November 4, 2015 Domestic Meeting Agenda

 (select Ctrl Home or Ctrl Shift Home to return to this page)

This is an interactive, hyperlinked document.

Click on the blue text to select desired destination/information within the agenda.

Domestic Meeting Agenda

Domestic Issues

Joint Domestic/International Issues

International Issues

Chronological Table of Contents of Issues

General Discussion Notes

OSWG Issue Proposal Template

AFS Document Production Flow Chart

Meeting Information

Directory

Accommodations

Reference

Attendance


 

November 4, 2015 Domestic Meeting Agenda

 (select Ctrl Home or Ctrl Shift Home to return to this page)

This is an interactive, hyperlinked document.

Click on the blue text to select desired destination/information within the agenda.

Review, revise, and initial sign-in sheet

Introductions:

Remarks: Domestic Industry Chair Jim Winkelman / Domestic FAA Chair Steve Kane

Discussion:

·   Fill out stakeholder survey.

·   Domestic Industry Vice-Chairperson election

·   Collaboration: Industry schedule meetings with FAA counterparts prior to/after OSWG conference in Washington DC. Industry and FAA leads meet in mutually agreed locations as required/desired throughout the year.

·   Next joint domestic/international meeting:   Tuesday/Wednesday, March 8/9, 2016

                                                                          …after that, biannual or triannual meetings,

                                                                          September 2016 or July/November 2016?   

·   Rosters/sign-in sheets; removal of FAA information

·   Draft Documents Open for Comment….

·   A4A OSWG website (login required)

·   §121.445 Pilot in command airport qualification: Special areas and airports update

·   Domestic and international charting issues: Reference

AFS-410 Category I/II/III ILS Information and

Hannover, Germany RNP Rwy 9L/R 27L/R.

·   WebOPSS update (Monica Grusche)

·   Economic Authority and Insurance Management (eAIM) project update (Steve Kane)

·   NavLean Operations Approval Portal System (OAPS) project update (Paul Lepine)

·   OSWG Issues…


 

Domestic Issues in order of discussion

      Awaiting Publication/Closed (archived and removed from subsequent agendas)

201425      C081  Special Non 14 CFR part 97

              Instrument Approach or Departure Procedures (awaiting publication)

201503      A051  Fixed Wing Night Vision Goggle (NVG) Operations (awaiting publication)

      D094  Fixed Wing Night Vision Goggle (NVG) Operations Maintenance Program

201403      E096  Weight and Balance Control Procedures (awaiting publication)

201424      B039  Operations within North Atlantic (NAT) (awaiting publication)

              Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications (MNPS) Airspace

201110      C055  Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums (awaiting publication)

201421      C052  Straight-in Non-Precision, APV,      (closed)

              and Category I Precision Approach and Landing Minima—All Airports

201513      C382  Landing Performance Assessment at Time of Arrival for… (closed)

201504         A323           Use of a Liquid Water Equivalent System (LWES) (closed)

201506      Bxxx  Class I Navigation Using Multiple GPS Outside the U.S. Class A Airspace (closed)

201510      B043  Special Fuel Reserves in International Operations (closed)

      Current

201515      D091  Requirements: Air Carrier Maintenance Providers

201315         C070           Airports Authorized for Scheduled Operations

200916         A025           Electronic Record Keeping Systems

201214         B342           Extended Operations (ETOPS) with Two Engine Airplanes Under part 121

201420      A034  Advanced Qualification Program (AQP)

201304      A097, A098, A099 Passenger and Baggage Weight Programs

200605      B343  Performance Based Fuel

201511      B054  Class II Navigation Using Single Long-Range Navigation System (S-LRNS)

201201      EASA Third Country Operators (TCO)

201502      A447  Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) Notification Information

201514         D107      Line Maintenance Authorization

 


 

Joint Domestic/International Issues in order of discussion

      Awaiting Publication/Closed (archived and removed from subsequent agendas)

201302      D485  Aging Airplane Inspection and Records Review (awaiting publication)

201301      D097  Aging Aircraft Programs (awaiting publication)

      Current

201501           Economic Authority and Insurance Management (eAIM) System

201301      D097 Aging Aircraft Programs

201514         D107      Line Maintenance Authorization

201427      Aircraft Wake Turbulence Separation Re-Categorization (RECAT)

201011      C078/079 IFR Lower Than Standard Takeoff Minimums—All Airports

      Part 129 C056 IFR Takeoff Minimums—Airplanes     

201305           C059 Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

              Part 129 C059 Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

201001      C060 Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations

      Part 129 C060 Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

201303      Category III Charting Format

201202      A056 Data Link Communications

      Part 129 A003 Aircraft Authorization for Operations to the United States

201308      A061 Use of Electronic Flight Bag

200901      Air Operator Certificate (AOC) System

201201      EASA Third Country Operators (TCO)

201512      Canadian Private Operator Access to OpSpecs, MSpecs and LOAs


 

International Issues in order of discussion

      Awaiting Publication/Closed (archived and removed from subsequent agendas)

      None

      Current

201002          Part 129 B034      IFR Class I Terminal and En Route Navigation Using RNAV Systems

                  Part 129 B035      IFR Class I Navigation in the U.S. Class A Airspace

                                Using Area or Long-Range Navigation Systems

201505          Part 129 C384      Area Navigation (RNAV) Required Navigation Performance (RNP)               Instrument Approach Procedures with Special Aircraft and

                                Aircrew Authorization Required (AR)

201507          Part 129 C051      Terminal Instrument Procedures

                  Part 129 C054      Special Limitations and Provisions for Instrument

                                Approach Procedures and IFR Landing Minimums

201107          Part 129 A003 Aircraft Authorization for Operations to the United States

201205          Part 129 C083      IASA Category 2 Special Operational Restrictions—Scheduled and

                                                               Non-Scheduled Operations, Additional Aircraft and Special Authorizations

201006          Part 129 B031      VFR and IFR En Route Limitations and Provisions

201101          Part 129 A028      Aircraft Wet Lease Arrangements

201430          Part 129 D095 Minimum Equipment List (MEL) Authorization

 

 

 

 


 

Chronological Table of Contents of Current Issues (Page 1 of 2)

Code:  DS–Domestic Session Discussion        AP–Awaiting Publication        CL–Closed

            IS–International Session Discussion         JS–Joint Session Discussion

201501           Economic Authority and Insurance Management (eAIM) System JS

201427      Aircraft Wake Turbulence Separation Re-Categorization (RECAT) JS

200901      Air Operator Certificate (AOC) System JS

201303      Category III Charting Format JS

201201      EASA Third Country Operators (TCO) JS

201512      Canadian Private Operator Access to OpSpecs, MSpecs and LOAs JS

200916      A025  Electronic Record Keeping Systems DS

201420      A034  Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) DS

201503      A051  Fixed Wing Night Vision Goggle (NVG) Operations AP

201202      A056  Data Link Communications JS

201308      A061  Use of Electronic Flight Bag JS

201304      A097, A098, A099 Passenger and Baggage Weight Programs DS

201504      A323  Use of a Liquid Water Equivalent System (LWES) CL

201502      A447  Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) Notification Information DS

201424      B039  Operations within North Atlantic (NAT)

              Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications (MNPS) Airspace AP

201510      B043  Special Fuel Reserves in International Operations CL

201506      Bxxx  Class I Navigation Using Multiple GPS Outside the U.S. Class A Airspace (proposed) CL

201511         B054           Class II Navigation Using Single Long-Range Navigation System (S-LRNS) DS

201214         B342           Extended Operations (ETOPS) with Two Engine Airplanes Under part 121 DS

200605         B343           Performance Based Fuel DS

201421      C052  Straight-in Non-Precision, APV,

              and Category I Precision Approach and Landing Minima—All Airports CL

201110         C055           Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums DS

201305           C059           Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations… JS


 

Chronological Table of Contents of Current Issues (Page 2 of 2)

Code:  DS–Domestic Session Discussion        AP–Awaiting Publication        CL–Closed

            IS–International Session Discussion         JS–Joint Session Discussion

201315         C070           Airports Authorized for Scheduled Operations DS

201011      C078/079 IFR Lower Than Standard Takeoff Minimums—All Airports JS

201425      C081  Special Non 14 CFR part 97

              Instrument Approach or Departure Procedures AP

201513      C382  Landing Performance Assessment at Time of Arrival for Turbo Jet Operations CL

201515      D091  Requirements: Air Carrier Maintenance Providers DS

201503      D094  Fixed Wing Night Vision Goggle (NVG) Operations Maintenance Program AP

201301      D097  Aging Aircraft Programs AP

201514         D107      Line Maintenance Authorization JS

201302      D485  Aging Airplane Inspection and Records Review AP

201403      E096  Weight and Balance Control Procedures AP

201107      Part 129 A003          Aircraft Authorization for Operations to the United States IS

201202      Part 129 A003          Aircraft Authorization for Operations to the United States JS

201101          Part 129 A028      Aircraft Wet Lease Arrangements IS

201006          Part 129 B031      VFR and IFR En Route Limitations and Provisions IS

201002          Part 129 B034      IFR Class I Terminal and En Route Navigation Using RNAV Systems IS

201002          Part 129 B035      IFR Class I Navigation in the U.S. Class A Airspace

              Using Area or Long-Range Navigation Systems IS

201507          Part 129 C051      Terminal Instrument Procedures IS

201507          Part 129 C054      Special Limitations and Provisions for Instrument

                                Approach Procedures and IFR Landing Minimums IS

201011          Part 129 C056      IFR Takeoff Minimums—Airplane JS

201305           Part 129 C059          Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations… JS

201001          Part 129 C060      Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations… JS

201205          Part 129 C083      IASA Category 2 Special Operational Restrictions—Scheduled and

                                                               Non-Scheduled Operations, Additional Aircraft and Special Authorizations IS


 

Chronological Table of Contents of Current Issues (Page 2 of 2)

Code:  DS–Domestic Session Discussion        AP–Awaiting Publication        CL–Closed

            IS–International Session Discussion         JS–Joint Session Discussion

201505          Part 129 C384      Area Navigation (RNAV) Required Navigation Performance (RNP)               Instrument Approach Procedures with Special Aircraft and

                                Aircrew Authorization Required (AR) IS

201430      Part 129 D095          Minimum Equipment List (MEL) Authorization IS

Domestic Meeting

Afternoon Session 1300–1600, Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Domestic Industry PreMeeting, National Business Aircraft Association, Washington DC

FAA Pre-Meeting, FAA Headquarters, Washington DC

 

Morning Session 0900–1200, Wednesday, November 4, 2015

National Business Aircraft Association, Washington DC (click for directions)

Afternoon Session 1300–1600, Wednesday, November 4, 2015

National Business Aircraft Association, Washington DC (click for directions)

 

Next Meeting:  Joint Domestic/International, Tuesday/Wednesday, March 8/9, 2016

                          Navy Memorial Heritage Center, Washington DC

                          Domestic, Tuesday/Wednesday, July xx/xx or September xx/xx, 2016

                          Airlines for America, Washington DC (click for directions)

 

 

·   Review the OSWG Procedures Guide and

Terms of Reference for the FAA/IATA part 129 OSWG.

·   Subscribe to the Aviation Safety Draft Documents Open for Comment web site, http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/opspecs/index.cfm.

·   Read the current agenda, previous agendas, and meeting summaries on the OSWG Publications web site: http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=Publication&doctype=OSWG.

·   Forward OSWG agenda submissions to respective industry and/or FAA co-chairman a month prior to the quarterly meeting.

 

Fill out your Stakeholder Survey!

·    

Accommodations  (effective November 2–6, 2015)

 

Daily Washington DC federal government lodging/per diem rate: $222.00 / $71.00

Airlines for America has secured corporate rates for several area hotels. To book, guests may call the hotel directly and ask for the Airlines for America rate or book online.

Comfort Inn Downtown DC/Convention Center  202-682-5300

http://www.comfortinn.com/ires/en-US/html/ArrivalInfo?hotel=DC601&srp=LAFA&pu=no

1201 13th Street NW, Washington, DC, near McPherson Square Metro Station

Standard room promotional rate (not including tax): $170.00/night

 

 

 

 

 

 


Directory

Domestic Industry            Jim “Wink” Winkelman, Alaska Airlines

Chairman:                          206 392-6347, jim.winkelman@alaskaair.com

Domestic Industry            Ellen Birmingham, United Airlines

Vice-Chairwoman:            872 825-5193, ellen.birmingham@united.com

International Industry       Mike Barfoot, Air Canada

Chairman:                          905-676-2176, michael.barfoot@aircanada.ca

International Industry       Jereome Hecq, Emirates Airline

Vice-Chairman:                 971 56 477 6539, jerome.hecq@emirates.com

Domestic FAA                  Steve Kane, AFS-260

Chairman:                          202 604-5564, steve.kane@faa.gov

International FAA            Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-52

Chairwoman:                     202 267-0923, danuta.pronczuk@faa.gov

International FAA            Open

Vice-Chairman:                

FAA Coordinator             John Bollin, AFS-260

                                          916 202-3608, john.bollin@faa.gov

 

200605     B343 Performance Based Fuel (page 1 of 4) (FAA Brief)

Initial Agenda Date: April 27, 2006                         Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Gordy Rother, AFS-430, 612 253-4409, gordon.rother@faa.gov

                     Adam Giraldes, AFS220, 817 3504564, adam.giraldes@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Marc Brodbeck, United Airlines, 872 825-3010, marc.a.brodbeck@united.com

               Allan Twigg, United Airlines, 872 825-6455, allan.twigg@united.com

               Timothy Krehl, United Airlines, 872 254-4888, timothy.krehl@united.com

Issue Statement: Numerous carriers want to be issued this Ops Spec, allowing en-route reserves as low as 5% for that percentage of the total time required to fly from the airport of departure to, and land at, the airport to which it was released. Currently only two part 121 operators, American and United have this OpSpec.

Background: Many international carriers are required to plan for less fuel reserves percentages than U.S. carriers. Many foreign carriers are allowed to use 3% reserves. This has put U.S. carriers at an operating cost disadvantage, even though the FAA-required 10% reserves is only computed on those en-route flight segments that are in Class II airspace. Long flights over Class II airspace experience the largest reserve fuel advantage. A little over ten years ago, the FAA began to level the playing field by granting use of 5% fuel reserves to carriers that could prove their flight planning and weather prediction capabilities provided adequate safety margins. American, United and Continental [ed: merged with United] were issued B343.

Authorization for additional carriers was halted following Congressional interest in one or two widely publicized minimum fuel declarations. However, the long term record of both American and United Airlines is very positive. For example, since May, 2004, American Airlines has flown 767,257 flights using B343 5% planning parameters and has had only 104 of those flights burn into en-route fuel reserves. Most of these “burn-ins” were only a few minutes of fuel, but are reported none the less. Further approvals were also denied based on a planning reliability standard formulated by MITRE that counted fuel percentage of under-burn in the same category as over-burn. In the case of FedEx, over-burns were due to contingency added fuel to account for frequent MD-11 tail-fuel-transfer failures. When normal transfers occurred, fuel consumption was much less than planned.

