
India which results in delays in takeoff and landing, last minute
cancelati ons and other unforeseen events due to rush at IGI airport.
6. The helicopter operators indicate that if the helicopter operati on is given
priority by means of dedicated facility for operati ons, it is believed that
there is a lots of potenti al in this segm ent and when the people are aware
of the services off ered by this heliport, then more passengers may like to
travel by helicopter for tourism and business purpose, which may lead to
reducti on in fl ying ti cket cost of helicopter as the operator will be sure of
fi xed demand of passengers.
7. The helicopter operators informed that when the dedicated heliport
facility is made available to them they may like to shift the operati ons
from IGI airport to Greater Noida Heliport subject to the terms and
conditi ons off ered by the terminal operator for the operati ons.
8. The operators are of the view that the proposed heliport facility should be
designed to off er landing and take-off areas and support faciliti es such as;
handling faciliti es, helicopter parking, terminal build ing with faciliti es,
repairs & maintenance, weather and communicati on, crew handling
faciliti es, passenger facilitati on, medical faciliti es l ike ambulance, hangar, X-
ray machines, food court, ATM machines, operators counters, offi ces for
operators, rest rooms/wash rooms, vehicle parking faciliti es, recreati onal
faciliti es etc in order to provide dedicated services under one roof.
9. In additi on the proposed heliport may also support helicopter operati ons
for disaster management/ airborne rescue operati ons/med ical services etc.
6.9 Traffic Estimates
Based on the data collected from primary traffi c and travel surveys, sample
helicopter operators as well as existi ng and potenti al users, transport demand
for each region has been established to arrive at daily/ we ekly number of fl ight
and passengers. The traffi c is esti mated with the following assumpti ons:
a) Adequate number of helicopters would be available to meet transport

demand.
b) Services/ground infrastructure is available for all the desti nati ons in the
listed states.
c) Day and night operati ons are feasible.
d) Airlines would be able to adhere to agreed schedule.
e) Helicopter fl eet mix/compositi on would remain more or less the same
during the project period.
In view of irregular demand for most of the desti nati ons, weekly number of
fl ights and number of passengers have been esti mated for/from each
region/state. It is perti nent to note that in the nearby areas there is a growing
demand for festi ve and social purposes, such as; showering fl owers, carrying
bridegroom and bride, visit of politi cal leaders and religious gurus etc. Further
depending upon the purpose of visit and type of air craft requisiti oned, diff erent
numbers of passengers have been reported.
In the current exercise, anyone other than crew is considered as the passenger.
Some of the desti nati ons for which informati on on number of fl ights and number
of passengers was not available, inputs from the helicopter operator are collected
to the extent possible to substi tute the relevant data. On the one hand, only one
fl ight per day has been considered for/from the region comprising Shimla, Solan,
Kullu, Baddi in Himachal Pradesh, whereas two fl ights per day have been esti mated
from Chandigarh. Weekly and annual number of fl ights and passenger esti mated for
various desti nati ons are summarized in Table 6.8.
In Table 6.8 number of helicopters having seati ng capacity of 5 is assumed

(excluding pilot) with an average occupancy of 4 passengers. However bigger
helicopters having seati ng capacity of 12 (excluding pilot) with an average
occupancy of 10 passengers may be conside red depending upon the availability
with the operator and passenger demand. Esti mated annual requirement of
helicopters with large helicopters has also been presented in Table 6.8 below.
Table 6.8 Base Year Traffic Estimation for Non Schedule Operations
S.No Origin Destination Weekly Traffic Annual Traffic
No. of Flights (small No. of Flights (small No. of Flights (Large

Passengers Passengers
State District helicopters-Avg helicopters-Avg helicopters-Avg
(Numbers) (Numbers)
occupancy - 4) occupancy - 4) occupancy - 10)
1 Gre at e r N oi da Utt ar Pra de sh Mat hu ra, Ag r a , 657

126 32 6570 1643
Luc kn ow, Kan pu r
, Mee ru t Mo rad aba d,
Mod inag a r ,
Muz za f fa rnag a r
210 53 10950 2738 1095

Utt ra kh and Deh rad un, Mus so or i e,
Haldwa ni, Na in i ta l , Utt ar
ka sh i , Ba dr in at h, Keda
rna th, Ga ng ot r i ,
Yam uno t r i
Del hi IGI A i r po r t 189 47 9855 2464 986
Him ach a l Shim l a , S ol an, Ku l l u,
Prade sh Bad di 112 28 5840 1460 584
Madh ya Pra des h Gwal io r
7 2 365 91 37
Chand i g ar h Chand i g ar h
56 14 2920 730 292
Total 700 175 36500 9125 3650
Ot he r F l i g h ts
( i nc l . s ur ve i l l a nc
e,
2 20% 140 35 7300 1825 730
VIP, em erg e nc y
eva cua t io n, Me di ca l , m
edia c ov er ag e, e tc. )
(% o f ab ov e F l i g h ts )
Total weekly flights 210

Average daily flights 30
Grand Total 840 210 43800 10950 4380
In addition, to accommodate flights for surveillance, emergency evacuation, VIP movement, medical, media coverage, etc. 20% of the above mentioned flights have been considered.
Final DPR 36
6.10 Growth Rates
To carry out project appraisal year 2014 is considered as the base year with
the project life upto the year 2041. Appropriate traffi c growth factors have
been used depending upon the Gross State Domesti c Product of Utt ar Pradesh
(Table 6 .9). Considering this it is assumed that the demand of helicopter services
is likely to grow at 6% per annum upto year 2031. From year 2031 to 2041 it will
increase by 5% per annum. Annual growth rates in the project period are
presented in Table 6.10.
Table 6.9 Growth Rates in All India & Uttar Pradesh (At Constant Prices)
All India(GDP) Uttar Pradesh(GSDP)

Total Income Growth Total Income Growth
Years (Crore Rs.) Rate (%) (Crore Rs.) Rate (%)
( At 1999-2000 base Year )
2000-01 1864301 4.4 178997 2.2
2001-02 1972606 5.8 182885 2.2
2002-03 2048286 3.8 189682 3.7
2003-04 2222758 8.5 199682 5.3
2004-05 2388768 7.5 210462 5.4
(At 2004-05 base Year )
2004-05 2971464 260841
2005-06 3253073 9.5 277818 6.5
2006-07 3564364 9.6 300225 8.1
2007-08 3896636 9.3 322214 7.3
2008-09 4158676 6.7 344726 7.0
2009-10 4507637 8.4 365761 6.1
2010-11 4885954 8.4 394499 7.9
2011-12 5222027 6.9 419090 6.2
Source: Uttar Pradesh 12th five year plan (2012-17)
Table 6.10 Adopted Annual Compound Growth Rate (AGCR ) for Traffic Demand
Projection
Period
S.No. From To ACGR
1 2014 2021 6. 00%
2 2021 2031 6. 00%
3 2031 2041 5. 00%
Final DPR 37
6.11 Traffic Projections
Using the growth rates as menti oned in para 6 .10 above, annual number of fl ights
and passengers have been esti mated as presented in Table 6.11. The number of
fl ights has been calculated assuming the small helicopters with average
occupancy of four passengers. It can be observed from the table that annual
passenger traffi c varies from about 43800 in the year 2014 to about 112110 in the
year 2040 -41. The annual growth of passenger and fl ights during the project
period from 2014 to 2041 is graphically presented in Figure 6 .1.
Table 6.11 Annual Traffic Estimates
Year Annual Traffic

S.No From To No. of Passengers No. of Flights
1 2014 2015 43800 10950
2 2015 2016 46428 11607
3 2016 2017 49214 12303
4 2017 2018 52167 13042
5 2018 2019 55296 13824
6 2019 2020 58614 14654
7 2020 2021 62131 15533
8 2021 2022 65859 16465
9 2022 2023 69811 17453
10 2023 2024 73999 18500
11 2024 2025 78439 19610
12 2025 2026 83145 20786
13 2026 2027 88134 22034
14 2027 2028 93422 23356
15 2028 2029 99028 24757
16 2029 2030 104969 26242
17 2030 2031 111267 27817
18 2031 2032 117943 29486
19 2032 2033 123841 30960
20 2033 2034 130033 32508
21 2034 2035 136534 34134
22 2035 2036 143361 35840
23 2036 2037 150529 37632
24 2037 2038 158056 39514
25 2038 2039 165958 41490
26 2039 2040 174256 43564
27 2040 2041 182969 45742
In order to develop heliport faciliti es, average daily traffi c has been
considered. To arrive at average daily level of traffi c demand, all the 365 days
of the year have been considered as the operati ng days of the proposed
facility. The daily annual number of fl ights and passengers has been esti mated
as presented in Table 6.12. The number of fl ights has been calculated
assuming the small helicopters with average occupancy of four passengers. It
can be observed from the table that daily passenger traffi c va ries from about
120 passengers and 30 fl ights in the year 2014 to about 501 passengers and
125 fl ights in the year 2040 - 41. The annual growth of passenger and fl ights
during the project period from 2014 to 2040 is graphically presented in Figure
6.2.
Table 6.12 Daily Traffic Estimates
Year Daily Traffic