More recently, further approvals are being delayed in anticipation of ICAO publication of international fuel reserve guidelines. There is a desire to ensure that U.S. policies harmonize with ICAO standards. FAA is working toward a Performance Based fuel reserves model similar to the draft ICAO Annex 6. FAA has requested that carriers review and comment on Annex 6 (draft) through IATA or ATA. Once the new Annex 6 is settles/issued, the theory is that B343 should be resurrected. A new FAA Advisory Circular is being drafted by the FAA.

(continued on next page)

200605          B343 Performance Based Fuel (page 2 of 4) (FAA Brief)

Intended Outcome: Provide for performance based fuel reserves for U.S. air carriers sooner than later.

Notes:

[4/27/2006 Johnson] Jim handed out proposed changes to B343. One of the proposals is to allow a combination of both the 5% and Re-dispatch deviations. The FAA was receptive to some of the proposed requests and will review them as appropriate.

[4/17/2012 Davis] Previous meeting notes are sketchy or missing.

[4/17/2012 Seabright] Steve Kuhar, FedEx, expressed frustration at linking additional approval to a slow ICAO process. John Cowan, United, and Rich Yuknavich, American, asked for and received confirmation that their carrier track records using five percent authority has been excellent.

[7/17/2012 Seabright] Steve Kuhar, FedEx stated that the majority of the industry believes that the FAA should not have issued the B343 authorization to just a few carriers, but instead to all eligible. If more carriers were issued B343 a much larger performance database would have been accumulated. FAA contends that any operator may still apply for issuance, and if the requirements are satisfied, will eventually be issued. In the interim, the OpSpec disparity exists.

[10/16/2012 Davis] Previous meeting notes are missing.

[2/5/2013 Shramek] ICAO 6 is out and FAA is working on new Advisory Circular for Performance Based fuel loads. Close B343 from agenda and add new item of Performance Based Fuel Loads.

[5/7/2013 Kane] Meeting notes are missing.

[8/6/2013 Kane] Meeting notes are missing.

[2/5/2014 Newcomer] Drafting guidance for new OpSpec, will provide OSWG with copy.

[2/5/2014 Newcomer] Performance based fuel will align with SARPs and ICAO on fuel (10% reserve to as low as 5% reserve). Not just computing, but a “system” including time of day, route, where you fly, your aircraft, airport arrival rate, etc.

[2/5/2014 Newcomer] Provide data collection criteria and how to share with CMO.

[2/5/2014 Newcomer] Parallels ICAO Annex 6, part 1 (SARP, known fuel vs. unplanned).

[2/5/2014 Newcomer] Harmonization effort.

[2/5/2014 Newcomer] Approvals at CMO and not at headquarters.

(continued on next page)

200605          B343 Performance Based Fuel (page 3 of 4) (FAA Brief)

Notes:

[6/10/2014 Rother] The FAA is slowly working with the proof-of-concept carrier (UAL). We may have something more substantial this fall.

[10/8/2014 Kane] Awaiting publication.

[3/17/2015 Bollin] Issue reassigned as FAA briefing.

[3/17/2015 Giraldes] Overcoming initial challenges, United Airlines is validating performance based fuel operations. Currently, there are five dispatch desks and a number of flights operating under draft provisions. Adam requested industry representation to assist developing non-standard B343 language. Complying with OpSpec requires more than just performance, flight planning and producing numbers. It driven by the system, the software and the statistical side—How the system alerts, catches, and flags issues, training and checking, etc.

United will exceed the number of authorized validation flights within a week. It will take another month or two to determine the viability of the plans and processes. Adam’s expectation is to share the current draft paragraph with the OSWG…. Transport Canada has a small team interested in the project. They need support from their dispatch for data collection and internal alerts for reporting.

The FAA does not desire to “make the news” evaluating this project. If required, carriers should declare an immediate emergency for fuel quantity issues…. Operators should carry the correct fuel based on real world data. Currently, the evaluation is geared for domestic industry flag air carriers. Answering a question from the floor, Adam declared the FAA will consider supplemental air carrier participation; however, the evaluation is “schedule intensive”; more bank for the buck from an operator providing a plethora of data, based on numerous city pairs, in a short period of time. An alerting capability is needed and the conditions and limitations for participation require a dispatch center, training, and data review. The respective CMO also requires training. When AFS-200 steps away, the CMO has to be capable to pick up the ball.

Asked when the draft guidance would be made available, Adam stated that if UAL was agreeable, the FAA would formalize the draft and meet monthly to keep the program on track. Although “United-ized”, the results are uniform for all. The FAA is confident with the project at this moment. Carriers wishing to participate in the evaluation should contact Adam Giraldes or Gordy Rother.

[4/7/2015 Birmingham] United Airlines has agreed to assist AFS-200. Marc Brodbeck and Allan Twigg, have been assigned as industry leads. Tim Krehl, is a back-up resource. Thanks to Andy Newcomer, UPS, and Rich Yuknavich, American Airlines, for their work.

(continued on next page)

 

200605          B343 Performance Based Fuel (page 4 of 4) (FAA Brief)

Notes:

[7/22/2015 Rother] Gordy Rother presented a Performance Based Contingency Fuel Program slide brief developed with United Airlines. OpSpec paragraph B343 was revised to harmonize with ICAO SARPs in Annex 6 Section 1. The annex establishes recommendations for prescriptive based fuel calculations and introduced performance based fuel planning. B343 is a deviation from the §121.645(b)(2) 10% rule. The paragraph is based on scheduled air carrier data (supplemental air carrier/operators did not participate in the trials). Draft Order 8900.1 inspector guidance is complete and the FAA will introduce a draft OpSpec within the next few weeks. An Advisory Circular is in the works. Prescriptive based information will be added and allowances for charter/supplemental operations will be permitted within an approved window. The FAA hopes to have the OpSpec ready for authorization in September. Certificate holders requesting the new paragraph can apply today.

[11/4/2015 Giraldes] Adam and Gordy were unavailable. Adam provided a brief via telcon. The AC and OpSpec are now winding through the AFS-140 publication process (reference AFS System Level Process for Production of Policy, Guidance, and Information Documents). Delayed: final documents should be on the street by next February (2016). This does not preclude air carriers applying for authorization through their CMO today. United was the launch customer, followed by American. After that it’s first-come-first-served.

No new aircraft will be added to an air carrier’s current B343. New aircraft will be added to the revised B343. American’s current OpSpec requires a static 5% fuel reserve. The new paragraph will not require a reapplication, but look at it as providing new data. (Data includes numbers a majority of airlines already have on file.) In the interim, American can continue to use their B343 5%, but also collect performance based data to meet the requirements for the reissued OpSpec.

AFS-200 will engage with air carriers and their CMO during the application process. Air carriers/operators requesting to participate should provide a letter of intent. To preclude multiple changes to an air carrier/operator’s system, draft guidance has not been published.

 

200901             Air Operator Certificate (AOC) System (page 1 of 5)

Initial Agenda Date: October 20, 2009         Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-52, 202 267-0923, danuta.pronczuk@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Henry Defalque, ICAO, 1 514 954-8219 Ext 6368, hdefalque@icao.int  

                           Jeff Miller, IATA, 305 607-0577, millerj@iata.org

Issue Statement: The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) will develop a single AOC international database of all member State carriers.

Background: Approximately 67% of the world’s air carriers are expected to be unable to comply with a January 1, 2010 compliance date for a proposed International Civil Aviation Organization AOC implementation plan. A provision and timetable was proposed to ICAO to change the compliance date to Jan 1, 2012—FAA filed a “difference” with the ICAO plan. The ICAO council subsequently chose not to amend Annex 6 to extend the implementation date to 2012. It is up to the good will of the local authorities to accept FAA’s letter of deviation. If they do not, they may fine the operator or ground the aircraft. The AOC, (template available through OpSpec A-999) should be carried aboard each aircraft in the ICAO standard format by Jan 1, 2010 with potential consequences for non-compliance (possible impounding of non-compliant aircraft, schedule disruption, fines). The AOC requirement is a significant challenge on an international scale. The definition of a “certified true copy” of an AOC is available from the ICAO legal counsel on the ICAO website. The FAA indicated that the digital signature on the AOC template from OpSpec A-999 is proof that it is a certified true copy. The FAA goal is to coordinate with foreign authorities so that OpSpec information can be provided automatically to ICAO in the ICAO format and therefore make it unnecessary to carry it onboard the aircraft.

Intended Outcome: Eliminate the requirement to carry a copy of the certificating country’s Operations Specifications, or a synopsis of the OpSpecs in the ICAO format, onboard each aircraft.

(continued on the next page)

 

200901             Air Operator Certificate (AOC) System (page 2 of 5)

Notes:

[10/20/2009 Pronczuk] International OSWG new business.

[4/21/2010 Pronczuk] Danuta briefed the OSWG on progress/recent developments of the International register of AOCs. Update for the briefing was provided/coordinated with Henry Defalque. Questions from the floor:

·   What language will the data base be in? The data would be listed in English only. Reference Annex 6, 6.1.2: “An aeroplane shall carry a certified true copy of the air operator certificate specified in 4.2.1, and a copy of the operations specifications relevant to the aeroplane type, issued in conjunction with the certificate. When the certificate and the associated operations specifications are issued by the State of the Operator in a language other than English, an English translation shall be included.” There would be no requirement for additional translation of the text for the database.

·   Could the Registry permit each carrier to have the ability to view its data any time the way that a State would be able to?  The problem with an access control for operators is that its maintenance would be a heavy workload for ICAO; therefore, not possible. However, download access to inspectors would be granted by the State, which could decide to include representatives from operators in the list. The State would maintain its list of persons with access.

·   Who at the air carrier would the e-mail notification go to?  The airline would specify the address to the State of the Operator, which would upload it as part of the AOC data.

·   Once an Air Carrier’s AOC is uploaded to the Registry, and other States have the ability to view it, will the air carrier still need to carry a copy of the AOC on board the aircraft? In the long term, ICAO hopes to introduce a waiver for the carriage of the AOC certified copy for those operators which have their data in the ICAO database. However, this is still controversial would require the AOC Register to be fully operational, 24/7, with a back-up server on stand-by in a different location to ensure accessibility of the data. This is at least 3 years down the line. It also requires an amendment to Annex 6 which takes 2 years and cannot be initiated until the Register is operational.

(continued on the next page)

 

200901             Air Operator Certificate (AOC) System (page 3 of 5)

Notes:

[11/3/2010 Pronczuk] Danuta updated the group on the latest developments to the registry of AOC’s. The Civil Aviation University of China (CACU) has developed the IT requirements for the Internal Register of AOCs. Beta testing is scheduled for internal testing first quarter of 2011, with a few States being tested by the end of second quarter of 2011. The database is expected to be operational by the end of 2012. The International Register of AOCs is designed to be linked to the aircraft info database which is scheduled to launch in November 2010. Canada has confirmed beta-testing participation. Australia has been contacted with positive feedback…; ICAO is waiting on confirmation of participation. China is on the ICAO wish list as a beta-testing participant. The US is expected to be beta-tested last; it will be examined for batch automatic upload of data. The additional data-set (Phase II) will start once the AOC database is operational. It takes ICAO 2 years to change an ICAO standard. Once the International Registry of AOC’s is operational, the ICAO plan is to begin the process of amending the ICAO standard for the carriage of AOC’s. The amendment would provide a waiver to the ICAO requirement for the carriage of the AOC to those operators whose information is included in the International Registry of AOC’s. Reference Henry Defalque’s AOC User Manual development presentation.

[4/20/2011 Pronczuk] Meeting notes are missing.

[11/2/2011 Pronczuk] Rommy Ulloa, IATA, briefed the group on the latest developments and a progress report on the Online Aircraft Safety Information System (OASIS) project, a one-stop set of tools designed to collect and share aviation data related to aircraft and air operators, allowing the ability to enter, validate and modify the data at the source. The AOC Registry Database will fall under the umbrella of the OASIS Project. Timing for Phase 2 of the project is dependent on ICAO funding with CAUC as supplier. The tentative goal is to have operational deployment in July of 2012. Currently, ICAO and IATA are working on establishing business rules for Phase 2. The regulatory guidance will be in ICAO Document 8335. Comments on the draft guidance are being solicited through IATA and ATA channels. When asked by Delta airlines about how long it would take updates to migrate from the national certificating authority for aircraft additions or deletions, Mrs. Ulloa replied: “When the National Authorities approves an AOC or OpSpecs, the airline will simultaneously be able to see the approval.” Bryan Miles, International Industry OSWG Chairman and Emirates Air representative bemoaned the fact that several countries are still requiring paper copies of all Operation Specifications on board. Some countries only allow a maximum grace period of 20 days to update aircraft listings (UK, US, China, Argentina).

(continued on the next page)

 

200901             Air Operator Certificate (AOC) System (page 4 of 5)

Notes:

[4/18/2012 Pronczuk] Henry Defalque provided an update via e-mail. The software application is under test by ICAO IT people and some States, and should be migrated to ICAO servers by mid-month. Testing is on-going, including an XTML exchange system for uploads. ICAO will open the access to more and more States as the application is maturing with full access normally scheduled by end of summer. The second Phase is being worked upon with IATA and ICAO developers. This will gradually accept more documents uploaded by the operator. If the document is not in English, the operator has all to gain to provide a translation in English. The search engine will be developed with users’ inputs, anticipating the documents will be held in a series of standard directories such as insurance, flight operations, etc.

[10/17/2012 Pronczuk] The AOC system is operational. A press release is scheduled for October 20. Yuri Fattah, ICAO, briefed the OSWG on the OASIS project. He guided the audience through the latest revision to the OASIS user manual, introducing the AOC System and focusing on the operations of the CAA Administrator. As of date, the system data base is empty. Canada, UAE, and Singapore started entering data. For those operators whose information is in the ICAO data base, the organization is looking to see if they can relax the standard requiring a certificated copy of the AOC on board the aircraft. Only States can upload information to the database. Noting that States have differences, the US domestic industry asked if this could be expanded to individual operators—A State of the operator may not require the information or a document that another State is requiring of the operator in order for them to operate in their State. At this time, this feature is not available.

(continued on next page)

 

200901             Air Operator Certificate (AOC) System (page 5 of 5)

Notes:

[5/8/2013 Pronczuk] Yuri Fattah, ICAO, updated the group: The ICAO registry of AOC has data from UAE, Iceland, Brazil, and Singapore. States may allow an air carrier to whom they issue the AOC and associated OpSpecs to upload the information to the ICAO registry. States may also allow the operator to have restricted view of its own information. Validation of the data would need to be done by the State which issued the AOC. ICAO invited feedback on what is keeping regulators from using the data base, including alternatives, system improvements, and reviewing the advantages of the single data base. It was noted that when an operator wishes to operate to a foreign State, it is the operator that needs to provide the necessary information to the foreign State. The information exchange is between an operator and a foreign State and not between two foreign States. ICAO is considering a recommendation for mutual recognition of AOCs, similar to the mutual recognition of pilot certificates in the Articles to the ICAO convention. A decision by the FAA to upload U.S. AOC data would have to be made at a higher level than a policy office within Flight Standards. This is not a simple task, would require significant funding, and there are competing priorities. AFS-50 is looking at how it can provide relief to foreign air carriers using the data from the register. The agency will continue its review and will meet with ICAO and subject matter experts to further discuss.

[2/5/2014 Pronczuk] Jeff Miller, International Air Transport Association (IATA), updated the workgroup.

[3/18/2015 Pronczuk] The issue is on hold. During the afternoon international session, the floor asked why discussion was suspended: Without FAA/United States participation, other authorities are not using the AOC data base. Danuta responded: A lack of resources and higher safety priorities in the public interest have placed this item on hold. It is hoped that perhaps next year we may have more to report. It would not be appropriate for the FAA to comment on another CAAs rational for not using the AOC data base.

 

200916          A025 Electronic Record Keeping Systems (page 1 of 5)

Initial Agenda Date: July 21, 2009                           Date Closed:

FAA Lead: Theo Kessaris, AFS240, 202 267-4561, theodora.kessaris@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Casey Seabright, Delta Air Lines, 402 715-1536, charles.seabright@delta.com

                           Jim Winkelman, Alaska Airlines, 206 392-6347, jim.winkelman@alaskaair.com

Issue Statement: FAA & Industry are using A025 as a catchall for authorizations that may not be appropriate for this paragraph or may be appropriate but are listed individually versus categorically.

Background: An audit of A025 shows significant variability in the items placed in this paragraph. The impetus for more specific guidance is increasing with the expanding adoption of cockpit Electronic Flight Bags (EFBs) and the corresponding transition from paper manuals to purely digital format manuals. The direction of some POIs and PMIs to list every digital document individually versus by class of documents is becoming more burdensome as the number of digital document continues to multiply.

Intended Outcome: Maintain A025 as a repository for electronic record keeping and an optional storehouse for electronic signatures and electronic manuals. Amend A025 to include tables for specific approvals such as flight planning systems, training records repositories, and categories of electronic/digital manuals.

Notes:

[7/21/2009 Davis] New business.

[1/19/2011 Davis] Previous meeting notes are missing.

[1/19/2011 Kessaris] On hold…. When work on this is ready to begin again, industry would like to get a subgroup together to help write the new OpSpec. Once AGC is able to provide their assistance, the FAA will attempt to establish a workgroup similar to the one that worked on B044 to help write OpSpec A0xx which will address electronic systems that calculate things such as fuel as a means of compliance with several regulations. Guidance on the “clean up” of A025 will be introduced after the creation of A0xx.

[4/19/2011 Davis] Meeting notes are missing.

[8/2/2011 Davis] Meeting notes are missing.

[11/1/2011 Davis] Meeting notes are missing.

[1/18/2012 Kessaris] On hold pending further research, reflection and cogitation. There are currently numerous overlapping guidance documents. No easy fix. “In for a dime in for a dollar”. Theo is looking for general suggestions or multiple Industry leads.

(continued on next page)

200916          A025 Electronic Record Keeping Systems (page 2 of 5)

Notes:

[4/17/2012 Seabright] Steve Kuhar, FEDEX, suggested a separate OpSpec for electronic manuals or allowing a general authorization for electronic manuals without requiring a specific OpSpec listing for each new manual. Eventually all manuals will only be electronic. Casey volunteered to work with Jim Winkleman, Alaska Airlines, and Theo Kessaris, AFS-260, to draft guidance proposals.

[7/17/2012 Kessaris] Theo voiced concern that there are no resources on the FAA side to work the issue. She solicited help from industry if there is a desire to make progress on this project. Industry representatives seemed amenable to forming a sub-group to draft proposed changes to the OpSpec template, 8900.1 guidance and possibly a revision to AC120-78 Acceptance and Use of Electronic Signatures, Electronic Recordkeeping Systems, and Electronic Manuals.

[7/17/2012 Kessaris] Theo voiced concern that there are no resources on the FAA side to work the issue. She solicited help from industry if there is a desire to make progress on this project. Industry representatives seemed amenable to forming a sub-group to draft proposed changes to the OpSpec template, 8900.1 guidance and possibly a revision to AC120-78 Acceptance and Use of Electronic Signatures, Electronic Recordkeeping Systems, and Electronic Manuals.

[7/17/2012 Seabright] The impetus for more specific guidance is increasing with the expanding adoption of cockpit Electronic Flight Bags (EFBs) with increasing transition from paper manuals to purely digital format manuals. The direction of some POIs and PMIs to list every digital document individually versus by class of documents is becoming more burdensome as the number of digital document continues to multiply. The opportunity for an FAA/OSWG conference did not materialize.

[10/16/2012 Davis] Meeting notes are missing.

[2/5/2013 Schramek] No movement, only maintenance requirement change for part 91. Industry would like to see this paragraph back to original purpose. Item is currently on hold.

[5/7/2013 Kane] Meeting notes are missing.

[8/7/2013 Schramek] The issue is ongoing. If there are interested parties within industry who desire to submit a proposal, FAA would take that into account. For now an A025 rewrite is on hold due to other FAA priorities.

[2/5/2014 Kessaris] Current Status: On hold until AC120-78 is published. Comments have not been incorporated. Theo will post changes for comment sometime in the future. No draft or template yet.

(continued on next page)

 

200916          A025 Electronic Record Keeping Systems (page 3 of 5)

Notes:

[2/5/2014 Kessaris] The FAA wants to explore each system per system regulations, what constitutes an acceptable electronic signature, what is an acceptable electronic manual. The focus on manuals, signatures and records and build a template similar to the 145 document.

[6/10/2014 Kessaris] AC 120-76C Guidelines for the Certification, Airworthiness, and Operational Use of Electronic Flight Bags, has been posted with new policy/definition on manuals, records and electronic signatures.

[6/10/2014 Kessaris] No more “free text”, but will have a drop down for manuals, type of records and electronic signature.

[10/8/2014 Kessaris] Theo provided a draft A025 template for part 121. The template will apply only to those signatures, records and manuals required by regulation. All of the templates and associated guidance have been written; however, the Advisory Circular is currently on hold pending additional internal review.

[3/17/2015 Kessaris] AFS-200 continues to debate the language—A small workgroup meets daily. Any tweaks to the Advisory Circular require tweaks to the policy. Looking at records, manuals, use of electronic signatures, etc., the workgroup is bringing a fresh and unique perspective from the field. The AC may, or may not, go to the public docket for comment. Theo may opt for posting on the AVS Draft Documents Open for Comment and the A4A OSWG web sites.

[7/22/2015 Kessaris] Theo would like to see the Advisory Circular out for public comment. Industry would like the opportunity to comment on the OpSpec template and the AC before the template is issued. (See Documents Open for Public Comment on page 91). The AC will speak to templates and 8900.1 inspector guidance. Mike Keller, American Airlines, inquired about industry compliance with A025. Theo replied, since there is no A025 guidance, there is no way to judge compliance. Noting inconsistences in record keeping, Mike lamented “…then what is the value of A025?” Theo responded with a definite idea of what should be approved for a valid electronic signature: The agency wants to grant authority to use the e-signature process or the e-records process―Each electronic manual should have a minimum process. The AC will define the regulatory requirement for an electronic signature, record or manual. It should be noted that the agency is not approving the manuals but approving the system for managing the e-manuals.

[10/20/2015 Kessaris] Draft AC 120-78A is published on the AFS Draft Advisory Circulars Open for Comment web site and the draft A025 templates are published on the AFS Documents Open for Public Comment (OpSpecs/MSpecs/LOA) web site. Comments are due NLT November 19, 2015.

(continued on next page)

200916          A025 Electronic Record Keeping Systems (page 4 of 5)

Notes:

[11/4/2015 Kessaris] The 30-day posting period was reset yesterday. Comments are due NLT December 3, 2015. Responsibility for A025 is shared by several AFS divisions. Any desire to extend the comment period further should be requested via the Draft Documents Open for Comment website. If you have questions, call Theo.

Industry suggested using the date of issue of the OpSpec template as the initial acceptance date. Theo agreed and recommended this comment be posted for D095 Minimum Equipment List (MEL) Authorization, vs. A025.

The MEL table is based on a collection of part 135 operator’s OpSpecs, and will most probably not be formatted as a drop down menu. For example, the A010 menu list of items would appear on the template and not be selectable from a drop down. Free text and specific selections will be available. The kind of, and name of electronic record is free text. A finite number of items will be available for signature. Theo put to rest Industry fears that all this may end up creating a novel vs. an efficient paragraph. Furthermore, some information will not belong in A025. When asked if the 8900.1 guidance incorporated information in the AC, Theo replied yes. The two documents were written as one. 8900.1 guidance is a little bit clearer for inspector use.

Because there is a broad scope within FAA industry divisions, the comment period is going to take some coordination. Industry requests clear 8900.1 guidance for CMOs. During this comment period, the big policy bundle is going through formal coordination. Principle Inspectors have access to the documents via their respective FAA Regional Office. Industry should contact their local office and discuss their individual policy issues.

Theo is working on an approval and acceptance procedure via letter, stamp, or OpSpec. The approval process will depend on the methodology identified in the AC. Theo will look at UAL exemption 10776A for reference. Industry recommended the FAA create a Master Manual containing system descriptions and a list of electronic manuals.

Timing for publication depends on comments and requests for extensions to comment periods. Theo is targeting mid-2016 at the latest. This will be a mandatory change with a 6-month implementation. On follow-up with Theo, the OSWG requested 90 days for comment. Jim Winkelman, OSWG Industry Chairman, will forward a comment and request on behalf of the OSWG. Theo directed individual certificate holders to propose the extension request via the Draft Documents Open for Comment website. Theo will upload two of the 8900.1 drafts that will start a new 60-day clock. A025 continues to be a work in progress.

(continued on next page)

200916          A025 Electronic Record Keeping Systems (page 5 of 5)

Notes:

[11/4/2015 Kessaris] The comment period for Draft AC 120-78A, published on the AFS Draft Advisory Circulars Open for Comment web site and the draft A025 templates, published on the AFS Documents Open for Public Comment (OpSpecs/MSpecs/LOA) web site, have been extended. Comments are due NLT January 4, 2016.

 

201001             C060 Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations   (page 1 of 9)

                Part 129 C060     Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

Initial Agenda Date:  January 20, 2010                     Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Bryant Welch, AFS-410, 202 267-8981, bryant.welch@faa.gov

                     Chris Hope, AFS-410, 202 267-8976, chris.hope@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Steve Kuhar, Federal Express, 901 224-5339, sjkuhar@fedex.com

                           David Oliver, Qantas, 6 129 691-1158, doliver@qantas.com

Issue Statement: OpSpec C060 has not been revised since 2003.

Background: The primary goal for revising C060 is to simplify the OpSpec template. For example, there are four levels of RVR requirements corresponding to four levels of equipment capabilities. Essentially, if a certificate holder is authorized for a certain level of Cat III operation and the aircraft fails down to a lower level of capability, that lower level should also be authorized provided the crews are trained for the resultant operation.

Intended Outcome: Revise the template as appropriate. Harmonize the Part 129 OpSpec C060 with the C060 template.

(continued on next page)

201001             C060 Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations   (page 2 of 9)

                Part 129 C060     Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

Notes:

[1/20/2010 Kuhar] Depending on the aircraft capability, there are four categories found in paragraph C060c “Required RVR Reporting Equipment”:

c.(1) Fail-passive Landing Systems Not Using Rollout Control Systems

c.(2) Fail-passive Landing Systems Using Rollout Control Systems

c.(3) Fail-operational Landing Systems Using Fail-passive Rollout Control Systems

c.(4) Fail-operational Landing Systems Using Fail-operational Rollout Control Systems

These are obviously from least capable to most capable, with c.(1) being the least capable and c.(4) being the most capable. c.(2), c.(3) and c.(4) all have a sub-paragraph (c) that states: “Operations may be conducted in accordance with the RVR limitations set forth in subparagraph c.(1).” This indicates that the higher capable aircraft can always use the lower RVR capability for the least capable aircraft, i.e., Fail-passive Landing Systems Not Using Rollout Control Systems.

Following this philosophy of allowing use of lower capable RVR requirements, it appears that paragraph (c) of paragraphs c.(3) and c.(4) should read: “Operations may be conducted in accordance with the RVR limitations set forth in subparagraph c.(1) and c.(2). Either this, or sub-paragraph (c) should be deleted from c.(2), c.(3) and c.(4), with the assumption that an operator is always authorized to use a lower capability.

For illustration: The newer Boeing products have three autopilots and are certified to Fail-operational Landing Systems Using Fail-operational Rollout Control Systems. However, if they have an autopilot and or autothrottles deferred, the aircraft is now a Fail-passive Landing System Using a Rollout Control System. The current wording of the OpSpec would lead one to believe that the only option if the operator is authorized to utilize paragraph c.(4), but loses the fail-operational landing capability, is to revert back to paragraph c.(1). In reality, in this situation, the operator should be able to utilize paragraph c.(2).

[1/20/2010 Kuhar] On initial revision of OpSpecs C059/C060, all data input in the tables must be filled in manually. Proposed amendment will require internal FAA discussions. Table 4 is for irregular terrain runways only.

(continued on next page)

201001             C060 Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations   (page 3 of 9)

                Part 129 C060     Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

Notes:

[4/21/2010 Kuhar] Horizon Airlines suggests the FAA take a look at Horizon’s free text regarding single engine Cat III authorization. This text is directly from AC120-28D Criteria for Approval of Category III Weather Minima for Takeoff, Landing, and Rollout (guidance material for certifying and authorizing Cat III operations with one engine inoperative) and was coordinated with headquarters back when Horizon was  originally approved for Cat III in the Q400. This should be selectable standard text in the template. Also, since there are very specific aircraft performance, flight planning, and flight crew training/checking requirements to take advantage of the Cat II/III minimums for an alternate airport listed in C055 Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums, that portion of the alternate minimums table should also be a selectable, which could only be available if Single Engine Cat III operations are approved in C060.

[7/23/2010 Davis] Meeting notes are missing.

[11/3/2010 Welch] Not much progress to report since the last meeting. Mark Fox, AFS-410, gave a presentation discussing autoland and HUD-to-touchdown operations. There is a Public website available to determine the classification of any given ILS: http://avnwww.jccbi.gov/pls/datasheet_prd/PRO_ilsperform_rpt. It was pointed out that tables found in guidance documents do not match those found in the OpSpec tables. The FAA intends to revise tables so that it is possible to list controlling RVR correctly. Since lower minimums through HUD may be extended to certain runways with ILS glideslope greater than 3.0 degrees, operators may need to update their HUD AFM supplements to allow IIIA approach operations up to 3.1 degrees. Demonstrations to the POI should not be required once the AFM supplement is updated.

[1/20/2011 Davis] Meeting notes are missing.

[4/20/2011 Davis] Meeting notes are missing.

[8/3/2011 Welch] Bryant presented a revised draft C060 which addresses the intent to clarify OpSpec language. Draft paragraph and guidance is available at the Flight Standards Draft Documents Open for Comment site: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/opspecs/index.cfm. Comments are due August 26. The new C060 will have selectable paragraphs to authorize Single Engine Category III operations. A new table will reflect lowest RVR values authorized for each combination of equipment status. As soon as AFS-410 is notified of a regional AWO’s approval, Cat III runways are added to the table. Industry also asked about “acceptance” rather than a long term approval process for Cat III (and Cat II) approaches at airports where the FAA has deemed design and other criteria meet acceptable standards. The agency will look into it.