S.No From To No. of Passengers No. of Flights
1 2014 2015 120 30
2 2015 2016 127 32
3 2016 2017 135 34
4 2017 2018 143 36
5 2018 2019 151 38
6 2019 2020 161 40
7 2020 2021 170 43
8 2021 2022 180 45
9 2022 2023 191 48
10 2023 2024 203 51
11 2024 2025 215 54
12 2025 2026 228 57
13 2026 2027 241 60
14 2027 2028 256 64
15 2028 2029 271 68
16 2029 2030 288 72
17 2030 2031 305 76
18 2031 2032 323 81
19 2032 2033 339 85
20 2033 2034 356 89
21 2034 2035 374 94
22 2035 2036 393 98
23 2036 2037 412 103
24 2037 2038 433 108
25 2038 2039 455 114
26 2039 2040 477 119
27 2040 2041 501 125
Figure 6.1 Annual Growth of Traffic
Figure 6.2 Daily Growth of Traffic
*****
7. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
7.1 Development Plan / Master Plan
The development plan for the heliport is drawn to meet the requirements of
ICAO and presented in Drawing No.1.
The formati on level of FATO has been fi xed as approx. 204.50m AMSL as
against 195 m AMSL.
The major features of the heliport are as under:
 The enti re development has been proposed on the Southern side of the
plot to provide a clear area in Northern side for helicopter movement in
air.
 The formati on level of FATO has been fi xed as 204.50m which is 3.00 m
above adjoining approach road to Gautam Budh University .
 The area will be provided with a 3m high RCC precast wall with concerti na
wire on top.
 A fuel yard of size 10m x 10m is provided for storage and testi ng of fuel
for helicopter. The area from FATO to the re -fuelling yard is paved so that
the helicopter can approach the re-fuelling yard smoothly.
 A passenger terminal building of size 25m x 20m is proposed for movement
of 20 incoming and 20 outgoing passengers. This building will be provided
with check-in counters, security check and baggage scanners. It also has
space for Airport staff , security personnel, ATM, small cafeteria, booking
counter, toilets etc. The plinth level of terminal building is fi xed as
205.00m which is 0 . 50m above the formati on level of FATO and surrounding
roads.
 Space for future expansion of terminal building is also earmarked in the
layout plan.
 An ATC tower of 15m height is proposed. The height is fi xed keeping in
mind the height of nearest tallest structure so that the ATC staff can have
a clear view of helicopter approaching the heliport from any directi on.
 A technical block and meteorological offi ce is also proposed in the ground
fl oor of ATC tower.
 The power requirement of site is 750 KVA.
 The drinking water will be provided by GNIDA at site by laying a water
line. A underground water tank is proposed to store water for drinking
and for fi refi ghti ng purposes.
 Two hangers of size 25m x 40m are proposed for pa rking and maintenance
of helicopters.
 A small car park with capacity of 25 cars is proposed in the Northern end
of plot.
 The existi ng nalla will be used for removal of rain water from the heliport.
 A sewage treatment plant will be installed at site for eff icient treatment of
sewage.
 The existi ng approach road to site will be used for incoming and outgoing
of passengers.
 The DPR will be submitt ed to MOCA, AAI, MoEF, MOD, MHA and DGCA for
processing the case for statutory clearances.
 The constructi on acti viti es can start only aft er necessary clearance from
above authoriti es is received.
*****
8. DESIGN OF PAVEMENT
Concrete pavement is recommended by the US method for all helicopter
operati onal areas.
For the proposed heliport at Greater NOIDA, New Delhi, the US practi ce of
design was followed and AC 150/5320 - 6 C and Doc 9157 -AN/ 901 were used to
determine the pavement thickness. Rigid pavements for airports are composed
of Portland cement concrete placed upon a granular or treated sub base
course that rests upon a compacted sub grade.
Concrete Pavement: The concrete surface must provide an acceptable nonskid

surface, prevent the infi ltrati on of surface water, and provide structural
support to the aircraft .
Sub Base: The purpose of sub base is to provide a uniform stable support for
the pavement slabs. A minimum thickness of 4 inches (10 cm) is required
under all rigid pavements except in GW , GP, GM, GC, SW soils under specifi c
conditi ons of drainage. Preliminary investi gati on of the soil indicates th at the
existi ng soil contains ML, CL or OL. (Silt and clay).Hence sub base is defi nitely
required. 7 inches of PCC grade M15 is therefore proposed.
Stabilized Sub Base: Stabilized sub base is to be required for all new rigid
pavements designed to accommodate aircraft weighing 45,400 kg or more. As
the heaviest aircraft to be used is MI 172, weighing 13, 000 kg (<<45, 400 kg),
hence stabilized sub base is not required.
Sub Grade: The sub grade material under a rigid pavement should be
compacted to provide adequate stability and uniform support. The % maximum
density to which the soil is to be compacted and the depth of soil to be compacted
depend upon the soil characteristi cs.
Determinati on of K-value for sub grade: Based on soil investi gati on a sub
grade modulus, k is considered as 50 pci (=13.6MN/ m3). This value may change
aft er fi nal compacted surface is obtained and the design will be reviewed
accordingly.
Determinati on of k value for granular sub base: Using the design chart given
in AC 150/5320 -6C, the increase in the value of k due to the assumed thickness
of sub base is determined. The value of k aft er considering the eff ect of sub
base is 77 pci (=20 .4 MN/m3 ).
Determinati on of Concrete Slab thickness: Separate curves have been

provided for single, dual and dual tandem landing gear assemblies. These
curves are based on a jointed edge loading assumpti on where the load is
tangent to the joint. Use of the design curve requires four design input parameters:
 concrete fl exural strength,

 sub grade modulus,
 gross weight of the design aircraft and
 Annual departure of the design aircraft .
a) Concrete fl exural strength: Concrete fl exural strength should be

experimentally determined. Normally a 90 -day fl exural strength is used for
design. The designer can safely assume that the 90 day fl exural strength is
10 % higher than the 28 - day strength except when high early strength
cement or pozzolanic admixtures are used.( in that case 28 -day fl exural
strength should be used for design).
We assume a 28 -day fl exural strength of 45 kg/ cm 2 (= 4 .5 MN/ m 2 ) which is increased

by 10 % to give a 90 - day fl exural strength of 4 .95 MN/ m 2 = 717 .391 psi.
b) k value : The k-value is indicati ve of the bearing value of the material

supporti ng the rigid pavement. We assume a k- value corrected for the
eff ect of sub base. k =77 pci (=20 .4MN/m3)
c) Gross weight of Aircraft : The gross weight of design aircraft is shown on

each design curve. The design aircraft is chosen on the basis of
maximum pavement thickness required. MI-172 with a weight of
13,000kg (=28,634 .36lb), design weight of 21,580kg (=47,533lb) is the
heaviest aircraft while Bell 412, with a weight of 5397kg
(=11,887 .66lb),design weight of 8959 . 02kg(=19,733 .52lb) is the 2nd
heaviest aircraft . MI 172 requires the greatest pavement thickness and
is thus the design aircraft .
d) Annual departures of design aircraft : As limited informati on is available

about the traffi c intensity at the heliport, hence, diff erent departure
values are assumed and pavement thickness is determined for each.
Using the design curve for single-wheel gear, the following values of thickness
of pavement are obtained:
Table 8.1: Thickness of pavement
Annual departures Thickness(in)

1200 8.3
3000 8.8
6000 9.2
15000 9.7
25000 10
8.1 Conclusion
A concrete pavement of 10 inches thickness is proposed over 6 inches of

Crushed Aggregate Base Course for the pavement for the largest assumed
value of annual departures.
*****
9. COST ESTIMATE
An indicati ve cost is given below covering the proposed development works
for the immediate implementati on of non -instrument, day and special VFR
operati ons. The esti mate is derived based on unit plinth area rates for
building, item rate for pavement works and lump sum rate for equipments. The
cost also includes conti ngencies @ 3% and consultancy charges towards
detailed engineering and project management.
Development of Heliport at Greater NOIDA - Indicative Project Cost (Non-

Instrument)
Name of Work : Development of Heliport at Greater Noida
Abstract of Cost
S. No. Descripti on of Work Cost in Rs

1 Terminal Building 9,63,19,481 .00
2 ATC Building 1,97,11,256 .00
3 Fire station Building 69,69,212.76
4 Hangar 6,81,93,050 .00
5 Fuel Yard 23,13,531.25
6 Underground Water Tank( 1,50,000 litres 21,50,177.53
capacity )
7 Boundary Wall 3. 0 Mt High, (Length 1273.00 1,12,05,844 .70
mts) as per DSR 2013
8 Installation of Tube well at Site (NS Item) As 8,01,150.00
per Quotation
9 Paved Area 16,37,15,047 .98
10 Provision of water supply from GNIDA O. H. 5,03,688.00
Tank to Site
11 Sub Station Equipment 60,37,500.00
12 HVAC for Terminal building 43,12,500.00
13 CCTV for Terminal Building and Other areas 75,33,500.00
14 D.G Set 86,25,000.00
15 HT line (Nearest sub-station to premises of heliport) 75,00,000.00
16 Communication and Navigational Equipments, 21,35,093.00
Computers, Hand driers and Water coolers
17 Baggage Scanner, HHMD and DFMD 66,11,250.00
18 Misc. Items (Lift, Split AC, Boom Barrier, Air 2,84,41,000 .00
curtain, Sliding Door, Ambulance, Jeep)
19 Total Amount 44,30,78,282.22
20 Add Contingencies 3 % 1,32,92,348 .47
45,63,70,630.68
21 Detailed Engineering Charges @ 3% 1,36,91,118 .92
22 Project Management Charges @ 7% 3,19,45,944 .15
Grand Total 50,20,07,693.75
*****
10. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR GREATER
NOIDA HELIPORT
10.1 Objectives of EIA Study
Heliport development may have impact on the environment by constructi on

work, reclamati on, noise and emissions from helicopters. Environment facets
to be considered in relati on to heliport development can be categorized into
seven groups: (a) land use (b) water quality ( c) air quality ( d) noise polluti on
(e) biological changes (f) socio-economic changes and occupati onal health and
(g) solid waste management.
The objecti ve of the study is to facilitate the Greater NOIDA Industrial