201001             C060 Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations   (page 4 of 9)

                Part 129 C060     Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

Notes:

[8/3/2011 Welch] There is Industry concern that the paragraph’s specific references to 15% additional runway length requirements are unnecessary and repeats the C054 requirements. Specifically, the reference to 1.3 factor for when RVR is less than 600 feet “depending on the operational procedures and/or additional equipment used by the operator” is unclear and includes poor assumptions and should also be considered for removal. Bryant informed the group that reference to the 115% of wet runway requirements, §121.195(b), will remain in the new OpSpec. Reference to the 1.3 factor will be removed.

[8/3/2011 Welch] Industry and FAA discussed the changes in the draft paragraph which change the Rollout RVR requirements from Advisory to Controlling. Bryant responded that Cat III operations are generally approved using AC120-28D Criteria for Approval of Category III Weather Minima for Takeoff, Landing, and Rollout. This Advisory Circular generally supports that TDZ, Mid and Rollout RVR are controlling; although, not in an entirely consistent manner. There seems to be a disconnect when comparing RVR requirements of AC120-28D

Table 4.3.8-1 and that provided in Appendix 7). Order 8900.1 appears to support Controlling/Controlling/Controlling for all systems. Reference to HBAT 99-17 is inconclusive as both arguments can be supported depending on the specific section of the HBAT being referenced. No one can determine where the authority to make rollout advisory originated. From a safety standpoint, determine what is “reasonable” for rollout RVR requirements? Ultimately, through harmonization, it appears the draft will contain the controlling language unless someone can provide compelling evidence to the contrary—Rollout RVR will become Controlling at RVR 300 for all Cat III systems. No change to the regulation end RVR. FAR end RVR will remain Advisory for all systems. Approach operations may be initiated or continued with any RVR (TDZ, Mid, Rollout) unavailable. There is still some question as to what TDZ and Mid RVR values hybrid systems will ultimately be authorized. Once this is determined, the table in the OpSpec will be updated.

[11/2/2011 Welch] AFS-401 is reviewing all submitted comments. No final version of the template is available yet. The branch is also rewriting the posted draft Order 8900.1 guidance. This rewrite will mainly address editorial suggestions received during the comment period and the essentials of the draft guidance should remain unchanged.

[11/2/2011 Davis] Bob Davis, AFS-260 commented: Order 6750.24D Instrument Landing System and Ancillary Electronic Component Configuration and Performance Requirements, governs the light requirements. Currently, if the entire ALSF approach light system is out, Cat II and Cat III approaches are not allowed, even though Cat I approaches, for which the lights are more critical, may still be flown, albeit with increased minimums. The Order is being revised. [ed: latest edition Order 6750.24E] “Send in those cards and letters.”

201001             C060 Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations   (page 5 of 9)

                Part 129 C060     Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

Notes:

[11/2/2011 Kuhar] Steve requested that the process for approving foreign Cat II and Cat III ILS approaches be streamlined, or at least de-conflicted so that multiple carriers are not submitting approval packages for the same approaches. In this regard, Bob Davis mentioned that the applicable FAA Order 8400.13D Procedures for the Evaluation and Approval of Facilities for Special Authorization Category I Operations and All Category II and III Operations, is being revised and comments are solicited. Bryan Miles, Emirates, suggested that any new European Cat II or Cat III approach be automatically approved. [ed: The on-going NavLean Instrument Flight Procedures project accomplishes this “bundling” of similar specifications.]

[11/2/2011 Hope] Chris discussed the need for European harmonization. Additionally, Canada just recently (April, 2011) expanded their “Approach Ban” to mandate that ALL three runway transmissometer reports be no lower than the published minimums. Chris tried to put this proposed clarification limitation found in a note to paragraph C060d.(1) in perspective: “…TDZ/Mid/Rollout RVR reports must be no lower than the approach chart minima to conduct any Cat III operation.” Chris reiterated the fact that there are only five airports where runway visual range values less than RVR 600 can currently be used: ATL, DEN, MEM, SEA, and SLC.

[11/2/2011 Welch] Bryant and Mike Frank, AFS-52, will coordinate Part 129 C060 language. When made available, Bryan Miles, Emirates, will review for the international industry.

[1/19/2012 Welch] When changes to OpSpec C060 template and associated Order 8900.1 guidance were initially proposed in August, 2011, carriers focused on changes to transmissometer reporting requirements, specifically, the OpSpec paragraph d.(1) replacement of the rollout advisory report with a specified minimum RVR, and the specific prohibition against using lower mid-field and rollout reports other than published chart minimums. For example, aircraft with rollout systems were previously authorized to use TDZ/Mid/Rollout reports as low as 600/400/Advisory. Some carriers applied that authorization to airports with published RVR 600 minimums. Current Order 8900.1 guidance and the revised C060 template specifically restricts certificate holders from initiating an approach when any of the required reports are below published minimums.

(continued on next page)

201001             C060 Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations   (page 6 of 9)

                Part 129 C060     Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

Notes:

[1/19/2012 Welch] When carriers got around to analyzing the other changes to the draft guidance and OpSpec verbiage there arose some concerns about changes made to the old paragraph b verbiage: “Required Field Length and Special Operational Equipment and Limitations. The certificate holder shall not begin the final approach segment of a Cat III instrument approach unless the runway field length requirements, and the special operational equipment (installed and operational) and limitations listed or referenced in Table 1 are met.

(1) The required field length is established by multiplying these factors by the runway field required by the provisions of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) §121.195(b).

(2) For operations with a controlling runway visual range (RVR) at or above 600 feet the required field length is 1.15 times the field length.

(3) For operations with an RVR below 600 feet, the required field length is either 1.15 or 1.3 times the field length required by the regulations cited in b.(1) above, depending on the operational procedures and/or additional equipment used by the operator.”

The revised verbiage combined the previous three subparagraphs into two and removed the 1.3 “worst case” multiplier in the new subparagraph c.(1):

“The required field length shall be at least 115 percent of the runway field length required by 121.195(b)”

The revised subparagraph c.(2) listed considerations in determining landing distances that included: “the runway to be used, runway conditions, weather, AFM limitations, operational procedures and aircraft equipment status at the time of landing.” The template wording and the initial Order 8900.1 guidance raised industry concerns about the inclusion of “runway conditions” and the reference to Safety Alerts for Operators (SAFO) 06012 Landing Performance Assessments at Time of Arrival (Turbojets). Concerns were also raised about the subparagraph c.(1) retention of reference to 14 CFR §121.195(b), which covers landing performance assessments at time of dispatch. The specific trepidation was the combination of the subparagraph c.(2) emphasis on runway conditions on arrival different than forecast at the time of dispatch, and the reference to a dispatch 14 CFR passage might imply that PICs would be required to coordinate with dispatch for procurement of updated landing performance calculations.

(continued on next page)

201001             C060 Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations   (page 7 of 9)

                Part 129 C060     Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

Notes:

[1/19/2012 Welch] Draft Order 8900.1 Volume 3 General Technical Administration, Chapter 18 Operations Specifications, Section 5 Part C Operations Specifications—Airplane Terminal Instrument Procedures and Airport Authorizations and Limitations, Paragraph 3-871 OpSpec C060 Sub-paragraph D Runway Field Length Requirements (August 2011):

(1) The aircraft shall not begin the Final Approach Segment (FAS) of the Cat III approach unless the runway field length requirements have been evaluated and the minimum required runway length is available.

(2) For all Cat III operations, the required field length is at least 1.15 times the field length required by:

·   Part 91K §91.1037(b) and the AFM,

·   Part 121 §121.195(b),

·   The AFM for parts 91 and 125, or

·   Part 135 §135.385(b).

(3) The required field length must be determined considering the runway in use, runway conditions, current weather, AFM limitations, operational procedures, and aircraft equipment status at the time of landing. Acceptable criteria for the determination of the required field length can be found in Safety Alerts for Operators (SAFO) 06012 Landing Performance Assessments at Time of Arrival (Turbojets).

(4) The “Special Operational Equipment and Limitations” column in Table 1 (see Figure 3-67F) is provided for equipment that is in addition to that required by 14 CFR and not included in the AFM. For example, additional equipment may be required to meet the field length requirement where “procedural” means alone is not acceptable.

Coby Johnson, AFS-410 Branch Manager, agreed to change the draft language to specifically state that pilots are not required to obtain revised landing performance calculations from dispatch, and would consider changing the runway conditions verbiage. The intent is for crew calculations, not dispatch reassessment. There was no intention to compel radical changes to current carrier procedures. Coby emphasized that the reason for adding runway conditions is that unlike Cat I approaches, Cat III ILS procedures include a rollout component which, ideally, should terminate on a runway surface. Coby asked that any revised wording be reviewed quickly (No more than two weeks from proposal posting) so that the guidance and template can be expedited.

(continued on next page)

201001             C060 Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations   (page 8 of 9)

                Part 129 C060     Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

Notes:

[1/19/2012 Welch] Monty Montgomery, United Airlines, made a general comment about the Cat III ILS approach plate minimum blocks. The inclusion of separate Cat A and C minimums is wasted space. Coby Johnson mentioned that plate design is a complex issue and Europe’s harmonization factors enter in. Several FAA officials suggested that this is an issue more appropriately addressed by the Charting Forum or the CNS group.

[3/21/2012 Davis] Notice 8900.182 OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C060 Category (CAT) III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations effective March 21, 2012. The primary audience for this notice is FAA CHDOs and POIs assigned to operators conducting airplane operations under parts 91, 91K, 121, 125 (including the LODA 125M operators), and 135.

[4/18/2012 Davis] Meeting notes are missing.

[7/18/2012 Davis] Meeting notes are missing.

[10/17/2012 Welch] Bryant presented a preview of proposed changes to the draft OpSpec and 14 CFR part 121 to date. The definition of Cat IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc will be removed from the regulation. The FAA will continue to use the same definitions, however they will not be defined in 14 CFR. In the future, expect the NOS Charts to depict only one minima for Cat III. 

[2/6/2013 Kane] Meeting notes are missing.

[5/8/2013 Welch] Bryant reviewed the draft OpSpec. There were no industry comments on the Cat III single engine inoperative table.

[8/7/2013 Kane] Meeting notes are missing.

[8/30/2013 Kane] Notice 8900.235 OpSpec C060 Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations, published.

[2/5/2014 Welch] AFS-410 together with AFS-50 continued template processing, expecting to have the template out by next joint session. Question from the floor referencing 0 foot AGL DH on a foreign air carrier’s authorization and what could be entered in OpSpecs? “0” DH is listed by some operators (as is apparently done in Europe), but should be 50 foot, 100 foot, 200 foot, or whatever altitude is demonstrated.

[6/11/2014 Kane] No meeting notes entered.

[10/8/2014 Kane] No meeting notes entered.

(continued on next page)

 

201001             C060 Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations   (page 9 of 9)

                Part 129 C060     Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

Notes:

[2/10/2015 Welch] Regarding the effort to combine paragraphs C059 and C060, AFS-400 has completed 50% of the work. A draft document will be presented to the March 2015 OSWG.

[3/18/2015 Welch] Noting a number of aircraft in Alaska capturing an errant localizer signal due to magnetic variation, Bryant introduced John Swigart, AFS-408. who gave the OSWG a briefing on magvar and how it affects ILS precision approaches. The C059/C060 OpSpec merging project will address magnetic variation.

[3/18/2015 Welch] Bryant presented draft OpSpec C0xx Category II/III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations, combining current paragraphs C059 and C060. With one minor exception, the intent is not to change policy. The simplified language should provide more clarity. The draft will be posted on several public websites, including the Aviation Safety Draft Documents Open for Comment and the A4A OSWG website. Bryant encouraged OSWG members to comment.

 

201002                Part 129 B034                                                          IFR Class I Terminal and En Route Navigation                           (page 1 of 3)

                                                        Using RNAV Systems

                                        Part 129 B035 IFR Class I Navigation in the U.S. Class A Airspace

                                  Using Area or Long-Range Navigation Systems   

Initial Agenda Date:  November 3, 2010                  Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Trent Bigler, AFS 470, 202 267-8844, trent.bigler@faa.gov

                     Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-52, 202 385-6186, danuta.pronczuk@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Captain Harold Cardona, Avianca-Taca, 571 595-3961 Ext 3074          

                           harold.cardona@aviancataca.com

Issue Statement: Part 129 OpSpec B034 does not apply to foreign air carrier operations and should be decommissioned. Part 129 OpSpec B035 needs further review. Should Gulf of Mexico Q Routes be identified?

Background: Part 129 OpSpec B034 is designed for U.S. air carriers operating in Europe. RNAV below 18,000 feet MSL and the identification of the Gulf of Mexico Q Routes is not addressed in B035.

Intended Outcome: Revise Part 129 OpSpec B035 and decommission Part 129 OpSpec B034.

Notes:

[11/3/2010 Pronczuk] International OSWG new business.

[4/20/2011 Pronczuk] Meeting notes are missing.

[11/2/2011 Frank] Under further review.

[11/2/2011 Frank] B034 does not apply to part 129, needs to be decommissioned. B035 needs further review.

[4/18/2012 Frank] B035 was amended to incorporate RNAV below 18,000 feet MSL, and rewritten using plain language.

[10/17/2012 Frank] Draft in process that will decommission B035 and possibly B034, incorporating the limitations into OpSpec A003.

[10/17/2012 Frank] Q-Route identification in B035 is undergoing review. Any changes would affect a revision of Part 129 D092 Maintenance Program Authorization for Airplanes Used for Operations in Designated Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) Airspace [ed: subsequently re-numbered D108]. Draft B035 is not ready for public comment.

[5/8/2013 Frank] Draft B035 is not ready for public comment.

(continued on next page)

 

201002                Part 129 B034                                                          IFR Class I Terminal and En Route Navigation                           (page 2 of 3)

                                                        Using RNAV Systems

                                        Part 129 B035 IFR Class I Navigation in the U.S. Class A Airspace

                                  Using Area or Long-Range Navigation Systems   

Notes:

[2/5/2014 Pronczuk] Trent Bigler, AFS-470, was recently assigned FAA lead for this project. He confirmed that Q-Routes would need to be identified in B035: Expect an additional column.  FAA is also working on harmonizing AC 90-105 Approval Guidance for RNP Operations and Barometric Vertical Navigation in the U.S. National Airspace System, internationally with the ICAO Doc 9613 PBN Manual. The FAA approves U.S. domestic operators for RNP operations and barometric vertical navigation in the U.S. National Airspace System in accordance with the Advisory Circular. To assure maximum harmonization and equivalent to what other States are doing, the FAA invites comments/input from foreign air carriers.

[2/5/2014 Bigler] AFS-400 has initiated discussions with AFS-50 on what amendments to part 129 OpSpecs will be required with RNP 2 in U.S. airspace and Advanced RNP functions. Advanced RNP requires specific avionics box capabilities: scalability, radius to fix (RFs), and parallel offset. For the international community, in addition to B035, this would also affect C052 Straight-In Non-Precision, APV, and Category I Precision Approach and Landing Minima—All Airports, and C063 Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Terminal Operations.