Development Authority to obtain prior environmental clearance from the
Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), Government of India as per EIA
noti fi cati on 2006 and its amendments. As per MoEF guidelines, No landfi ll
shall be located within 20 km of Airport or Airbase. This nee ds to be considered
while selecti ng the site for the proposed Heliport.
10.2 Legal Provisions for Environment related to Infrastructure Projects
The proposed project would be governed by various Acts, Rules and

regulati ons set by the Ministry of Environm ent and Forests (MoEF) at the Central
level and other regulatory agencies at the State and local level. The Central
government framed an ‘umbrella law’, called the Environment (Protecti on) Act,
1986 to broadly encompass and regulate an array of environmental issues. The
overall purpose of EPA was to establish an overall coherent policy and provide a
basis for the coordinated work of various government agencies with operati onal
responsibility for the environment and natural resources.
Nati onal Environment Policy (NEP, 2006 ) has been drawn up as a response to
our nati onal commitment to a clean environment, mandated in the Consti tuti on
in Arti cles 48 A and 51 A ( g), strengthened by judicial interpretati on of Arti cle 21
.
The Acts, Rules and Noti fi cati ons appl icable to environmental aspects of the
constructi onal and operati onal phases of the proposed project are summarized
in the Table 1 below and briefl y described in the following secti ons.
Table 1 Summary of Environmental Legislation For The Project
LEGISLATION AREA / ACTIVITY COVERED

Environment (Protecti on)  Overall Environment Protecti on
Act, 1986 amended 1991;
 Compliance to environmental (Air,
Environment (Protecti on) Water, Noise) Standards issued under
Rules, 1986 EPR
 Guidelines to prepare EIA/ EMP
report
EIA Notification 2006 and its  Obtain Environmental Clearance from
amendments MoEF
 Take part in Environmental Public
Hearing ( EPH)
 Protecti on of Air Quality
Air (Preventi on and Control of  Consent to Establish ( CTE) for
Polluti on) Act, 1981 amended establishing and
in 1987;
 Consent to Operate for acti viti es
Air (Preventi on and Control of causing air polluti on
Polluti on) Rules, 1981  Compliance to Nati onal Ambient Air
Quality Standard
Water (Preventi on and  Protecti on of Water Quality
Control of Polluti on) Act,
 Discharge of sewage from project
1974 amended in 1988;
 Obtaining No Objecti on Certi fi cate
Water (Prevention and Control of (NOC) for establishing and Consent to
Pollution) Rules, 1975 Operate for acti viti es causing water
polluti on from SPCB
Noise Polluti on ( Regulati on  Compliance with Ambient Noise
and Control) Rules, 2000 Standards in accordance to land use
amendment in 2010 of the area
Hazardous Wastes  Obtaining Authorizati on from SPCB
(Management, Handling and for handling and storing of hazardous
Trans boundary Movement ) waste like waste oil and lubricants
Rules,2008  Following guidance for handling and
storing of such hazardous waste
 Comply with guidance and safety
Petroleum Act with Rules measures for storage, and
2000 transportati on of petroleum
substances within project premises
Municipal Solid Waste Rules, 2000  Management ( Collecti on, Handling,
Intermediate Storage) of domesti c
solid waste from residences
State Town Planning Acts  Obtain permits and sancti on for land
LEGISLATION AREA / ACTIVITY COVERED
 Develop the project in accordance
with Land use and Master plans
Nati onal Policy on
Resett lement and  Resett lement and Rehabilitati on
Rehabilitation, 2007 issues of project aff ected people
Forest ( Conservation) Act  To obtain proper clearances from

1980 amended in 1988; forest department
Forest ( Conservation) Rules
2003  Conservati on of forest
Indian Wildlife Protecti on  Protecti on of animals and specified
Act, 1972, amended in 1993 plants
Source: GOI Publications
10.3 Environmental Clearance for Development Projects
The permitti ng requirement involved in the setti ng up of development projects

(projects with potenti al to cause signifi cant environmental impacts) in India is
through the Environmental Clearance (EC) Process on the basis of an
Environmental Impact Assessment study. The EC process is mandated by the EIA
noti fi cati on (as amended) of 4th May 1994 and 14th September 2006. The EC
process is administered by the State Polluti on Control Board/State
Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) at the state level and the
Ministry of Environment and Forests (Mo EF) at the Central Government level.
The schedule in the new EIA noti fi cati on provides the l ist of projects or
acti viti es requiring prior environmental clea rance. All the projects listed in the
noti fi cati on are categorized into “ Category A” and “ Category B” categories,
based on the extent of potenti al impacts and sensiti vity of the candidate sites.
Category A: Appraisal will be done by the Central Level Ex pert Appraisal Committee (EAC)
and clearance will be given by MoEF.
Category B: Appraisal will be done by the State Level Expert Appraisal

Committ ee (SEAC) and clearance will be given by State Environmental Impact
Assessment Authority ( SEIAA), except in case of special conditi ons and general
conditi ons. Sub grouped as category B1 (EIA necessary) and category B2 (EIA
not necessary). The environmental clearance (EC) process consists of the
following stages:
 Applicati on for EC - to be made by the project proponent (PP) to the concerned

authority with form 1 (and form 1a with conceptual plan for
constructi on projects only), pre-feasibility report (PFR) and terms of
reference for conducti ng EIA study.
 Screening - to be done by SEAC for category B projects only, to further
classify as category B1 and B2. EIA will be necessary if classifi ed as category
B1.
 Scoping - determinati on of terms of reference (ToR) for EIA study for
category A and category B1 projects. To be done by EAC (for category A) or
SEAC (for category B1).
 EIA study - based on the ToR, the project proponent (PP) will prepare draft
EIA & EMP.
 Public Hearing/ Consultati on - with draft EIA and EMP public
hearing/ consultati on will be organized. Issues raised will be addressed in
fi nal EIA & EMP report.
 Appraisal - EIA & EMP will be appraised by EAC (for category A) and SEAC (for
category B1 ). For category B2 , EIA is not required; appraisal will be done by
SEAC on the basis of form 1 and PFR only.
 Decision - on the basis of recommendati ons by EAC / SEAC, clearance will
be fi nally granted or rejected by the MoEF (for category A) / SEIAA (for
category B).
As per S.No. 7 A of EIA Noti fi cati on dated September 14, 2006 and MoEF
noti fi cati on dated December 1 , 2009; all airport projects including airstrips
which are for commercial use need to get EC from Mo EF. The proposed
project, which is proposed for commercial use needs to get EC from MoEF.
10.4 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act
The use of water resources and also the discharge of polluted water (sewerage)
are primarily regulated by the Water (Preventi on and Control of Polluti on) Act,
1974. The Water Cess Act, 1977 including Rules 1978 and 1991 provides for levy
and collecti on of Cess on water consumed by the local authoriti es and by persons
carrying on certain industrial acti viti es with a view to generate resources for
preventi on and control of water polluti on. The Act assigns functi ons and powers
to the CPCB and SPCBs for prevent ion and control of water polluti on and all
related matt ers.
The Environment (Protecti on) Rules under the EPA also lays down specifi c
standards for quality of water effl uents to be discharged into diff erent type of
water bodies ( sewers, surface water bodies l ike lakes and r ivers, and marine
discharge). Additi onally, the water supplied to users for drinking shall also
conform to the Nati onal Drinking Water Standard, IS -10500. Table 2
summarizes the general standards for discharge of effl uent in Inland Surfa ce
Water Bodies.
TABLE 2
EFFLUENT DISCHARGE STANDARDS ( INLAND SURFACE WATER)
S No PARAMETER UNIT STANDARDS