[2/5/2014 Bigler] Brian Miles, International Industry Chairman, asked if the FAA could add some automatic functionality for the most advanced technology. If a foreign operator is authorized C384 Required Navigation Performance Procedures with Authorization Required, they receive authorization for everything and do not have to apply separately for less advanced OpSpecs. Trent confirmed that is a worthy goal. [ed: The on-going NavLean Instrument Flight Procedures project accomplishes this “bundling” of similar specifications.]

[3/18/2015 Pronczuk] AFS-50 and -400 have drafted a Notice to decommission all OpSpec B034 templates and amend OpSpec B035 for part 129. The paragraph has been renamed and a selectable dropdown menu for Q-routes has been added. The Notice, draft paragraph template, and associated guidance are posted on the AFS Foreign OpSpecs Draft Documents Open for Comment website. (reference document title Appendix A. OpSpec Paragraph B035, Class I Navigation en route in United States (U.S.) Airspace Using Area or Long-Range Navigation Systems: 14 CFR Part 129) OSWG members are encouraged to submit comment. The comment period closes on June 1, 2015.

(continued on next page)

 

201002                Part 129 B034                                                          IFR Class I Terminal and En Route Navigation                           (page 3 of 3)

                                                        Using RNAV Systems

                                        Part 129 B035 IFR Class I Navigation in the U.S. Class A Airspace

                                  Using Area or Long-Range Navigation Systems   

Notes:

[4/2/2015 Pronczuk] Industry inquired if the FAA could provide general guidelines or provide a source for equipment accuracy criteria for Q routes in the Gulf of Mexico? AFS-400 replied: Information regarding operations on Q-routes in the Gulf of Mexico, including equipment eligibility requirements, can be found in the 5 March 2015 edition of the Notices to Airmen Publication (NTAP), pages 3-INTL-63 through 3-INTL-65.

 

201006             Part 129 B031   VFR and IFR En Route Limitations and Provisions  (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date:  November 2, 2010                  Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-52, 202 267-0923, danuta.pronczuk@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Jorge Londono, Tampa Cargo S.A.

Issue Statement: The VFR and IFR requirements are mixed and give the incorrect impression to those who are authorized VFR only, are also authorized for IFR en route.

Background:

Intended Outcome: Either revise the current paragraph or incorporate the limitations into Part 129 A003, Aircraft Authorized for Operations to the United States.

Notes:

[11/2/2011 Pronczuk] International OSWG new business.

[11/2/2011 Pronczuk] Danuta reviewed the issue and presented choices available; incorporation into A003 and decommissioning B031, or requiring a mandatory amendment to B031.

[4/18/2012 Pronczuk] Danuta briefed the draft change, incorporating B031 into A003; deleting six references to other OpSpecs (which helps to understand the limitations more readily), and eliminating the VFR issue. OpSpec Part 129 A014 Special En route Operations in Class G U.S. Airspace, would also be decommissioned, and a subsequent limitation added to subparagraph A003b when a foreign air carrier is not authorized to operate IFR en route in class G (uncontrolled) airspace. The new text is still being finalized and expected to post for comment in the next couple of months.

[10/17/2012 Pronczuk] Meetings with the chief counsel have been initiated. Danuta expects to finalize the draft in the next couple of months.

[8/7/2013 Pronczuk] Incorporation of C080, B031 and A014 has been delayed until the B039 and B046, D092, A003 revision is processed. Reason—Too many changes which pose a danger of missing something (reference issues 201103 Part 129 C039, 201104 Part 129 C046, and 201105 Part 129 D092).

[2/5/2014 Pronczuk] Part 129 A003 will be revised, Part 129 B039 and B046 will be decommissioned, and Part 129 D108 will be published. We can proceed with drafting B031. Expect more details at the next OSWG.

[8/29/2014 Pronczuk] Part 129 B039 and B046 have been decommissioned and D108 has been published. [ed: Reference Notice 8900.254 OpSpecs A003, B039, B046, D092, and D108 for Part 129 effective February 11, 2014.]

(continued on the next page)

201006             Part 129 B031   VFR and IFR En Route Limitations and Provisions  (page 2 of 2)

Notes:

[3/18/2015 Pronczuk] OpSpec B031 has been incorporated into Part 129 A003. A Notice, draft paragraph template, and associated guidance are posted on the AFS Foreign OpSpecs Draft Documents Open for Comment website. (reference document title OpSpec A0003, Aircraft Authorized for Operations to the United States: 14 CFR Part 129) OSWG members are encouraged to submit comment. The comment period closes on June 1, 2015.

  

201011                                                                                                          C078/C079 IFR Lower Than Standard Takeoff Minimums—All Airports

          Part 129 C056 IFR Takeoff Minimums—Airplanes   (page 1 of 5)

Initial Agenda Date: April 21, 2010                         Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Bryant Welch, AFS-410, 202 267-8981, bryant.welch@faa.gov

                     Chris Hope, AFS-410, 202 267-8976, chris.hope@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Chuck Schramek, Delta Airlines, 404 715-1536, chuck.schramek@delta.com

                           Bryan Miles, Emirates, 971 4 708 4264, bmiles@emirates.com

Issue Statement: Delete the requirement for using a Head-Up Display (HUD) for lower than standard takeoff minimums RVR 400/400/400.

Background: EASA and ICAO both have provisions for RVR 400/400/400 (125 meters) takeoff without a HUD. [ed: This issue was generated by previous International OSWG discussions regarding Part 129 OpSpec C056 IFR Takeoff Minimums—Airplanes. For programming purposes in WebOPSS, lower-than-standard takeoff minimums were removed from part 121 OpSpec C056 and part 135 OpSpec C057, and moved to new paragraphs C078/C079.]

Intended Outcome: Revise lower than standard takeoff minimums for both part 121 and part 135 operations.

Notes:

[4/21/2010 Pronczuk] International OSWG new business. [ed: Revise Part 129 OpSpec C056 and decommission Part 129 OpSpec C057]

[11/3/2010 Pronczuk] Continuing to research applicable Standards for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) found in FAA orders and 14 CFR regulations: §97.20(a), Order 8260.3, and §91.177.

[4/20/2011 Pronczuk] Meeting notes are missing.

[11/2/2011 Pronczuk] Questions from the OSWG:

·   Is it takeoff run or should it be takeoff roll?

·   Do the visible centerline lights extend for the entire runway length? 

·   Operative runway edge lights at night for the 1000/1000/1000, InFO 07009 recommends them, should the OpSpec as well?

·   Is it certificated seats or actual?

·   The small aircraft, 100 hour PIC requirement was questioned.

(continued on next page)

 

201011                                                                                                          C078/C079 IFR Lower Than Standard Takeoff Minimums—All Airports

          Part 129 C056 IFR Takeoff Minimums—Airplanes   (page 2 of 5)

Notes:

[4/18/2012 Pronczuk] AFS-50, International Programs and Policy and AFS-400, Flight Technologies and Procedures have reviewed the issues brought forth at the November 2011 meeting. Answers:

·   Is it takeoff run or should it be takeoff roll? Takeoff roll.

·   Do the visible centerline lights extend for the entire runway length? The pilot needs to see enough centerline lights to maintain centerline for the required runway length for the aircraft (the greater of accelerate-stop or accelerate-go and normal takeoff to 35 feet).

·   Operative runway edge lights at night for the 1000/1000/1000, InFO 07009 recommends them, should the OpSpec as well? Changed to serviceable HIRL or CL (current OpSpecs uses the term “operative”). Reason: HIRL could be operational but not at the required level of see them—Airports use the not-serviceable terminology. (It was noted that if the lights were NOTAMed, the terminology used would be “not-in-service”. A request was made to defice “serviceable” in 8900.1 guidance and through a job-aid.

·   Is it certificated seats or actual? Certificated seats.

·   The small aircraft, 100-hour PIC requirement was questioned. Delete the 100-hour PIC requirement.

[4/18/2012 Pronczuk] An updated draft Part 129 OpSpec C056 was posted for public comment. Comments are due by July 11, 2012. AFS-50 and AFS-410 are still looking at adding RVR 300/300/300.

[10/17/2012 Miles] Chris Hope, AFS-410, reviewed the OpSpec changes: new minima, terminology, etc. since last meeting. RVR 300/300/300 with HUD was added (same limitations as those imposed on U.S. domestic air carriers). Inspector guidance has been pre-coordinated between AFS-50 and AFS-400. John Conlon, British Airways, also reviewed the revised draft and it looked good from the industry perspective. Look for the updated draft to be posted for comment in the next couple of weeks.

[5/8/2013 Pronczuk] Meeting notes are missing.

[7/9/2013 Welch] Notice 8900.224 published. Added 500/500/500 and 300/300/300 tables with glance view of lowest authorized by type.

[8/7/2013 Welch] Since last meeting one additional selectable was added within the table: 700/700/700. (200 meters = 700 feet).

(continued on next page)

 

201011                                                                                                          C078/C079 IFR Lower Than Standard Takeoff Minimums—All Airports

          Part 129 C056 IFR Takeoff Minimums—Airplanes   (page 3 of 5)

Notes:

[8/7/2013 Miles] Chuck Schramek, Domestic Industry Chairman, asked if the FAA permits foreign air carriers to takeoff with 400/400/400 without a HUD, will the domestic industry be permitted as well. Bryant confirmed yes. More details expected at the next OSWG.

[8/7/2013 Miles] Post 2013 OSWG update: The 2009 job aid that no longer applies has been removed and the new job aid and help text in subparagraph d (the references within it) has been corrected.

[2/5/2014 Newcomer] EASA confirmed that establishment of lower take-off minima was based on a simulator study performed on a KLM B747. Bryant advised that the FAA has requested a copy of the study and is still waiting. Without a copy of the study the only way the FAA would consider the proposal would be to conduct its own simulator study. For the FAA to consider conducting its own study there would have to be proof of a need. U.S. and foreign air carriers who feel that there is such a need are requested to track to which airports and how many takeoffs at those airports they could not do because the weather was less than RVR 500. This analysis should be completed prior to the next joint session (scheduled for March, 2015). Bryan Miles, International OSWG industry chair, commented that EASA only authorized Category A, B, C, for 400 takeoff without HUD. Bryant commented that this will be easier to review once we have a copy of the study.

[2/5/2014 Newcomer] Post meeting addendum: Takeoff visibility is limited to 1sm for 2-engine aircraft (regulatory reference §91.175(f)). Question to FAA: Can the visibility restriction be reduced to ½sm if the foreign CAA authorizes? Question to industry: How many commercial operators operate with one engine? Is there a need? What are the mitigations? (New technology/more reliable engines….)

[6/10/2014 Welch] Should say “400 without HUD for everybody”, but only if EASA test is found and accepted by the FAA. So far we have nothing from EASA. This should probably be closed and only reopened if test data found.

[10/8/2014 Welch] The EASA study was obtained and the issue remains open. Reference the April 1986 Flight Simulator Experiments Concerning Takeoff Visibility Minima.

(continued on next page)

 

201011                                                                                                          C078/C079 IFR Lower Than Standard Takeoff Minimums—All Airports

          Part 129 C056 IFR Takeoff Minimums—Airplanes   (page 4 of 5)

Notes:

[12/2/2014 Hope] The FAA has made an administrative update to clarify the guidance for HUD takeoffs down to RVR 300. The new language reads:

(c) Front course guidance must be displayed from a localizer that provides CAT III rollout guidance as indicated by a III/E/4 facility classification and landing minima of RVR 300. If the CAT III landing minima is greater than RVR 300 due to a localizer downgrade, these takeoffs are not authorized.

The last sentence was added to explain how a “III/E/4 facility classification” affects an ILS approach.

[2/10/2015 Welch] The request to clarify guidance for HUD takeoff down to RVR 300 came from the international carriers, specifically Canadian operators authorized by their CAA.

[2/10/2015 Welch] Question from the International OSWG: Will the FAA decrease a foreign carriers takeoff visibility to ½ SM if the foreign CAA authorizes? Reference 14 CFR part 91.175:

(f)  Civil airport takeoff minimums. This paragraph applies to persons operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this chapter.

(1)  Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, no pilot may takeoff from a civil airport under IFR unless the weather conditions at time of takeoff are at or above the weather minimums for IFR takeoff prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter.

(2)  If takeoff weather minimums are not prescribed under part 97 of this chapter for a particular airport, the following weather minimums apply to takeoffs under IFR:

(i)   For aircraft, other than helicopters, having two engines or less—1 statute mile visibility.

This is another issue requiring additional data to support an authorization. No changes can be made without the concurrence of Flight Standards Certification.

[2/10/2015 Welch] Regarding provisions for 400/400/400 takeoff without a HUD, the FAA has no more persuasive data than it did before. No domestic operators are requesting these standards. AFS-400 requests to close the issue.

(continued on next page)

 

201011                                                                                                          C078/C079 IFR Lower Than Standard Takeoff Minimums—All Airports

          Part 129 C056 IFR Takeoff Minimums—Airplanes   (page 5 of 5)

Notes:

[3/18/2015 Welch] Issue will remain open. Regarding HUD guided takeoffs, Bryant mentioned the requirement for an 3E4 localizer signal: Essentially a localizer capable of supporting an RVR 300 CAT III landing. Bryant noted that it was easier to clarify in an OpSpec. When asked about a NOTAM outage, Bryant informed the group that it only applies to 300 RVR HUD takeoff systems.

[7/23/2013 Hope] In a post-OSWG meeting email, Chris Hope, AFS-410, requests to close the issue; there is nothing more to add to the discussion. The visual takeoff limit will remain RVR 500. The domestic issue will remain on the agenda for a chairman’s decision to close at the November 2015 meeting. The international issue will remain open until the March 2016 meeting.

 

201101             Part 129 A028 Aircraft Wet Lease Arrangements

Initial Agenda Date: November 2, 2011                   Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-52, 202 267-0923, danuta.pronczuk@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Bryan Miles, Emirates Airlines, 9 714 708-4264, bmiles@emirates.com

Issue Statement: Primary operator terminology in a wet lease arrangement and an aircraft interchange agreement is the same yet with different meaning.

Background: Operational control and maintenance control does not change based on who is operating the aircraft in a wet lease arrangement. For an aircraft interchange agreement, the operational control shifts with the operator who is operating the aircraft.

Intended Outcome: Replace the term “airworthiness” with “maintenance”.

Notes:

[11/2/2011 Pronczuk] Danuta reviewed the draft template changes and took questions.

[4/18/2012] Replaced “airworthiness” with” maintenance” and posted the updated draft for public comment.

[10/17/2012 Pronczuk] The draft has been pulled from public comment. A revision to A028 is on hold until changes to Part 129 OpSpec A029 Aircraft Interchange Agreements, have been incorporated, and the provision for aircraft with crew guidance is published to prevent any confusion in inspector guidance, specifically version control. No adverse comments on the draft OpSpec were posted for comment.

[5/8/2013 Pronczuk] The A029 provision for aircraft with crew guidance has been issued. Work continues on changes to A028.

[2/5/2014 Pronczuk] The A028 revision is on hold pending other priorities.

[3/18/2015 Pronczuk] The revision remains on hold.

 

201107             Part 129 A003 Aircraft Authorization for Operations to the United States (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date:  November 2, 2011                  Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Madison Walton, AFS-470, 202-267-8850, madison.walton@faa.gov

                     Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-52, 202 267-0923, danuta.pronczuk@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Bryan Miles, Emirates Airlines, 9 714 708-4264, bmiles@emirates.com

Issue Statement: Decommissioning Part 129 OpSpecs B046 and B039 and changes to Part 129 OpSpecs D092 and B031 will require a revision to Part 129 OpSpec A003.

Background: Reference OSWG issues 201103 Part 129 C039, 201104 Part 129 C046, 201105 Part 129 D092 and 201006 Part 129 B031. The last update to Part 129 OpSpec A003 was in 2005.

Intended Outcome: The decommissioning of Part 129 OpSpecs B046, B039 and possible A014 and B031 requires a mandatory revision to A003 and D-92 [ed: Part 129 OpSpec D092 was re-numbered D108].

Notes:

[11/2/2011 Pronczuk] International OSWG new business.

[4/18/2012 Pronczuk] Meeting notes are missing.

[10/17/2012 Pronczuk] Danuta presented a draft for incorporating Part 129 OpSpecs A014, B031 and C080. After an analysis by the FAA Office of Chief Counsel and AFS-400, the document will be made available for OSWG review at the next meeting. The proposed draft will eliminate a significant number of cross-referencing between OpSpecs, clarify the limitations to IFR and VFR en-route, and correct issues with B031 (reference OSWG issue 201006 Part 129 B031).

[5/8/2013 Pronczuk] Incorporation of C080, B031 and A014 has been delayed until the B039 and B046, D092, A003 revision is processed. Reason—Too many changes which pose a danger of missing something (reference OSWG issues 201103 Part 129 C039, 201104 Part 129 C046, and 201105 Part 129 D092).

[2/5/2014 Pronczuk] Parcel to ancillary discussions regarding OpSpecs B039, B046, B031, and D092 [ed: D108].

[2/5/2014 Miles] The speed of processing aircraft additions to A003 is a problem for some foreign air carriers. It was requested that the FAA review its processes to see if the addition of same M/M/S can be revised so that such request can be processed faster. Danuta advised that differences in processing speed from one office to another are influenced by many factors to include workload, a tight budget, and resources. The issue has been brought to the attention of AFS-1, John Allen.

(continued on the next page)

201107             Part 129 A003 Aircraft Authorization for Operations to the United States (page 2 of 2)

Notes:

[3/18/2015 Pronczuk] Danuta reviewed changes since the last OSWG meeting; specifically, the addition of a ground deicing program column to the OpSpec table and guidance relating thereto (operator responsibility for communicating to the contractor how to de-ice the aircraft etc.), the decommissioning of OpSpec A023 and A014, and a reorganization of the limitations in a logical, question-and-answer, flow. The job aid was also fine-tuned to provide operators oriented in WebOPSS a more detailed aid when making amendments to A003. A Notice, draft paragraph template, and associated guidance are posted on the AFS Foreign OpSpecs Draft Documents Open for Comment website. (reference document title OpSpec A0003, Aircraft Authorized for Operations to the United States: 14 CFR Part 129) OSWG members are encouraged to submit comment. The comment period closes on June 1, 2015.

[3/18/2015 Pronczuk] A request from the floor was made to the FAA to consider permitting certificate holders to start operating new aircraft of the same M/M/S into the U.S. by issuing a conditional approval—Industry loses revenue when a new aircraft sits on the ground. Danuta advised the OSWG that it goes back to forecasting; making sure the operator is using all tools available to them (fluid use of WebOPSS), and giving their responsible FAA oversite office a heads-up of plans to add new aircraft. International Industry Chairman Michael Barfoot advised the floor that Air Canada has been able to turn around their request for adding new aircraft of the same M/M/S to their A003 OpSpec within 24hrs by working closely with their responsible IFO. In order to review a proposal for “conditional approval”, industry would need to make/provide the FAA with a written safety argument and how this would be in the public interest. Michael took the IOU to work with newly elected International Industry Vice Chairman, Jerome Hecq, to work on a written proposal.

[3/18/2015 Pronczuk] In a follow up question, industry inquired about the plethora of documentation required for an aircraft not listed in OpSpecs to be ferried outside U.S. airspace. Danuta replied that there is a difference between ferrying an aircraft without passengers and operating an aircraft in commercial service with passengers. Dave Krueger, DFW IFO POI, added: Any new airplane would need to undergo a conformity check before being placed into commercial service. (In reference to the question of revenue loss due to delayed paperwork, with advanced planning by the operator, the DFW IFO is able to quickly process new aircraft conformity checks.) FAA Inspectors in the room advised that some aircraft ferried from the U.S. are old and/or have sat in the desert for a long time. To bring them into conformity and ensure they are safe for placement into commercial passenger service takes time. Before a foreign certificate holder is authorized to use an aircraft any intended purpose in U.S. airspace, the FAA must make sure the aircraft meets minimum ICAO Annex 8 airworthiness requirements and the airworthiness and registration certificates are for the same aircraft.

 

201110                                                                      C055 Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums (page 1 of 3) (awaiting publication)

Initial Agenda Date: August 2, 2011                        Date Closed:

FAA Lead: Cathy Graham, AFS-470, 202 267-8842, catherine.m.graham@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Jim Winkelman, Alaska Airlines, 206 392-6347, jim.winkelman@alaskaair.com

Issue Statement: Confirmation that this applies to all alternates or limited to destination alternates.

Background: Some carriers interpret AC 120-42B Extended Operations (ETOPS and Polar Operations) paragraph 303.C.(5) to mean that Ops Spec C052 authorization for RNAV/GPS approaches constitutes authorization for use of the provision in that paragraph for use of GPS based en-route alternate minimums:

303.C.(5) ETOPS Alternate Minima. A particular airport may be considered to be an ETOPS alternate for flight planning and dispatch purposes, if the latest available forecast weather conditions from the earliest time of landing to the latest time of landing at that airport, equals or exceeds the criteria detailed in the following table. Because OpSpecs alternate weather minima standards apply to all alternates, the following criteria is recommended for a typical certificate holder’s OpSpecs. An individual certificate holder’s OpSpecs must reflect current requirements (§121.625). Although no consideration for the use of GPS/RNAV approaches is presented here, operators may request to receive this authorization through the FAA. This authorization would be reflected in the operator’s OpSpecs. Appropriate ETOPS alternate minima for such operations will be determined by the Director, Flight Standards Service. The airport of departure (takeoff) and the destination airport (unless used concurrently as an ETOPS alternate) are not required to meet the weather minima for ETOPS alternates as these airports are subject to other regulations (e.g., §§ 121.617, 121.621, and 121.623).

OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C055, Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums was published to authorize certificate holders/program managers/operators to derive alternate airport instrument flight rules (IFR) weather minimums in those cases that require an alternate airport. Notice N8900.218 Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums (5/30/13) describes changes that allow operators with unaugmented Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation systems to plan for use of GPS-based instrument approach procedures (IAP) at destination or alternate airports (but not both locations) in the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS).

(continued on next page)

 

201110                                                                      C055 Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums (page 2 of 3) (awaiting publication)

Background (continued): Currently, selectable text is being added to C055 in order to allow part 121 and 135 operators to file for GPS based IAP at an ETOPS alternate, under certain conditions.  Until publication of this change, operators may request the use of GPS-based IAP minima at ETOPS alternate airports through non-standard text. Applications for this temporary non-standard text should be made to AFS-200 through the guidance contained in FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 18, Section 2, paragraphs 3-712 and 3-713.

Intended Outcome: Allowance for use of RNAV/GPS approach minima at en-route alternate airports.

Notes:

[8/2/2011 Davis] New business.

[10/16/2012 Davis] Previous meeting notes are missing.

[10/16/2012 Seabright] Steve Moates, AFS 220, and John Swigart, AFS-470 stated that those carriers who interpreted AC 120-42B as allowing Ops Spec C052 issuance as blanket authorization to use RNAV/GPS approach minimums for ETOPS en-route alternate suitability is wrong—Special, specific HQ FAA approval, is required. Such approval will likely not be entertained until the larger issues which are subject to the ongoing MITRE Corporation study, are resolved.

John related that there are GPS satellite coverage issues in various parts of the world such as the Pacific and South America that make a blanket allowance for worldwide RNAV/GPS approach minimums utilization without limitations and special provisions an imprudent course of action.

John further stated, if a carrier could make a case for a special allowance, such as Continental did for its Micronesian Island operations, then some relief may be possible. In such cases, RAIM predictions and close monitoring of inflight performance would be expected.

[2/5/2013 Kane] Meeting notes are missing.

[5/7/2013 Kane] Meeting notes are missing.

[8/6/2013 Schramek] RNAV GPS approaches are not to be used for an ETOPS alternate unless non-standard language is added to C055. A Notice will be published for the procedures to obtain the non-standard language. This will be used until the template can be revised.

[2/5/2014 Newcomer] Should have received a memo from AFS-400 for ETOPS alternates.

[2/5/2014 Newcomer] 700 meters may be used in lieu of 800 meters.

[6/10/2014 Kane] No meeting notes entered.

(continued on next page)

201110                                                                      C055 Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums (page 3 of 3) (awaiting publication)

Notes:

[9/4/2014 Graham] Updating the template to add selectable text to allow part 121/135 operators to file for a GPS based IAP at an ETOPS alternate is awaiting publication of a change to guidance and a Notice.

[10/8/2014 Kane] Notice and 8900.1 guidance awaiting signature for formal coordination.

[3/17/2015 Bigler] FAA lead Cathy Graham was unavailable for brief. Trent Bigler, AFS-470, filled in. The issue has been removed from awaiting publication. The FAA has decided to revise and clean-up the paragraph and supporting documentation. Inspector guidance is being clarified and updated based on lessons learned during the past year, including the use of newly coordinated ETOPS language. Amended guidance and templates have been drafted but are under structural revision.

[7/22/2015 Christianson] Cathy Graham was unavailable. ETOPS language has been added to C055. Based on comments, the paragraph underwent streamlining and a job-aid will be provided. The paragraph is currently moving through the FAA Document Control Board (DCB) and AFS-140. Operators may apply to AFS-220 today and receive ETOPS language to use RNAV for filing an alternate.

[11/4/2015 Bollin] Cathy was unavailable for comment; however, the revised template, Notice and 8900.1 guidance was vetted by the Document Control Board (DCB) in October and moved to AFS-140 for production and FAA formal coordination. Awaiting publication.

 

201201             EASA Third Country Operators (TCO) (page 1 of 6)

Initial Agenda Date: April 18, 2012             Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-52, 202 267-0923, danuta.pronczuk@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Bryan Miles, Emirates Airlines, 9 714 708-4264, bmiles@emirates.com     

Issue Statement: The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) intends to implement an assessment requirement for all Third Country Operators (TCO) performing commercial air transport operations (non-European Union member commercial air carriers): ie: United, Federal Express, UPS, Emirates, China Southern Airlines, ANA, Qantas, etc.

Background:

EASA has issues with current international assessment methodologies; USOAP is too limited in scope, and the IOSA program is restricted to assessment of individual airlines and does not address the soundness of the national civil aviation authority.

First promulgated in April, 2011, EASA proposes a single authorization for operations in the EU—a single assessment methodology (including a validation process that aims to verify the reliability of originally certified information).

The proposal is a preparatory process for eventual submission to the European Parliament for ratification towards the end of 2013 or early 2014. Prior to ratification, individual country national rules and ICAO rules apply. After implementation, if any aspect of operations is not covered by ICAO standards then EASA standards will apply. After ratification, there will need to be a period of harmonization with current bilateral agreements between EU and other non-EU countries. There may be some bilateral agreements between the EU and certain third countries (ie: the United States), with both parties agreeing to accept the others authorizations with no added assessments necessary.

The carrier assessment methodology is envisioned to be based on the perception of safety level and compliance fidelity based on the following EASA assessment criteria:

·   How capable is the State in pro-actively managing the aggregated risk of all its certified operators?

·   How much credible data is available to the EU from that State?

·   Does the EU have data that provides confidence that an operator is capable of operating in compliance with international standards?

·   What is the risk exposure to EU citizens by the intended scope of operations?

 (continued on the next page)

 

201201             EASA Third Country Operators (TCO) (page 2 of 6)

Background: (continued)

For most carriers and countries the assessment would be little more than a desktop review. The next more involved level is detailed consultation and audits. The most demanding assessment methodology would consist of on-site visits by inspection teams. There may be assessment fees involved with the initial application and renewal, (…flat fee estimated at $1500 euros for fast track review, or an hourly rate). There is provision in the EU law for charging fees for such assessments. There is also the possibility that the cost of these assessments will be borne by the EU taxpayers, no cost to the third country operator.

Ramp inspections will continue to be performed by national aviation officials but they should use EASA checklist criteria, and not country specific audit criteria. However there is no guarantee that individual countries will not use their own inspection criteria instead of using the EASA standards.

For additional information and follow-on, reference the EASA Third Country Operators (TCO) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) website.

Intended Outcome: Update/educate, clarify rulemaking changes, and answer questions relating to EASA third country operators.

Notes:

[4/18/2012 Miles] A question was asked of Arthur Beckland, a EASA Rulemaking Directorate Attorney, whether the rumor that EASA would be issuing pilot licenses is true. Mr. Beckland stated that it was not true.

[4/18/2012 Miles] Brian asked how much would the carrier certification fee be. The answer: No estimate. Brian also asked if an operator has a place of business in the EU, would that exclude the operator from the third country requirement. Arthur said that since it would not be the principle place of business, then no, the operator would still have to comply with the third country requirements.

[10/17/2012 Miles] Arthur Beckland, EASA Rulemaking Directorate, provided a Power Point Status Report Briefing.

[10/17/2012 Miles] Once the single authorization rule from EASA is published, operators would have to comply with the ICAO standard or in the absence thereof, with the EU standard (right now only ICAO standards would apply). This one authorization would include the 27 EU States and the 4 States included in the EASA family.

(continued on next page)

 

201201             EASA Third Country Operators (TCO) (page 3 of 6)

Notes:

[10/17/2012 Miles] 3rd country operators should submit an application for authorization within 6 months once the rule is entered into force. Initially, operators must continue to apply for an operating permit to Member States individually. In parallel, operators should submit the application to EASA as well. Once the rule is published, the national level authorization will be good for 30 months or until the Agency has issued the authorization, whichever comes sooner.  The reason for submitting the application to both EASA and at the National Level is to assure continuation of service. Upon receipt of the application, EASA will start its assessment process.  The assessment should be understood as a validation process aiming at verifying the reliability of the certificates issued by the overseeing State. Operators must continue to apply for traffic rights at the national level.

[10/17/2012 Miles] On-site audits will only be conducted for a banned operator (EU safety list), or when an enforcement measure has been taken. All other audits will be desk top.

[10/17/2012 Miles] An operator is usually on the EU safety list because of issues with the State and not the operator; therefore, audits may include on assessment of the oversight capabilities of the State and the State of Operator for an operator.