1 Colour & Odor -- All eff orts should be made to
remove colour and
unpleasant odor as far as
practicable.
2 Suspended Solids Max. mg/l 100
3 Particle size of Suspended Solids -- Shall pass 850 micron IS
Sieve
4 pH value -- 5.5 to 9.0
5 Temperature, Max. oC Shall not exceed 5 C above
the receiving water
temperature
6 Oil and grease, Max. mg/l 10
7 Total residual Chlorine, Max. mg/l 1.0
8 Ammonical Nitrogen (as N), Max. mg/l 50
9 Total Kjeldah Nitrogen ( as N), mg/l 100
Max.
10 Free Ammonia ( as NH3), Max. mg/l 5
11 Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/l 30
(5days at 20 C) Max.
12 Chemical Oxygen Demand Max. mg/l 250
13 Arsenic ( as As), Max. mg/l 0.2
14 Mercury (as Hg), Max. mg/l 0.01
15 Lead (as Pb), Max. mg/l 0.1
16 Cadmium (as Cd), Max. mg/l 2.0
17 Hexavalent Chromium (as Cr+6), mg/l 0.1
Max.
18 Total Chromium ( as Cr) Max. mg/l 2.0
19 Copper ( as Cu), Max. mg/l 3.0
20 Zinc (as Zn), Max. mg/l 5.0
21 Selenium (as Se), Max. mg/l 0.05
22 Nickel (as Ni), Max. mg/l 3.0
23 Cyanide (as CN), Max. mg/l 0.2
24 Fluorides (as F), Max. mg/l 2.0
25 Dissolved phosphates (as P), mg/l 5.0
Max.
26 Sulphides (as S), Max. mg/l 2.0
27 Phenolic compounds (as mg/l 1.0
C6H5 OH), Max.
28 Radioactive Materials
 Emitt ers, curie/ml, Max. 10-7
 Emitt ers, curie/ml, Max. 10-6
S No PARAMETER UNIT STANDARDS
29 Bio-assay test -- 90% survival of fish after 96
hours in 100% effluent
30 Manganese (as Mn) mg/l 2.0
31 Iron ( as Fe) mg/l 3.0
32 Nitrate Nitrogen mg/l 10.0
10.5 Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act
The Air (Preventi on and Control of Polluti on) Act, 1981 (also commonly known
as the Air Act) including Rules 1982 and 1983 was enacted to prevent, control
and reduce air polluti on. According to Secti on 21 of the Act, no person shall
establish or operate any acti vity, which can cause air polluti on without
obtaining Consent to Establish (CTE) as per the Air Act. The Act also lays down
nati onal ambient air quality standards for common pollutants like PM, Sulphur
Dioxide, Oxides of Nitrogen, Carbon monoxide and Lead with the intent of
managing air quality for diff erent category of areas (residenti al/industrial and
sensiti ve). Ambient Air Quality Standards have been noti fi ed by the MoEF vide
Gazett e Noti fi cati on dated 16th November 2009, which have been presented
as Table 3.
TABLE 3
NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
CONCENTRATION
TIME INDUSTRIAL,
POLLUTANT WEIGHTED RESIDENTIAL, SENSITIV
AVERAGE RURAL AND E AREA
OTHER AREA
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) g/m3 Annual Avg. 50 20
24 Hours 80 80
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2 ) Annual Avg. 40 30
g/ m3 24 Hours 80 80
Particulate Matter ( PM10) Annual Avg. 60 60
Size less than 10 m g/ m3 24 Hours 100 100
Parti culate Matt er (PM2.5 ) Annual Avg. 40 40
Size less than 2.5 m g/m 3 24 Hours 60 60
Ozone ( O3) g/m3 8 Hours 100 100
1 Hour 180 180
Lead (Pb) g/m3 Annual Avg. 0.5 0.5
24 Hours 1.0 1.0
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 Hours 02 02
mg/m3 1 Hour 04 04
Ammonia (NH3 ) g/ m3 Annual Avg. 100 100
24 Hours 400 400
Benzene ( C6 H6) g/ m3 Annual Avg. 05 05
CONCENTRATION
TIME INDUSTRIAL,
POLLUTANT WEIGHTED RESIDENTIAL, SENSITIV
AVERAGE RURAL AND E AREA
OTHER AREA
Benzo ( a)Pyrene (BaP) - Annual Avg. 01 01
Particulate Phase only ng/m3
Arsenic ( As) ng/m3 Annual Avg. 06 06
Nickel (Ni) ng/m3 Annual Avg. 20 20
10.6 Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules
With the objecti ve of regulati ng ambient noise quality in the environment, the
Central Government has noti fi ed the Noise Polluti on ( Regulati on and Control)
Rules, 2010 under the EPA. The noise standards for diff erent category of areas
are based on the weighted equivalent noise level (Leq). These are presented in
Table 4.
TABLE 4
NATIONAL AMBIENT NOISE STANDARDS
Leq IN dB (A)
CATEGORY OF ZONES
DAY NIGHT
Industrial 75 70
Commercial 65 55
Residential 55 45
Silence Zone 50 40
Source: Central Pollution Control Board
1. Dayti me is from 6 .00 AM to 10. 00 PM.; 2. Night ti me shall mean from 10.00
p. m. to 6 .00 AM; 3. Silence zone is an area comprising not less than 100 metres
around hospitals, educati onal insti tuti ons, courts, religious places or any other
area which is declared as such by the competent authority; 4 . Mixed categories
of areas may be declared as one of the four above menti oned categories by the
competent authority
10.7 Environmental Baseline Data
The baseline Data/ Informati on for Land use, physiographic, geology, soil,
water, air and noise quality of the project area will be collected from various
primary as well as secondary sources. Additi onal data, wherever necessary,
shall be collected from various reports, literature, books, and maps, and
through discussions with various stakeholders.
Based on the project features and prevailing acts and legislati ons the
environmental scoping matrix has also been prepared and prepared in Table 5.
The environmental att ributes l ikely to be aff ected are identi fi ed for baseline
data generati on. The informati on presented in the report has been collected
from various secondary sources.
TABLE 5
SCOPING MATRIX FOR THE PROJECT
Aspect of
Likely Impacts
Environment
A. Land Environment
Increased soil erosion
Pollution by construction spoils
Use of land for workers colonies
Construction Phase
Change in land use
Solid waste from workers colonies, constructi on
sites
B. Water Resources & Water Quality
Water quality impacts due to disposal of wastewater
from workers camps and construction sites.
Construction Phase
Depletion of groundwater resources
Depletion of groundwater resources
Operation Phase
Disposal of waste water
C. Air Pollution
Impacts due to emissions generated by construction
machinery
Construction Phase Fugitive emissions from various sources
Impacts due to increased vehicular movement
Fugiti ve emission due to helicopter and traffi c
Operation Phase
movement
D. Noise Pollution
Noise due to operation of various equipment
Construction Phase
Noise due to increased vehicular movement
Noise Impact due to helicopter and traffic movement
Operation Phase
on the nearby Institutional and Residential Areas.
10.8 Physiography
The project is situated at Greater Noida of Gautam Budh Nagar District with co-
ordinates of 28O 27’ 17.77”N and 77O 29’ 43.48” E with an elevati on of 195.0 m
above mean sea level and the average gradient of 0.2 m per km. The terrain of the
area is generally plain with a gradual slope varying between 0.2 - 0.1 per cent
from north-east to south-west. Gautam Budh Nagar district, a part of Ganga-
Yamuna Doab in the vicinity of River Yamuna, forms almost a monotonous plain
with occurrence of sand dunes, sandy ridges, ravenous
tracts and depressions close to the river s ystem of Yamuna. Physical map of
the Utt ar Pradesh State is depicted in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1
PHYSICAL MAP OF UTTARPRADESH
Project Area
The district falls in geological formations of quaternary alluvium consisting of sands with
different grades, silt, clay and kankar.
Soils
Soils consist of mechanical mixtures and chemical compounds of the materials

found on the surface of the earth. The physical and chemical characters of the
parent rock are infl uenced by the process of soil formati on which depends on
the physiography, alti tude, climati c conditi on, plants and animals of the
surrounding region. They contain both inorganic and organic mate rials. The
project area falls in loamy soils.
Drainage
The district is having river Hindon and Yamuna, both fl owing southwards.
Apart from these two main rivers, the area has a number of drains, which are
perennial as well as non-perennial in nature. Hence, it is natural that all the
drainage channels follow the northeast to southwest slope.
Water Environment
Ground water occur under Phreati c conditi ons in shallow aquifers down to the
depth of 100 mbgl, where as in intermediate and deeper aquifers it occurs
under confi ned to semi-confi ned conditi ons. Water level in phreati c aquifer
ranges from 3 .35 to 14.40 m bgl during pre-monsoon period whereas it ranges
from 2.00m to 13 .95 mbgl during post monsoon period.
In general ground water quality in the district is good and all the consti tuents
are well within the permissible limits as prescribed by ICMR (1975 ). The
general range of various important chemical consti tuents in the ground water
samples are given in Table 6.
TABLE 6
RANGES OF CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GROUND WATER
S. No PARAMETER UNIT RANGE

1. pH - 7.95 - 8.15
2. Electrical Conductivity µs/cm at 419 - 2270
25oC
3. Bicarbonate mg/l 152 - 750
4. HCO3 mg/l 156-350
5. Chloride mg/l 14-347
6. Nitrate mg/l 3.3-141
7. Sulphate (mg/l) mg/l 9.6 – 125
8. Fluoride {mg/ l) mg/l 0.27 - 1.7
9. Calcium (mg/ l) mg/l 8 - 136
10. Magnesium (mg/l) mg/l 4.8 - 50
11. Total Hardness as Ca CO3 mg/l 150 - 450
(mg/ l)
12. Sodium (mg/l) mg/l 35 - 506
13. Potassium (mg/l) mg/l 4.8 - 18
14. Arsenic ( mg/l) mg/l 0.07 – 0.001
Seismicity
The state of Utt ar Pradesh falls in a region of High Damage Risk Zone (Zone II) to
Very High Damage Risk Zone (Zone V) and the proposed project locati on falls
in Zone IV as per revised seismic zoning map of India. Suitable seismic
factor need to be considered while designing the structures for the proposed corridor.
10.9 Analysis of Alternatives
The analysis of alternati ves is important while considering the site for any
infrastructure projects. Analysis of Alternati ves for Heliport site was carried out
considering engineering and environmental factors. At this stage, typical
environmental informati on will be collected and the environmental screening
will be carried out on the basis of topographical features from Google earth
images, literature and fi eld observati ons. The criteria considered for the site
evaluati on of the proposed sites will be as follows:
Physical Aspects: Physical aspects considered for evaluati on of the sites are land
use, physiography, water bodies, existi ng public ameniti es and other natural
resources.
Polluti on Aspects: Noise parameter is the prime considerati on for selecti on of

any Heliport. Sett lements will be identi fi ed for noise polluti on impacts with
respect to the locati on of Heliport. Presence of any water body within the
project area will also be identi fi ed for evaluati on.
Ecological Aspects: Informati on on trees/other bioti c l ife within the project

area will be collected for the evaluati on of the sites. Ecologically sensiti ve
area l ike wild life sanctuary or nati onal par k etc will be identi fi ed with respect
to locati on of the project site to evaluate the impact of Heliport on it.
Three sites were proposed by GNIDA for the development of Heliport at

Greater Noida. Satellite image of the three sites are shown in Figure 2 . The brief
descripti on of these sites is given below and comparison table of all the three
sites is given in Table 7.
FIGURE 2 -SATELLITE IMAGE OF THREE SITES
Final DPR 59
Site I
The proposed site is barren land. The site is surrounded by educati onal
insti tutes on N-E and N-W directi ons and Noida and Yamuna Expressways on S-
E and S-W directi ons. Satellite image of the Site I is shown in Figure 3. No water
body exists within the project area. The river Yamuna and Hindon are falls
within 10 KM radius of the project area. High Tension Line (HTL) is passing on
western side of the project site, which will obstruct the helicopter movement.
FIGURE 3
SATELLITE IMAGE OF SITE I
Site II
The proposed site is barren land. The site is surrounded by Noida and Yamuna
Expressways on N- E and N-W directi ons and Hindon River on S-E and S-W
directi ons. No water body exists within the project area; however Hindon
River is passing adjacent to the Site II . The proposed site does not falls in the
fl ood prone area of River Hindon. The river Yamuna falls within 10 KM radius
of the project area. High Tension Line ( HTL) is proposed through the project
site. Satellite image of the Site II is shown in Figure 4.
Final DPR 60
Site III
The proposed site is barren and agricultural land. The site is surrounded by
residenti al area on Eastern, Western & Northern sides; and educati onal
insti tute ( Gautam Budh University) on Southern side. Yamuna Expressways is
passing on S-W directi on of the site. Satellite image of the Site III is shown in
Figure 5. One stream is passing adjacent to the site. The river Yamuna and Hindon
are falls within 10 KM radius of the project area. HTL is passing on N -E side of the
project area, which may obstruct the Helicopter landing and takeoff . Runway
orientati on slightly modifi ed to make the Helicopter landing path free of
obstacles.
FIGURE 4
SATELLITE IMAGE OF SITE I I
FIGURE 5
SATELLITE IMAGE OF SITE I I I
TABLE 7
SITE COMPARISON FOR GR. NOIDA HELIPORT
S. Parameter Site I Site II Site III