[10/17/2012 Miles] EASA might raise fees.

[10/17/2012 Miles] It is expected that the Agency will issue the opinion before the Christmas break. It will then enter the legislative process where it will be finalized by the European Commission assisted by Member States under parliamentary scrutiny.

[5/8/2013 Pronczuk] Edmund Bohland, EASA Head of Operators, provided an update from the July committee meeting in Brussels. No fees will be levied on third country operators. A proposal for a Commission Regulation on TCOs was adopted by the Member States and will undergo European Parliament and European Council scrutiny with a possible entry in force date of January 2014. Once in force, TCOs will need to make application within 6 months so as not to risk interruptions in service. Operators will still need to apply to individual States for traffic rights and provide insurance information. The authorization will be good for 32 States.  Operators will need to meet the requirements of ICAO Annex 1, 6, 8, 18 and 19. The operator is obligated to keep the information updated. Changing fleets from Airbus to Boeing is considered a change. Adding an aircraft of the same M/M/S only requires the operator to electronically update their information—No need to wait for confirmation from EASA before operating the new aircraft if same M/M/S. Application process is fully electronic, no paper. Edmund encouraged operators to sign up for updates right now so as to have timely notification of when EASA will be accepting this single TCO application. Operators do not need to apply if only overflying the 32 States. There are some exceptions for air ambulance and certain nonscheduled operations. See Edmond’s PowerPoint presentation for more details.

201201             EASA Third Country Operators (TCO) (page 4 of 6)

Notes:

[5/8/2013 Pronczuk] Once the ICAO registry of AOC’s (reference OSWG Issue 200929) is mature EASA will consider the ICAO data base.

[2/5/2014 Pronczuk] The entry into force date has moved from January to end of March, 2014.  The regulation arrived with delay in the Parliament (November, 2013) and will stay there until February, 2014. It then goes back to the European Commission and will enter into force on the 20th day after publication in the official journal.

[2/5/2014 Pronczuk] EASA is expected to participate in the NBAA Operations Conference in Tampa, Florida, March 20, 2014. The TCO process for the U.S. business aviation sector will be discussed with additional detail for non-scheduled operators (reference slide 19 from Edmund Bohland’s April, 2013 PowerPoint presentation). [ed: Post meeting feedback from EASA: Unfortunately this mission had to be cancelled. However we are in close contact with the NBAA communication services and will prepare some notices for the NBAA members including an article in the NBAA journal.]

[2/5/2014 Pronczuk] It is essential that air carriers apply to the Agency in the first 6 months following the entry into force so as not to risk interruption in service in the event the 30th month after entry into force passes and the application is not yet processed by EASA. No application is possible prior entry into force. Application forms will be available via the Agency website as of the day of entry into force. The software for uploading technical information will follow soon after. All operators are encouraged to sign up for automatic updates. Additional detail and links may be found in Edmund Bohland’s April, 2013 PowerPoint presentation. Please disregard the expected dates on slide 3 and use those briefed at this meeting—expected entry into force by the end of March, 2014.

[2/5/2014 Pronczuk] Question: Will EASA charge an application fee? No application fee will be charged.

[2/5/2014 Pronczuk] Question: What is expected to be contained in the application package?  Bryan Miles responded: The application package will consist of only what the State authorized in their AOC and associated Operations Specifications. [ed: Post meeting feedback from EASA: The application package is an online tool which will ask, via a questionnaire, for some basic information and has provisions to upload documents such as the AOC and the specifications as already issued by the State of Operator.]

(continued on next page)

 

201201             EASA Third Country Operators (TCO) (page 5 of 6)

Notes:

[2/5/2014 Pronczuk] Question: Why does industry have to provide this information to EASA if there is an ICAO registry of AOC—Why isn’t EASA using the ICAO registry of AOC? Bryan Miles responded that based on his discussions with EASA, this will be significantly less cumbersome then that required by the FAA. [ed: Post meeting feedback from EASA: It is indeed expected that in the vast majority of cases the process will be straight forward. In particular the specifications will be aligned with the ICAO format. However, the information in the ICAO registry will not compensate for the evaluation as required by the TCO regulation.]

[2/5/2014 Pronczuk] Question: Is EASA prepared to handle the volume of data associated with TCO applications? [ed: Post meeting feedback from EASA: Yes, an internal reorganization and the 30-month total transition period will facilitate the implementation of the new scheme.]

[5/6/2014 Pronczuk] Entry into force—Reference Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Air Operations of Third Country Operators.

[3/18/2015 Pronczuk] EASAs Edmund Bohland provided an update: Part-TCO entered into force on May 26, 2014. The application period for TCOs holding an operating permit issued by any EU Member State was May 26 to November 25, 2014. For air carriers operating to the EU that have missed the November 26 application deadline, EASA cannot assure to process their TCO application before the end of the transition period (November 26, 2016), in the worst case resulting in a temporary disruption of their EU operations until the issuance of the TCO Authorization. 658 applications have been received to date (including 23 part 121 applications and 132 part 135 applications). The first batch of authorizations are planned to be issued around June, 2015. By the end of the transition period, November 25, 2016, all TCOs need an EASA-issued TCO authorization to engage in commercial air transportation to/from/within the EU. Exceptions will be granted for non-scheduled flights to overcome an unforeseen, immediate and urgent operational need (notification and application in spite of the previous authorization). Continuous monitoring kicks in with a review of TCOs at intervals not exceeding 24 months. (Danuta added: Includes analyzing ramp inspections, follow-up of whistleblowers and other received information; and after a period of approximately 24 months, contacting the authorized operator with the intent to make sure that the data provided to the online tool is updated and correct. In critical cases this may include periodic reporting by the operator on progress and performance.) The TCO Web Interface will be used as the sole communication platform between EASA and TCOs. The interface contains all relevant TCO data and technical questionnaires. EASA and the FAA will frequently information regarding emerging issues in the context of a TCO.

(continued on next page)

 

201201             EASA Third Country Operators (TCO) (page 6 of 6)

Notes:

[11/4/2015 Pronczuk] EASA is meeting with the FAA in December and representatives will attend the joint international/domestic OSWG meeting in March, 2016. Last month, Industry expressed a desire to discuss EASA issues during the November, 2015 domestic meeting. An OSWG member shared with Danuta that he was surprised he was able to receive an EASA certificate prior to full SMS implementation.

Foreign regulators are very specific about what they want. Andy Newcomer, UPS, told the story of a very tense time with Japan. The Japanese requested pilot license numbers and medical certificates on file, conditions not required of other carriers. The FAA does not require license numbers and medical certificates of foreign air carriers/operators. Although discriminatory, to operate in a States sovereign airspace, an operator must comply with their rules. In the end, the issue was resolved.

The Domestic Industry asked for a list of requirements a foreign air carrier/operator must submit to the FAA; basically, a revision to 8900.1 Volume 12, Section 2. EASA is mimicking US/China agreements. This is acceptable under ICAO regulations; however, IATA desires certain standards and expect reciprocity across the globe. When asked what is the purpose of an EASA TCO agreement, Danuta responded there is an understanding that there is one set of rules. There shouldn’t be differences when a TCO certificate is issued.

Send Danuta an email with questions to address with EASA prior to the March, 2016 Joint Domestic/International OSWG meeting.

 

 

201202             A056 Data Link Communications         (page 1 of 2)

                Part 129 A003 Aircraft Authorization for Operations to the United States

Initial Agenda Date:  October 17, 2012        Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Mark Patterson, AFS-470, 202 267-8848, mark.patterson@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Bryan Miles, Emirates Airlines, 9 714 708-4264, bmiles@emirates.com

                           David Oliver, Qantas, 6 129 691-1158, doliver@qantas.com

Issue Statement: There is no data link communications OpSpec for part 129 international air carriers.

Background: The FANS Operations Manual (FOM) was replaced by the Global Operational Data Link Document (GOLD) over a year ago. GOLD is the source document for Controller Pilot Data Link Communication (CPDLC) and ADS-C. OpSpec A056 issued to US operators covers ADS-C (oceanic, US operators going to Europe), and OpSpec A353 issued to US operators covers ADS-B (Gulf of Mexico, Hudson Bay, Greenland and Island.

Trials are underway for data link over U.S. airspace. Pending results of the trials, there may be a need to amend D OpSpecs for U.S. registered aircraft as they relate to the maintenance program and data link communications.

Intended Outcome: Revise AC 120-70B Operational Authorization Process for Use of Data Link Communication System, and issue OpSpecs, or an amendment to existing OpSpecs for a foreign air carrier operating a data link communication-equipped aircraft in domestic U.S. airspace.

Notes:

[10/17/2012 Bigler] Trent Bigler briefed that AFS-400 is aware that the Advisory Circular is out of date. AFS-470 will update the document as appropriate with references to the issuance of OpSpecs or an amendment to existing OpSpecs for data link communications prior to a foreign air carrier operating a data link communication-equipped aircraft in domestic U.S. airspace.

[5/8/2013 Patterson] Mark expects a new optional OpSpec for part 129 air carriers wishing to conduct data link communications within the United States. Bryan Miles questioned why? Mark responded: Many countries use data link over ACARS and the FAA is issuing data link communications clearances over FANS. Trials at Newark and Memphis are underway. Foreign air carriers wishing to participate in the trials are invited to contract their PI. The AC is in the process of being revised.

(continued on next page)

 

201202             A056 Data Link Communications         (page 2 of 2)

                Part 129 A003 Aircraft Authorization for Operations to the United States

Notes:

[2/6/2014 Patterson] The FAA is conducting Departure Clearance (DCL) trials using FANS-1/A at various airports within the United States. These trials will help identify the requirements for replacing voice communication between pilots and air traffic control with data link at all U.S. airports. Three foreign air carriers, British Airways, Lufthansa, and SAS, expressed interest and are expected to be participating once approval from each state of the operator is received. Any other foreign air carriers interested should email/call Mark Patterson. Once the trials are over, it is expected that foreign air carriers who want to receive their departure clearance using data link, will need to apply for an amendment to their part 129 OpSpecs.

[3/18/2015 Patterson] Mark provided a Power Point presentation to the OSWG on Datacom service strategies. CPDLC DCL trials start at SLC, then IAH and Houston Hobby, including receiving ground clearance via CPDL. A datalink OpSpec for part 129 foreign air carriers will not be developed. Instead, part 129 operators will see two columns for data link added to their part 129 A003 paragraph. Revisions have been ongoing to AC 120.70C Operation Authorization Process for Use of Data Link Communication Systems and associated Notice 8900.1 A056 guidance.

201205             Part 129 C083   IASA Category 2 Special Operational Restrictions—

                                        Scheduled and Non-Scheduled Operations,

                        Additional Aircraft and Special Authorizations    (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date:  October 17, 2012                    Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-52, 202 267-0923, danuta.pronczuk@faa.gov

Industry Lead:

Issue Statement: OpSpec has not been revised since 2005.

Background: Adding aircraft while a foreign air carrier’s State has been assessed by the FAA as Category 2 fails to meet minimum ICAO standards. 

Intended Outcome: Update Part 129 OpSpec C083 using plain language, delete redundancies, and clarify the process for adding aircraft.

Notes:

[10/17/2012 Pronczuk] Danuta presented new draft language. The template was rewritten in plain language and redundancy was reduced. Same make/model/series and configuration of aircraft typically for inspection, maintenance or alterations, may be added with written approval of the AFS-50 division manager.

[5/8/2013 Pronczuk] Template development delayed in processing, more details next OSWG.

[2/5/2014 Pronczuk] Additional inspector guidance is being informally coordinated to address “seasonal” operators. Expect the look back to be 1 year from the date of downgrade for a seasonal or non-scheduled operator. As an example, a “seasonal” foreign air carrier may operate only 3 months out of the year and those operations may be scheduled.  The OSWG provided examples of current “seasonal” operators flying out of Anchorage, Alaska.

[2/5/2014 Pronczuk] Danuta emphasized the importance of notifying responsible FSDO/IFO/IFU of non-scheduled operations to the U.S. She reminded the OSWG that if the State of operator is downgraded to IASA Category 2 and there is no record of any notification of non-scheduled operations to the U.S. by the foreign air carrier within the specified time frame mentioned earlier, the foreign air carrier’s operations will be frozen at zero until such time as the State of the operator regains Category 1 status. Danuta briefed no change to scheduled operators. The foreign air carrier must have provided scheduled service to the listed city pairs either at the time their home country was determined to be Category 2. Question from the floor was what happens if a scheduled air carrier changes its schedule. Answer: the air carrier can always petition AFS-50.

(continued on the next page)

 

201205             Part 129 C083   IASA Category 2 Special Operational Restrictions—

                                        Scheduled and Non-Scheduled Operations,

                        Additional Aircraft and Special Authorizations    (page 2 of 2)

Notes:

[3/18/2015 Pronczuk] Danuta briefly reviewed the purpose of OpSpec C083 and the changes to the paragraph since the last OSWG meeting. FAA senior level management has agreed to apply the same criteria to seasonal operators as nonscheduled operators during freezing meteorological conditions. The look back will be 12 months from the date of downgrade. A Notice, draft paragraph template, and associated guidance are posted on the AFS Foreign OpSpecs Draft Documents Open for Comment website. (reference document title OpSpec C083. IASA Category 2 Special Operational Restrictions: 14 CFR Part 129) OSWG members are encouraged to submit comment. The comment period closes on June 1, 2015.

  

(page 1 of 2)201214          B342 Extended Operations (ETOPS) with Two Engine Airplanes Under part 121

Initial Agenda Date: October 16, 2012                     Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Theo Kessaris, AFS240, 202 267-4561, theodora.kessaris@faa.gov

                     Steve Moates, AFS-220, 202 267-4147, stephen.moates@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Andy Newcomer, UPS, 502 359-5713, anewcomer@ups.com

Issue Statement: The FAA is proposing to revise Op Spec B342 to remove the requirement to list airplane registration numbers and ETOPS alternate airports. Airplane registration numbers are already listed in D086.

Background: AFS-220/260 is reevaluating the need to list aircraft registration numbers in B342. D086 already contains this information and discrepancies exist between the aircraft numbers listed in D086 and those listed in B342. The FAA also believes that listing ETOPS alternate airports in the HQ approved B342 paragraph serves no purpose to the FAA or industry.

Intended Outcome: Update Op Spec B342 Table 1: Remove the column for Airplane Registration Number and delete Table 2.

Notes:

[10/16/2012 Kessaris] Theo agreed to remove the aircraft table, and asked if any carriers objected to removal of the ETOPS alternate airport listing. Her idea is to move ETOPS alternates to OpSpec C070 by assigning the applicable airports the code letter “E”. Industry agreement was unanimous.

[10/16/2012 Schramek] Ongoing discussion…; concern of the alphabet soup. Per Theo, no it won’t—Language of regular, provisional, or fueling will transfer from B342 to C070 Airports Authorized for Scheduled Operations. Operators will not have to designate an airport as an “E” when it is already an “R”.

[10/16/2012 Schramek] Industry is waiting on a legal interp. Reason for delay is due to other priorities.