No
1. Location
Latitude 28o 27’ 19.35” 28o 26’ 54.68” 28o 26’ 06.10” N
N N
Longitude 77o 29’ 43.66” E 77o 29’ 36.53” 77o 31’ 41.65” E
E
Elevation in m 195 196 193
2. Land use Barren Barren Agriculture
3. Surrounding Educational Residential Hospital +
Area of Insti tutes + Area Educati onal
Heliport Residenti al Area Insti tutes +
Residential Area
4. Major Noise levels are Noise levels Noise levels are
Environmental exceeding the are exceeding exceeding the
Impact during limits for the limits for limits for
operation Sensiti ve and Residenti al Sensiti ve and
Residential Zones Residential
Zones (section 4.4 ) Zones
(section 4.4 ) (section 4.4 )
5. Water body No water body Hindon river is Stream passing
exists within adjacent to the adjacent to the site
the project area site
6. HTL HTL exists on HTL is HTL exists on North
western part of proposed eastern part of the
the site, which through the site.
obstruct the site and Runway
Helicopter approved by orientation
Takeoff the competent modifi ed to
authority. overcome the
obstacle.
10.10 Impacts Assessment
Various environmental parameters are to be studied during constructi on and

operati onal phase of the heliport project for assessment of their impact on
the surrounding environment. Environmental impacts could be positi ve or
negati ve, direct or indirect, local, regional or global, reversible or irreversible
during various phases of project cycle namely, locati on, design, constructi on
and operati on.
10.10.1 Impacts on Land Environment
The impacts likely to take place due to the project locati on could be ch ange in
land use and its diversion for project purpose including land acquisiti on if any.
This impact includes change in land use, drainage and soil quality, soil erosion, r
isk due to earthquakes and solid waste.
10.10.2 Impact on Water Environment
The impacts on water environment will be during its use in constructi on and
operati on period, on water resources and on drainage system of the area.
Water use for Helicopter and vehicle washing, potable water supply, catering
faciliti es, toilets, fi re fi ghti ng operati on, cooling plants, air conditi oners and
other faciliti es would also need to be assessed.
10.10.3 Impacts on Air Environment
An impact due to constructi on acti viti es involved at the proposed Heliport

will be workout for constructi on equipments an d vehicles. During operati on
phase, impact on ambient air quality due to air emissions from multi ple
volume sources (from moving source) such as Helicopters, surface vehicles and
point sources such as DG Sets will be predicted. The maximum incremental
ground level concentrati ons due to the heliport project are PM, SO2, NOx, CO,
and HC.
10.10.4 Impact on Noise Environment
Impact of noise should be anti cipated during constructi on and operati on

phase of the project cycle. Noise at a constructi on site varies and depends on
the constructi on acti viti es in progress. The prime sources of noise levels
during the constructi on phase are the constructi on machinery and the
vehicular noise due to material movement at the site. Noise sources
associated with heliport during operati on phase are:
 Helicopter Noise - generated by helicopter in the air during takeoff and

landing,
 Ground Noise - Helicopter engines noise during idling, DG sets, vehicles,
In order to esti mate/ predict the noise around the Airport/ Heliport, Integrated
Noise Model (INM) version 7. 0 D was used. INM is used worldwide for
computi ng noise contours from Airport/Heliport and it is also recommended by
Mo EF.
To know the noise impacts on surrounding areas, INM 7.0 D Noise model is
used to develop the noise contours. Noise contours scenarios are prepared
for the years 2014 - 15, 2024 -25, 2034 -35 and 2040 -41. The noise contours are
prepared using BELL 407 Helicopters. Traffi c data considered for the noise
modeling are given in following Table 8 as per the details available in Traffi c
Chapter.
TABLE 8
TRAFFIC DATA
Site I
S. Passengers
Year No. of Flights
No Incoming Outgoing Total
1. 2014-15 60 60 120 15
2. 2024-25 108 107 215 27
3. 2034-35 187 187 374 47
4. 2040-41 251 250 501 63
The proposed project area is surrounded by Insti tuti onal and residenti al
areas. Noise modeling was carried out by considering landing and takeoff
paths on eastern side due to obstructi on of HTL on western side. The output
of noise contours prepared by modeling is shown in Annexure 1.
 The noise contour for the year 2014 -15 shows that Insti tuti onal area and
residenti al area adjacent to proposed project site falls in noise levels of 55-
65 dB (A).
65 dB (A).
70 d B (A).
70 dB (A).
From the results, it is understood that the noise levels during the project
operati on exceeds the noise for residenti al zone limit of 55 dB(A) and silence
zone limit of 50 dB(A) for day ti me.
Site II
The proposed project area is surrounded by express highways. Noise modeling

was carried out by considering landing path from eastern direct ion and takeoff
path towards western side. The output of noise contours prepared by modeling is
shown in Annexure 2.
 The noise contour for the year 2014 -15 shows that residenti al area towards
eastern side of the project site falls in noise levels of 55 -60 d B (A).
 The noise contour for the year 2024 -25 shows that residenti al area towards
eastern side of the project site falls in noise levels of 55 -60 d B (A).
 The noise contour for the year 2034 -35 shows that residenti al area in
landing and takeoff paths falls in noise levels of 55 -65 d B ( A).
 The noise contour for the year 2040 -41 shows that residenti al area in
landing and takeoff paths falls in noise levels of 55 -65 d B ( A).
From the results, it is understood that the noise levels during the project operation exceeds
the noise for residential zone limit of 55 dB( A).
Site III
The proposed project area is surrounded by Insti tuti onal and residenti al
areas. Noise modeling was carried out by considering landing path from
eastern directi on and takeoff path towards western side. The output of noise
contours prepared by modeling is shown in Annexure 3.
 The noise contour for the year 2014 -15 shows that Insti tuti onal area in
landing directi on falls in noise levels of 55 -65 dB (A).
landing path falls in noise levels of 55- 65 dB (A) and residenti al area in takeoff
path falls in noise levels of 55 -60 dB (A).
landing path falls in noise levels of 55 - 65 dB (A) and residenti al area in
takeoff path falls in noise levels of 55 -60 dB (A).
landing path falls in noise levels of 55 - 65 dB (A) and residenti al area in
takeoff path falls in noise levels of 55 -65 dB (A).
10.10.5 General Mitigation Measures
 The helicopter paths should follow unpopulated routes or areas with high
ambient noise levels such as highways.
 The helicopter operator should follow the measures given below to reduce
the noise at sensiti ve and residenti al areas:
 maintaining a hover/ circling at higher alti tudes,
 Opti mal helicopter route planning to avoid noise sensiti ve areas
 reduce speed,
 observe low noise speed/descent setti ngs,
 avoid sharp maneuvers, and
 use high take-off /descent profi les
10.10.6 Impacts on Biological Environment
Based on the biological species found in the area, the biological value of the
species found in the study area is to be assessed. This assessment will help in
the development of landscaping which forms one of the important miti gati on
measures.
10.10.7 Socio- Economic Impacts
Heliport development may oft en cause relocati on of the local community,

which someti mes causes ethnic, cultural, tribal or religious confl icts with
local people. During constructi on, employment opportunity will increase due
to deployment of people in various acti viti es of project. Some socio -
economic impacts associated with heliport are:
 Noise impact on students/residents/ workers

 Impact on Cultural Heritage of the project area
 Impact on Social status of the project area
10.11 Positive Impacts
Based on project parti culars and the existi ng environmental conditi ons
potenti al positi ve impacts likely to result from the proposed project will be
identi fi ed. These could have been are as follows:
 Bett er connecti vity

 Emergency Services
 Revenue Generati on
 Employment Opportuniti es, and
 Improvement in Aestheti cs
Hence, The Environmental & Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) is to be carried

out to identi fy the environmental & social issues/aspects for proposed
development of Heliport at Greater Noida, which would have environmental
impacts due to planning, design locati on, constructi on and operati on of the
project.
Based on above, it is felt that the site No. III is best sui ted for development
of Heliport.
Detailed Assessment on environmental impacts and their management plan

will be carried out during EIA study aft er getti ng Terms of Reference (TOR)
from Mo EF.
ANNEXURE 1
SITE 1: NOISE CONTOUR IMAGE FOR YEAR 2014-15
Final DPR 68
ANNEXURE 1 Contd. ..
ANNEXURE 2
SITE II: NOISE CONTOUR IMAGE FOR YEAR 2014-15

ANNEXURE 3
SITE III: NOISE CONTOUR IMAGE FOR YEAR 2014-15

*****
11. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

11.1. Introduction
Financial viability is defi ned as a business’ ability to generate enough income in
order to meet its operati ng expenses, fi nancial obligati ons and, where
applicable to allow growth while maintaining service levels. Based on the traffi c
potenti al esti mated in previous chapters the objecti ve of the study is to assess the
fi nancial viability of developing a Heliport at Greater Noida.
11.2. Methodology
For working out the Financial Internal Rate of Return ( FIRR), Discounted Cash
Flow (DCF) technique has been adopted with project life of thirty years and 2014-
15 as base year. All costs and benefi ts are esti mated on the base year market
prices.
To carryout fi nancial analysis, two independent streams, one comprising costs

and the other relati ng to revenues likely to be accrued, over the durati on of
project life, have been developed. To the extent possible each element of
cost/revenues is considered separately.
The cost streams include, esti mated expenditure to develop the enti re proposed
facility keeping in view the services required to be off ered. Important services
proposed to be off ered from the heliport can be classifi ed under six categories i.e.
Landing Facility, Parking Facility, Maintenance Facility, Crew Facility, Operator
Facility and Passenger Fa cility.
11.3. Capital Cost Estimates

Capital Costs include expenditure to be incurred before commencement of the service, and
development of required infrastructural facilities.
To provide required infrastructural facilities ( civil & mechanical), item wise estimated
expenditure on important items are summarised in Table 11.1 below:
Table 11.1.
Capital Cost Estimates
Details of Project Componenets/Cost Amount in INR

Pavement Works 16,37,15,048
Building Works 22,00,13,391
Electrical Works 5,11,77,250
Navigation & Communication Equipment 81,72,593
Final DPR 80
Others 1,32,92,348
Detailed Engineering Charges @ 3% 1,36,91,119
Project Management Charges @ 7% 3,19,45,944
Total Project Cost 50,20,07,694
The details of Capital Cost aft er phasing, infl ati on and interest charges are
detailed in Table 11 . 2 below:
Table 11. 2.
Details of Completed Project Capital Cost.
Total Cost in INR Crores (2014 estimates) 50.20

2016 2017 2018
Phasing (%) 30% 40% 30%
Phasing (in INR Crores) 15.06 20.08 15.06
Escalation Factor (@5% p.a) 1.05 1.10 1.16
Cost after Escalation in INR Crores 15.81 22.14 17.43
Debt (%) 75% 75% 75%
Equity (%) 25% 25% 25%
Debt - Opening Balance in INR Crores 0 12.57 31.68
Debt - Closing Balance in INR Crores 11.86 29.18 44.76
Interest Charges (@12% p.a. on average of 0.71 2.50 4.59
opening balance & closing balance) in INR Crores
Equity in INR Crores 3.95 5.53 4.36
TOTAL DEBT in 2018 (Closing Bal + Interest 49.34

charges) (INR Crores)
TOTAL EQUITY in 2018 (INR Crores) 13.85
TOTAL PROJECT COST in 2018 (INR Crores) 63.19
11.4. Operation & Maintenance Cost Estimates

11.4.1 Land Lease Charges
Land lease charges is payable on year to year basis, hence, the same has been
considered independently as an annual recurring expenditure. The total area that
is required for the development of heliport is about 1 5.5acre. As per GNIDA’ s
land rates for Social Infrastructure – Electrical Substati on category, the land
sale rate is Rs. 4590 per sq.m. The annual lease rate is taken as 1 .5% of the
land value, the annual lease value for 15.5 acre land works out to be Rs.
42,00,000. However, for analysis purpose a value of R s. 50.0 lacs has been considered.
11.4.2 Repair & Maintenance
The entire civil and mechanical works would require periodical and operational maintenance,
the expenditure towards this end are covered under repair & maintenance of capital assets.
11.4.3 Operating Costs
To operate the proposed facility, regular administrati ve and other related costs
would be incurred by the operati ng agency, such costs are captured
independently in year to year operati ng expenditure.
11.4.4 Other Costs
Any other unforeseen expenditure at the terminal is covered under other expenses.
The norms for various items of operati ng cost considered for analysis is
provided in Table 11 . 3 below:
Table 11.3.
Estimation of O&M cost
Sl. No. O&M Cost Heads Values

1. Land Lease Charges Rs. 50,00,000 per annum
2. (a) Repair and maintenance of civil assets 1% of cost of all civil assets
(b) Repair and maintenance of mechanical

and electrical equipment’s including Spares 5% of cost of all mechanical and
electrical equipment’s
3. Operating Costs
- Watch and Ward Expenses - Rs. 20 thousand/month 4 person
on 24x7 basis
- 8 person @ Rs. 1 lakh/ month
- Salary for Adminstration - Rs. 5 lakh/ month
- Energy And Housekeeping - Rs. 1 lakh/ month
- Communication - 2 vehicles @ Rs. 25000/momth
- Vehicle and Maintenece - Rs. 1 lakh/ month
- Office Expenses - Rs. 1 lakh/month (includes
- Miscl. And other expenses maintenance of security
equipments)
Total Operating Costs – Rs. 2.48 crore

per annum
11.5. Revenue Estimates
The proposed Heliport is likely to generate revenue from various services it is
designed to off er.
11.5.1. Flight Landing Charges

To arrive at landing charges, although no landing charges are applicable for
light aircraft s like helicopters, because the proposed facility is to be developed
stand alone, minimum landing charges applicable for aircraft on per tonne basis
have been considered with the average gross weight of helicopter as 5.0 tonne
(helicopter weight ranges between 3.0 to 13 tonnes). In the similar manner,
terminal navigati onal facility has been assessed.
11.5.2. Passenger Fees

Passenger Fees are collected for the provisions o f basic passenger ameniti es at the
terminal. Following services are assumed to be developed / off ered to maintain
the passenger requirement.
 Airlines counters
 Visitor recepti on lounge with internet access
 Food and beverage - Restaurant and retail shopping
 Business centre and conference rooms
 A variety of pre-arranged transportati on services:
 Luxury chauff eur driven vehicles/ Executi ve private hire/ Cabs
 Secured gated customer car parking with VIP drop -off area
 Hotel booking service Counter
 Sightseeing booking service counter
 Metro/ rail booking /reservati on counter
 ATM machines/ Bank
 Rest room for Staff other than Crew
 Luggage/baggage Room
 To provide essenti al access to the police and Air ambulance helicopter
services
 Adverti sement.
11.5.3. Aircraft Parking Charges
Using the ongoing practice at IGI Airport, Aircraft Parking Charges at Apron has been
estimated after allowing two hours free time. On an average, per fl ight,
sixteen hours waiti ng has been considered of which only fourteen hours are
considered to workout overall parking charges.
11.5.4. Hanger Charges

For regular maintenance and parking of aircraft s hangers have been proposed.
The annual lease charge for the hanger is taken based on the similar study
carried out for Rohini heliport with correcti on for in fl ati on. These are
reasonable and the higher value may not be a realisti c value.
11.5.5. Crew Retiring Rooms

Keeping in view the type of service and the requirement of crew at a short
noti ce, appropriate resti ng faciliti es for crew have been proposed. A lump sum
amount has been designated as revenue from such services.
11.5.6. Vehicle Parking Charges

On an average, per fl ight, two vehicles in parking has been considered to workout
overall vehicle parking charges.
11.5.7. Commercial Activities

Certain areas will be earmarked to develop commercial acti viti es such as
Restaurants, Banks, and ATM’s etc. and putti ng up of boards f or
adverti sements. The planned area allott ed for adverti sements are four 10*8 ft ,six
6*4 ft boards and ten 100 sq.ft . (10 ft x 10ft ) stalls.
The chargeable rates considered for important services are summarised in
Table 11.4 below:
Table 11.4.
Chargeable Rates for various services at proposed Heliport
Particulars Values Units

Flight Landing Charges 764 Rs. Per Flight
Navigation Facility 10 Rs. Per Flight
Passenger Fees 259 Rs. Per Passenger Embark
Helicopter Parking at Apron 150 Rs. Per Flight Per Hour
Hanger Charges 22,50,000 Lump Sum (Rs. per Annum)
Crew Retiring Rooms 15,00,000 Lump Sum(Rs. per Annum)
Visitor's parking 125 Rs. Per Vehicle
Commercial activities
- Advertisements 200 Rs./Sqft/Month
- Stalls 100 Rs./Sqft/Month
11.6. Other Financing Parameters

11.6.1. CAPEX Phasing:
The CAPEX phasing as considered for analysis is given in Table 11. 5 below:
Table 11.5.
CAPEX Phasing Plan
YEAR Phasing in %
Year 1 30%
Year 2 40%
Year 3 30%
11.6.2. Inflation:
An escalati on of 5 . 0% in all costs and Tariff is considered to take care of
infl ati on for the enti re period.
11.6.3. Other Financing Parameters

Other Financing Parameters are given in Table 11. 6 below:
Table 11.6.
Details of Financing Parameters
Particulars Units Value Remarks

Corporate Tax Rate % 33.99% As per Union Budget 2013
Minimum Alternative Tax Rate % 20.96% As per Union Budget 2013
Cost of debt % 12.0% Based on the Direct Lending Rates
of IIFCL as per Credit Policy, 2012
Cost of Short Term Loan % 10.0% As per standard practice
Cost of equity % 16.0% As per “Response to AERA’s
Consultation Paper No. 32/2011-12
dt. 03 Jan. 2012, on determination
of Aeronautical Tariff in respect of
IGI Airport, New Delhi, for the 1st
Regulatory Period(01.04.2009 –
31.03.2014” dated 29th February
2012 by Association of Private
Airport Operators
Depreciation As per norms prescribed in
Companies Act.
Debt: Equity Ratio 75:25 The D/E ratio of 75:25 is taken as
per standard practice.
Weighted Average Cost of 13.0%
Capital (WACC)
Loan term Years 10.0
Moratorium period Years 3.0
Financial Statements
a) Profi t & Loss statement is as shown in Table 11. 7 below:
Table 11.7.
Projected Profit & Loss Statement
(Figures in Rs. Cr.)
2019 2024 2029 2034 2046
Operating Revenues 4.60 7.86 13.91 21.84 55.45
Operation & Maintenance
3.93 5.02 6.40 8.17 13.98
Costs
EBITDA 0.67 2.84 7.51 13.67 41.47
Amortization 2.76 2.76 2.76 2.76 2.76
EBIT -2.10 0.08 4.74 10.91 38.71
Interest Payments 5.92 3.26 0.30 0.00 0.00
PBT -8.02 -3.18 4.45 10.91 38.71
Corporate tax 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Minimum Alternate Tax 0.00 0.00 0.93 2.29 8.11
Tax Applicable 0.00 0.00 0.93 2.29 8.11
Net income -8.02 -3.18 3.52 8.62 30.60
b) Balance Sheet is as shown in Table 11.8 below:
Table 11.8.
Projected Balance Sheet
2019 2024 2029 2034 2046
Assets
Net fixed assets end of
49.19 27.42 15.47 8.81 2.62
period
Cash in hand 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 212.00
Total fixed assets 49.19 27.42 15.47 8.81 214.62
Liabilities
Debt 49.34 24.67 0.00 0.00 0.00
Equity 13.85 13.85 13.85 13.85 13.85
Retained earnings -13.99 -11.10 1.62 -5.03 200.77
Total liabilities & Retained
49.19 27.42 15.47 8.81 214.62
Earnings
Cash Flow Statement is as shown in Table 11. 9 below:
Table 11.9.
Projected Cash Flow Statement
2016 2019 2024 2029 2034 2046
Cash Outflow
Capital Expenditure 15.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Cash Outflow 15.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cash Inflow 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

PAT 0.00 -8.02 -3.18 3.52 8.62 30.60
Depreciation 0.00 2.76 2.76 2.76 2.76 2.76
Interest Payment 0.00 5.92 3.26 0.30 0.00 0.00
Total Cash Inflow 0.00 0.67 2.84 6.58 11.38 33.36
Net Cash Flow -15.81 0.67 2.84 6.58 11.38 33.36

11.7. Investment Analysis
The key f inancial indicators related to the return on i nvestment is shown in Table 11.10
below:
Table 11.10
Key Financial Ratios & Indicators
PARTCULARS Values
Project IRR 8.72%
Project NPV @ 12.0% discount p.a. Rs. -17.99crs
Equity IRR 7.53%
Average Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) 0.37
If the land lease charges are waived off , the key fi nancial indicators related to
the return on investment is shown in Table 11.1 1 below:
Table 11.11
Key Financial Ratios & Indicators on waiver of land lease charges
PARTCULARS Values
Project IRR 9.57%
Project NPV @ 12.0% discount p.a. Rs. -13.44 crs
Equity IRR 8.57%
Average Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) 0.48
11.8. Capital Expenditure Support

As the project is not fi nancially viable by itself, and therefore requires viability
funding in terms of fi nancial support from the government. Government
Support can be as a percentage of Capital cost. The Project IRR and Equity IRR at
various amounts of government support is as shown in Table 11.12 below:
Table 11.12
Project IRR & Equity IRR vs Capex Support
Capital Project Equity

Expenditure IRR IRR
Support
20% 10.07% 9.28%
30% 10.91% 10.38%
40% 11.91% 11.69%
50% 13.13% 13.32%
60% 14.69% 15.44%
70% 16.83% 18.41%
80% 20.12% 23.14%
It can be seen from table 11.12 above that at 50% Capital Support, the Project
IRR is greater than cost of funds (WACC = 13.0 %).
Another opti on is to waiver the land lease charges. The Project IRR and Equity
IRR at various amounts of government support on waiver of land lease charges is
as shown in Table 11.13 below:
Table 11.13.
Project IRR & Equity IRR vs Capex Support on waiver of land lease charges
Capital Project Equity

Expenditure IRR IRR
Support
20% 11.04% 10.51%
30% 11.95% 11.73%
40% 13.04% 13.22%
50% 14.39% 15.10%
60% 16.14% 17.60%
70% 18.59% 21.26%
80% 22.48% 27.53%
It can be seen from table 11 .13 above that in case of land lease charges are
waived off , at 40% Capital Support, the Project IRR is greater than cost of funds
(WACC = 13.0 %).
11.9. User Development Fees
Another alternati ve to make project fi nancially viable is to charge a User

Development Fee. User Development Fee (“ UDF”). UDF is calculated to assure a
certain minimum assured return on the investment. Since, the “minimum
assured return” has not been f inalized diff erent values of UDF vs Capital
support required to generate Project IRR more than WACC (13.00%) are worked
out details of which are given in Table 11 .14.
Table 11. 14
Project IRR vs UDF and Capital Support (with land lease charges)
Capital Support (% of Capital Cost)
UDF (Rs./Passenger Embark)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
0 8.72% 9.35% 10.07% 10.91% 11.91% 13.13%
50 9.39% 10.04% 10.79% 11.67% 12.71% 14.00%
100 10.02% 10.70% 11.48% 12.39% 13.48% 14.82%
150 10.62% 11.32% 12.13% 13.07% 14.21% 15.61%
200 11.19% 11.92% 12.75% 13.73% 14.91% 16.37%
250 11.74% 12.49% 13.35% 14.36% 15.58% 17.11%
300 12.26% 13.03% 13.92% 14.97% 16.23% 17.82%
350 12.77% 13.56% 14.48% 15.56% 16.86% 18.50%
400 13.26% 14.07% 15.01% 16.12% 17.47% 19.16%
As can be seen from Table 11.14 above, a minimum of Rs. 400/Passenger

Embark as UDF needs to be charged to make the project fi nancially viable with
no Capex support. Alternati vely a minimum of 50% of Capital support is to be
provided to make project fi nancially viable with no UDF.
Also, a scenario with no land lease charges is worked out details of which are given in Table
11.15.
UDF (Rs./Passenger
Table 11. 15
Project IRR vs UDF and Capital Support (with out land lease charges)
Capital Support (% of Capital Cost)

Embark)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

0 9.57% 10.25% 11.04% 11.95% 13.04%
50 10.21% 10.91% 11.72% 12.67% 13.81%
100 10.81% 11.54% 12.38% 13.36% 14.55%
150 11.39% 12.14% 13.00% 14.02% 15.25%
200 11.94% 12.71% 13.60% 14.65% 15.93%
250 12.47% 13.26% 14.18% 15.27% 16.58%
300 12.97% 13.79% 14.74% 15.85% 17.21%
350 13.46% 14.30% 15.27% 16.42% 17.82%
400 13.94% 14.80% 15.79% 16.97% 18.41%
As can be seen from Table 11.15 above, a minimum of Rs. 350/Passenger

Embark as UDF needs to be charged to make the project fi nancially viable with
no Capex support. Alternati vely a minimum of 40% of Capital support is to be
provided to make project fi nancially viable with no UDF.
11.10. Conclusion
From the Table 11.10 and 11.11, it is concluded that the project is not
fi nancially viable by itself as Project IRR is less than the cost of funds. From
table 11.12 and 11.13, it can be concluded that to make the project fi nancially
viable at least 50 % of capital cost in the form of Capex Support is required
which can be reduced to 40% in case the land lease charges are waived off .
Another opti on to make project fi nancially viable is to charge User

Development Fee. The project is fi nancially viable at UDF of Rs. 400 without
any capital support. The minimum UDF required to make the project fi nancially
viable without any capital support is Rs. 350 in case land lease charges are
waived off .
*****
12. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSIONS
12.1 General
This chapter dwells on the available opti ons for the implementati on of the project.
12.2 Project Environment
The conditi ons in Greater NOIDA are reckoned as constructi on friendly and
there is boom in the constructi on industry in the NCR region. The area around
the site is fully developed and coming up of heliport at this place will provide large
scale development of the whole area .
The proposed development being a green fi eld situati on there is no restricti on on

the contractor as is faced on a functi onal airport. However, Normal discipline
which is required for working in municipal limits shall be applicable.
12.3 Contractual Practice
12.3.1 Contract packaging
The esti mated cost not being very signifi cant as compared to the projects available
in the industry consultants are of the opinion that enti re work of constructi on and
Bids should be clubbed under single package. This approach may att ract
resourceful contractor who can deliver the project in ti me with required quality.
The package covers pavements (airfi eld and roads) storm water drainage and
security fence (operati onal and area fence) Airfi eld lighti ng bulk power supply
and external l ighti ng, Buildings and services, Miscellaneous works etc.
12.3.2 Choice of Bid process
The following Bid process choices are relevant to this project in a conventional methodology
are:
 Open Bidding
 Restricted Bidding
 Direct negoti ati on
The choice of Bid method shall be governed on the basis of cost and
circumstances of the Bid. The Bid process in India for public funded projects is
generally done through open bidding owner enti ty in such case, aims at,
inviti ng competi ti on among proven, capable and appropriately resourced
Contractors, as these works are of complex nature and the procuring agency
intends to get the ‘best value for money’ through a sizable competi ti on without
compromising on experience and capability of the contractors. For open
bidding the project with this approach shall pass through following stages:
Activity Stage Duration* Imperative Remarks

No.
1 Detailed 3 months To get the

Engineering constructi onal
Design & Detailed detailing and get
Estimates Itemised Bill of
Quantity
2 Approval & Fund 1 month

allocati on
3 EIA Clearance 12 As per This acti vity

months environment act should be
started parallel
with acti vity no
1
4 Bid Process 3 months To select the Bids to be

contractor invited and
evaluated in two
packet system
5 Construction 9 months
6 Commissioning 3 months
*The duration given above are drawn on the basis of consultant’s experience in similar projects.
It may be observed that the above schedule is applicable to open bidding
system if we go for restricted bidding we can at best save one and half months
ti me and if we go for direct negoti ati on we can save three months ti me. Looking
at the target even direct negoti ati on may also not deliver the project in ti me.
Consultant realized that there is a need to look for innovati ve soluti on in this
case.
Answer to the situation possibly lies in a collaborative approach where design responsibility is
also given to the contractor and the decisions/ approvals are accomplished in a collaborative
manner under an EPC environment.
The approach envisage that the contractor would be required to base his pricing
on the reference design and take the responsibility of detai ling the design and
constructi on under the supervision of the engineer nominated by the employer.
Under this approach a proven, capable and appropriately resourced Contractor
can be identi fi ed and asked to quote. The responsibility such as getti ng the
mandatory clearances shall also be given to the contractor. This approach needs
further deliberati ons amongst all concern to eliminate tentati veness.
With this approach, signifi cant period of design and bid process stage can be
reduced and soft commissioning of the facility can be achieved with appropriate
prioriti zati on
12.4 Conclusions
Following conclusions are drawn based on the feasibility study:
 The site No. III is found to be most suitable for development of Heliport,
amongst the three sites shown by GNIDA.
 The available land is adequate to support basic functi onaliti es.
 Having studied the land features and the surrounding obstructi ons , it is
concluded that the site is suitable to support day VFR Helicopter
operati ons.
 Due to current regulati ons, the night landing at this heliport will not be
possible. Moreover the land is also not suffi cient for providing night
landing faciliti es.
 The enti re built up area at site is proposed to be raised , making the

formati on level of FATO as 204 .50m. This is done in order to get a clearance
of 4m height in case a truck is parked on the highway at centre line of
approach path.
 The high tension cable-Grid line which lies within the approach cone on
the eastern side, will have to be marked with Obstructi on Lighti ng and
standard patt ern painti ng.
 The proposed heliport is located inside the Control Zone of IGI Airport,
Delhi, and thus prior clearance from Mo EF, Airports Authority of India and
coordinati on, MoD, MOCA, permission & positi ve control of ATC, IGI Airport for
operati ons needs to be coordinated in longer run.
 The traffi c study reveals that there is a sizable demand .
 The Financial appraisal reveals that, to make the project fi nancially viable,
at least 50 % of capital cost in the form of Capex Support is required which
can be reduced to 40% in case the land lease charges are waived off .
 Another opti on to make project fi nancially viable is to charge User
Development Fee. The project is fi nancially viable at UDF of Rs. 400 without
any capital support. The minimum UDF required to make the project
fi nancially viable without any capital support is Rs. 350 in case land lease
charges are waived off .
*****
Final DPR 95
13. DRAWINGS
13.1 Layout Plan
Final DPR 96
13.2 Obstacle Limitation Plan
13.3 Terminal Building Plan
13.4 ATC Tower Plan
13.5 Fire Station Plan
GNIDA
GREATER NOIDA HELIPORT
Proposed Layout Plan

X = 748439.2508
Y = 3148464.6947
GNIDA
GREATER NOIDA HELIPORT
Obstacle Limitation plan

1 X 2 3
600
1000
4475 4475
STEEL COLUMN
STEEL COLUMN STEEL COLUMN
P.LVL. +202 P.LVL. +202
3000
3000
R=150 R=150
T=300 AIR SIDE T=300
2000 2000 CEILING AS /SPEC.
4700
4700
DW1 DW1
EXIT
A Y ENTRY
Y
4000
AL/GLASS
TOILET (G) TOILET (L) PARTITION
2500
3000
2430x1500 3000x1500
D3 D3 DEPARTURE HOLD ARRIVAL HALL
ELEC. &
2100
W.COOLER
D3 D3 UPS ROOM
TOILET TOILET ELEC. &
3000x3000
300
(G) (L)
UPS ROOM
300
D2 P.L. +600
600
DEPARTURE HOLD 40mm thk. floor fin. G.L. ±00
ARRIVAL HALL 110mm thk.p.c.c
11160x7290
TABLE
AL/GLASS 5970X7830 150mm thk.sand filling
PARTITION AIRPORT
MANAGER SECTION Y-Y
STAFF
3000x3000
BELT x-ray
D2
RETAIL
1350x2000 D2
AIRPORT
D2 DFMD MANAGER
AL/GLASS SECURITY
PARTITION 3000x2745
CHECK
SECURITY
3500x3000
B TOILET (H)
STEEL COLUMN STEEL COLUMN STEEL COLUMN
D1 3000X1625
AL/GLASS
PARTITION
TOILET (G)
D3
D3 3000X1500
DEPARTURE /ARRIVAL
CHECK IN CONCOURSE W.
C AL/GLASS
TOILET RETAIL COUNTER
4700
O PARTITION
2000x2000 1350x2000 OL
ER
4000
D3 TOILET (L)
3000
D3 3000X1500 D3
COFFEE SHOP
300
DEPARTURE DEPARTURE HOLD
3000x1500
AL/GLASS
PARTITION AIR SIDE CONCOURSE CITY SIDE P.L. +600
40mm thk. floor fin. G.L. ±00

DEPARTURE
600
ATM / UTILITY 110mm thk.p.c.c
VIP LOUNGE
3500x3550 D2
CONCOURSE 3000x1500
SECTION X-X 150mm thk.sand filling
AIRLINE D2 D2 TAXI
BOOKING
BOOKING
3500x2290
AL/GLASS 3000x2250
PARTITION
C ENTRY EXIT
DW1 DW1
P.LVL. +202 P.LVL. +202
T=300 T=300
R=150 R=150
2100
3000
3000
CITY SIDE
4475 4475
X GROUND FLOOR PLAN
6300
6300
P.L. +600 P.L. +600
G.L. ±00 G.L. ±00
(B)-SIDE ELEVATION
(A)-FRONT ELEVATION
A
LIFT WELL TOILET

1800X1700 1800X1700
(6 persons)
D3
D1 TRAP DOOR
D2 D2
TECH. BLOCK MET OFFICE

3300x3600 3300x3600
D1
150
UP
1000 HIGH STAINLESS
STEEL RAILING
DN
GROUND FLOOR PLAN

(LVL+600)
ELEVATION A (FROM RUNWAY SIDE) ELEVATION-B
A
A
PROJ. ABOVE
A 1000 WIDE GALLERY
A A
LIFT WELL TOILET TOILET

1800X1700 1800X1700 LIFT WELL
1800X1700
1000 WIDE GALLERY
1000 WIDE GALLERY

(6 persons) 1800X1700
(6 persons)
D3
D3
CONTROL ROOM
TOILET 6300x6330
MACHINE RM
W1 W1
D
1 D2 D1
D2
MET OFFICE
TECH. BLOCK D1
3300x3600 W1
W1 3300x3600
D1
DN UP DN
W1 DN UP DN
W1
UP
A A
A A A
BASEMENT PLAN FIRST FLOOR ROOF PLAN
(-3300) SECOND FLOOR PLAN (LVL+9600) (LVL+13240)
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
26500
26500
5000 6500 5000 5000 5000

5000 6500 5000 5000 5000
1500
230 900
A A
1710
D1 D1
STAFF REST ROOM 4770X3150
W1STORE ROOM 4770X4770
5000
1350
W1
5000
D1 D2
1710
TOILET
STORE
230 1540X1320 2100X1320
D2
10000
10000
1200
115
3455 230 B B
FIRE CONTROL STN. JEEP 4770X9770 AMBULANCE 4770X9770 KITCHEN 3455X1755
230
6385X9770
1635
D1
D1
Lvl.+0.60
FOAM STORE
5000
1500
5000
W14770X4770 W1
DRIVERS CANTEEN 4770X3200
1635
D1 D1
230
W1 W1
C C
230 1635 1500 1635 230 1635 1500 1635 230
750
1500
LVL. +7.100 TOP OF BEAM LVL. +7.100 TOP OF BEAM
1800
1800
LVL. +5.30 BOTTOM OF BEAM LVL. +5.30 BOTTOM OF BEAM
2300
2300
LVL. +3.0 LVL. +3.0
2402
2400
+0.600 PLINTH LEVEL +0.600 PLINTH LEVEL
600
600
±0.00 N.G.L. ±0.00 N.G.L.
FRONT ELEVATION
LVL. +7.100 TOP OF BEAM

LVL. +7.100 TOP OF BEAM
1800
1800
LVL. +5.30 BOTTOM OF BEAM
LVL. +5.30 BOTTOM OF BEAM
2300
2300
300
LVL. +3.0
LVL. +3.0
3000
2400
2400
+0.600 PLINTH LEVEL
+0.600 PLINTH LEVEL
600
600
±0.00 N.G.L.

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (Gnida)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (Gnida)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (Gnida)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GREATER NOIDA

MODIFIED FINAL PROJECT

Final DPR iii

1.1 Study Objectives

Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA), intends to develop a

A comparative statement of all the three sites is placed in chapter 10.

RITES Ltd. ( A Government of India Enterprise), has been appointed by GNIDA, as

The scope of work of this study is as under:

 Traffi c Surveys and demand esti mati on,

1.2 Field Study

 Project Objecti ves

Establishment of Facility Requirements: This step involved incorporati ng

Development Plan: Based on the planning parameters, facility requirements

Design: Design of the helicopter movement area proposed.

Cost Estimate: An indicative Cost Estimate of the development works proposed.

Financial Appraisal: Financial appraisal of the proposed heliport. The study

documents these steps in the following sections.

2.1 Role of the Heliport

The primary objecti ve of the proposed Heliport is to provide an independent

3.1 Planning Parameters

The following parameters have been finalized:

 The heliport will be planned to accommodate the largest of f leet , presently in

3.2 Design Helicopter

Selecti on of design helicopter is the most important parameter, which is required

The list of helicopters presently in use is given in Table – 3.1.

Helicopter Type Seat Capacity Number of Helicopters

Source: LIST OF NON- SCHEDULED OPERATOR’ S PERMIT HOLDERS ( AS ON 05 . 12 . 2013 )

Analysis of the list of helicopters presented in

maximum seati ng capacity of 26 is the

helicopters. Helicopters with seati ng 60%

capacity of 13 to 15 consti tute 39%, the

Table – 3.2: Helicopter Features

Helicopter Rotor Dia Length Height Tread Max. gross

3.3 Performance Class 1 operations

In the event that any of the required criteria

3.4 Taxiing Procedures

3.5 Parking Apron

3.6 Passenger Terminal

Each operator maintenance hangar would be preferred to be directly adjacent to

3.9 Navigational Aids

A heliport identification beacon will b e required to aid in locating the Heliport.

4.2 Identified Facility Requirements

 TLOF/ FATOs and associated land area

4.2.2 Touchdown and Liftoff (TLOF) area 29/01/2014

Wherever it is intended that the undercarriage of a helicopter will actually touch

FATO is an area over which a helicopter completes the approach maneuver to a

The surface of FATO should be

Accordingly, it is proposed to provide FATO of length 300 m x 30 m.

4.2.4 Safety Area

A safety area surrounding a FATO intended to be used by helicopter operati ons in

4.2.5 Taxiway system

A helicopter ground Taxiway is pre-identi fi ed path having adequate strength to

Ground Taxiways of 7.5m width are proposed.

4.3 Parking Apron

Keeping the present fl eet of helicopters, it is proposed to accommodate more number of

The helicopter maintenance facility requirements have been developed assuming

 Large open space to maintain single helicopter

It is proposed that 2 hangars of 40 m x 25 m be constructed to meet the present

4.5 Passenger Terminal Complex