[2/5/2013 Newcomer] Industry would like the new guidance to stay within the ETOPS subject matter not include other associated items like that of crew times or FIR boundary. Industry would also like to keep the alternate listing as an optional separate list.

[5/7/2013 Kane] Meeting notes are missing.

[8/6/2013 Kane] Meeting notes are missing.

[2/5/2014 Newcomer] Theo will go to AFS-220 to see if they can take on the aircraft table.

(continued on next page)

(page 2 of 2)201214          B342 Extended Operations (ETOPS) with Two Engine Airplanes Under part 121

Notes:

[6/10/2014 Kessaris] AFS-220 will remove the column for Airplane Registration Number. The Op Spec template and guidance will be revised.

[10/8/2014 Kessaris] Theo provided a draft of the new B342 template. The associated guidance is still in the process of being updated. Estimated publication date of the new template and all of the associated guidance is May 2015.

[3/17/2015 Kessaris] B342 and C070 paragraph language has been finalized. Guidance is still a work in progress. Both the guidance and the Advisory Circular have to be tweaked, including training guidance for flight followers. Theo expects to have a document ready for review by the next domestic meeting in July.

[7/22/2015 Kessaris] Still a work in progress.

[11/4/2015 Kessaris] Reference OSWG Issue 201315―C070 Airports Authorized for Scheduled Operations. Draft documents are complete and under review. Policy has been updated based on lessons learned…; application process, validation flight requirements, etc. For those new to ETOPS, revised guidance reduces the guess work. Once approved by AFS-200, an FAA internal memorandum will allow CMO approval for adding new aircraft with the same M/M/S required by C070 and B342.

 

201301             D097 Aging Aircraft Programs (awaiting publication)

Initial Agenda Date: February 6, 2013                     Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  George Padalec, AFS-330, 734 487-7212, george.padalec@faa.gov

                     Mark Williams, AFS-330, 816 329-4042, mark.e.williams@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Mike Keller, American Airlines, 918 292-2416, mike.keller@aa.com

Issue Statement: Create a standard for industry and field offices. Provide updated guidance.

Background:

Intended Outcome:

Notes:

[8/6/2013 Keller] American Airlines CMO insisting that new aircraft be listed in D097 on delivery…. Issue tabled until next meeting.

[2/5/2014 Newcomer] FAA is willing to strengthen the guidance.

[6/11/2014 Weiderman] Draft revisions to D097 have been entered into the system for processing; estimated time to completion 6–12 months.

[9/15/2014 Weiderman] FAA Lead Frank Weiderman retired. George Padalec has been assigned.

[10/8/2014 Padalec] Revising OpSpec and guidance. Modification pending to standardize OpSpec and remove “Free Text”.

[3/18/2015 Padalec] 5 maintenance programs per regulation are affected by this topic. 8900.1 guidance mentions free text for source documents in the OpSpec paragraph. Previous non-standard language found in free text may or may not include approval letters. With the help of Mike Keller, American Airlines, the FAA is eliminating free text and incorporating source documents into the operator’s manual system. A new D097 table lists the 5 maintenance programs per regulation, the certificate holder’s maintenance program procedure, and the initial date the program was approved. Notice 8900.263 became effective May 2014 requiring HQ approval for all D & E paragraph free text entries. This only applies to N registered aircraft.

[7/22/2015 Keller] Left off the agenda in error, Mike inquired about the status of D097 and D485. Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-50, added that these paragraphs remain an issue for international discussion. Both will be included in the November, 2015 and March, 2016 agendas.

[11/4/2015 Williams] The free text field has been removed and a new table created to list maintenance manual and program approval dates. Expect publication in early spring 2016.

[11/4/2015 Winkelman] Awaiting publication.

 

201302          D485 Aging Airplane Inspection and Records Review (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date: February 6, 2013                     Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  George Padalec, AFS-330, 734 487-7212, george.padalec@faa.gov

                     Mark Williams, AFS-330, 816 329-4042, mark.e.williams@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Mike Keller, American Airlines, 918 292-2416, mike.keller@aa.com

Issue Statement: Clarify interpretation of guidance as to when aircraft is to be added to the OpSpec. Can we decommission?

Background: 14 CFR part 129 applies only to airplanes, not helicopters. If we cannot decommission D485, the part 129 Op Spec should be made into an optional template (airplanes only) and the last four columns should have dropdowns (same as the part 121 template minus the part 135 on-demand template). The 121 template refers to part 129 and has directions within the template.

Intended Outcome: Should there be a job aid for both the part 121 and part 129 templates, and should the directions and references to part 129 in the part 121 templates be deleted?

Notes:

[2/6/2013 Kane] New business.

[5/7/2013 Kane] Meeting notes are missing.

[8/6/2013 Kane] AFS300 reviewing possible decommission as the collected data has not been used for the last 7 years. For the interim Mark Lopez, AFS-330,  reviewed the amendment to the part 129 templates which has been initiated. A helicopter is not an airplane and since the rule is for aging airplanes the D485 requirement is being removed for helicopter only operators. Inspector guidance has been drafted to reflect the change. If a policy decision is made to remove D485 for all CFR parts before the draft OpSpec, all documents will be amended to reflect decommission.

[2/5/2014 Pronczuk] Domestic and international industry operators have requested that the FAA decommission D485. Nick Petty from Executive Jet Management also commented that they are required to have D485, yet D485 says it does not apply to part 135 on-demand operators. International FAA OSWG Chairwoman, Danuta Pronczuk, briefed that for now the FAA will be continuing to process the previously briefed change to D485 for part 129 foreign air carriers. If it is agreed by upper management that the FAA can decommission D485 then instead of making the change, the FAA will decommission D485 for foreign carriers as well.

[6/10/2014 Weiderman] Request to archive D485 submitted; estimated time to decommission 6–12 months.

(continued on next page)

201302          D485 Aging Airplane Inspection and Records Review (page 2 of 2)

Notes:

[9/15/2014 Kane] FAA Lead Frank Weiderman retired. George Padalec has been assigned.

[10/8/2014 Padalec] Awaiting decommission. It may take 6 months or more.

[3/18/2015 Padalec] Awaiting decommission.

[6/24/2015 Padalec] AC 120-84 decommissioning moved from Document Control Board to AFS-140 for publication.

[7/22/2015 Keller] Left off the agenda in error, Mike inquired about the status of D097 and D485. Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-50, added that these paragraphs remain an issue for international discussion. Both will be included in the November, 2015 and March, 2016 agendas.

[11/4/2015 Williams] Most issues have been resolved. The AFS-300 division manager signed yesterday (11/3). FAA policy and 8900.1 guidance require clean up. Expect to decommission the OpSpec no later than March, 2016.

[11/4/2015 Winkelman] Moved to awaiting publication.

 

201303             Category III Charting Format

Initial Agenda Date: May 8, 2013    Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Bryant Welch, AFS-410, 202 267-8981, bryant.welch@faa.gov

                     Chris Hope, AFS-410, 202 267-8976, chris.hope@faa.gov

Industry Lead: David Oliver, Qantas, 6 129 691-1158, doliver@qantas.com

Issue Statement: Will precision approach Category IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC minimums be consolidated on a chart?

Background:

Intended Outcome: Publish the lowest Cat IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC minimum.

Notes:

[5/8/2013 Welch] Starting early next year, individually charted Cat IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC minimums will be consolidated into the published lowest minimum. Cat II and Cat III charts may be combined. The process will take two years to complete.

[2/5/2014 Welch] Bryant briefed the proposed change, draft OpSpecs, and the final rule—removal of definition of Cat IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC. The agency will continue using the same definitions, they are just not going to be defined in regulations. In the future, expect the National Ocean Service (NOS) charts to depict only one minimum for Cat III. New charts will depict the lowest Cat III minimums. Bryant showed what the new charts would look like compared the existing Jepps and NOS. Expect a progressive change starting in the summer.

[3/18/2015 Welch] FAA Air Traffic needs to implement Change 26 to TERPS. The change will then be added to Order 8260.19F Flight Procedures and Airspace. Once published, Air Traffic will be able to transition to the new CAT III single line of minima presentation. Timeline: Early 2015. Until then, you can expect to see ILS Cat IIIABC charts for at least a couple of years.

 

201304          A097, A098, A099 Passenger and Baggage Weight Programs (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date: February 5, 2013                     Date Closed:

FAA Lead: Adam Giraldes, AFS220, 817 3504564, adam.giraldes@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Roy Maxwell, Delta Airlines, 404 715-7231, roy.maxwell@delta.com

                           Chuck Schramek, Delta Air Lines, 424 715-1536, chuck.schramek@delta.com

Issue Statement: Feedback requested: passenger survey weights.

Background: Updates are coming to the weight and balance figures used in AC 12027E Aircraft Weight and Balance Control. Adam and Roy request feedback.

Intended Outcome: Update AC 12027 Aircraft Weight and Balance Control

Notes:

[2/5/2013 Schramek] Industry believes it should be a group presentation and not on an airline-by-airline presentation.

[2/5/2013 Schramek] Request to Deke Abbott, AFS-220 to make draft AC available for review. Deke indicated the document should be available by the end of March.

[5/7/2013 Kane] Meeting notes are missing.

[8/6/2013 Kane] Meeting notes are missing.

[2/5/2014 Newcomer] Posted draft AC 120-27F on November 7, 2013, with a comment period closing December 7, 2013. Industry requested an extension of the comment period to 120 days. FAA extended to comment period to January 31, 2014. Comments received by the FAA will take approximately two months to review and up to six months to incorporate.

[6/10/2014 Winkelman] Revised AC pending.

[10/8/2014 Kane] Awaiting publication.

[3/17/2015 Giraldes] Adam hoped to have something out by now. With the delay, an internal review required some changes to the language going forward. Expect another 6 month for publication. As a note, the AC will require the use of CDC weights vs. NHAINES. Changes to the OpSpec paragraphs will depend on public comment for the Advisory Circular. Draft OpSpec language should be available for review at the next domestic OSWG meeting. The issue will be removed from awaiting publication and placed into an active status.

(continued on next page)

 

201304          A097, A098, A099 Passenger and Baggage Weight Programs (page 2 of 2)

Notes:

[7/22/2015 Rother] OpSpecs have been drafted and are now in coordination. The Advisory Circular is making its way around the approval system for a third time. Gordy was not sure when the AC will be published. Industry Chairman Jim Winkelman remarked that the regulatory process is not totally transparent. With the understanding that this AC is only guidance, the public is not made aware if comments are considered in the development of an AC. FAA Chairman Steve Kane stated that comments can be made and addressed through the OSWG and A4A. Adam Giraldes will have an update for the November, 2015 OSWG meeting. He will address comments.

[10/22/2015 Bollin] Draft AC 120-27F has been posted on the AFS Draft Advisory Circulars Open for Comment web site. Comments are due by December 21, 2015.

[11/4/2015 Giraldes] Adam gave the group a brief via telcon (reference AC 120-27F Briefing Points). The FAA examined data from several large-scale, national health studies conducted by U.S. Government health agencies. The FAA found that the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), conducted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), provided the most comprehensive and appropriate data. The data in NHANES cover a broad spectrum of the general population, are based on a large sample size, and are not restricted geographically to a particular area. Recommendations incorporated into the revised AC include:

(1) The FAA will no longer publish a table of standard average weights. In the future, standard average passenger weights will be based on CDC/NHANES statistics. The CDC/NHANES data is updated every 3 years. (Sometimes it takes 4 years to gather enough data.)  CDC/NHANES weights are generic and do not include clothing. Summer/winter clothing weights are listed by the FAA in Table 3-1 Standard Average Passenger Weights.

(2) Air carriers/operators will be required to survey all bag weights to set a standard for their operations, with an option to use actual bag weights. Survey samples will include all bags, carry-on and/or checked.

(3) An air carrier/operator may choose to use one of the following for crewmember weights: CDC/NHANES weights, or CDC/NHANES weights for F/As, and Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) first and second class medical certificate weights [ex: 2013 Aerospace Medical Certification Statistical Handbook] to establish their standard crewmember weights. The operator also has the option to conduct a survey or use actual weights to establish average crewmember weights appropriate for its operation.

Air carriers/operators will be required to incorporate Safety Management System (SMS) principles to incorporate risk in changes to their business model. Operators will be allowed several months to make the changes after the AC is published. Compliance within 30 days is the usual timeframe; however, up to 90 days will be allowed with CMO concurrence.

(page 1 of 2)201305             C059 Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

                Part 129 C059     Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

Initial Agenda Date:  February 6, 2013         Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Bryant Welch, AFS-410, 202 267-8981, bryant.welch@faa.gov

                     Chris Hope, AFS-410, 202 267-8976, chris.hope@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Andy Newcomer, UPS, 502 359-5713, anewcomer@ups.com

Issue Statement: Clarify controlling RVR, specifically Mid RVR 0 or Rollout RVR 0 were never acceptable. Specify minimum values for Mid RVR 600 and Rollout RVR 300 for Category II Approach. Revise the OpSpec with a goal toward combining with C060 Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations.

Background: Currently Touchdown Zone RVR is controlling and Mid and Rollout RVR are advisory for a Category II Approach.

Intended Outcome: Amend the OpSpec to specify that all RVRs are controlling. 

Notes:

[2/6/2013 Welch] The group asked why C059 does not have a statement like that in C060f.(5): “Once established on the final approach segment, all Cat III operations, except as specified in subparagraph g.(6) below, may continue if any RVR report decreases below the authorized minima.” Bryant answered: “Expect an update.”

[5/8/2013 Welch] As a result of looking at several company manuals indicating Rollout RVR 0 is OK, template language will be revised to reflect all available RVRs are controlling. Minimum values for rollout RVR will be specified so you cannot land with Rollout RVR 200. The document traveled through the Document Control Board (DCB) and has been sent to the Regions for formal coordination. Following this revision, AFS-400 plans on combining C059 with C060.

[8/7/2013 Welch] Publication pending.

[8/30/2013 Kane] Notice 8900.234 OpSpec C059 Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations, published.

(continued on next page)

(page 2 of 2)201305             C059 Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

                Part 129 C059     Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

Notes:

[2/6/2014 Welch] 8900.1 Volume 12 Chapter 2 part 129 inspector guidance required for the issuance of Part 129 C059 to foreign air carriers is delayed; now expected to be out in the next few months. The OpSpec template has been made available. The compliance date will be 120 days from the date of publication of the international inspector guidance. Bryant emphasized that if all three RVRs are available, they are controlling. The OSWG commented that the N/R for Mid RVR and Rollout RVR in Table 2 next to the TDZ RVR 1600 row was confusing and requested an amendment to the OpSpec. Bryant confirmed that the way N/R in that row (Mid and Rollout) was supposed to be interpreted as: if reported then 1600 or above, if not reported then 1600 touchdown is all that is required. Bryant took the IOU to make the requested editorial change for both the foreign air carrier and U.S. domestic templates.

[6/11/2014 Kane] No meeting notes entered.

[10/8/2014 Kane] No meeting notes entered.

[2/10/2015 Welch] The Table 2 paragraph has been revised.

[2/10/2015 Welch] Regarding the effort to combine paragraphs C059 and C060, AFS-400 has completed 50% of the work. A draft document will be presented to the March 2015 OSWG.

[3/18/2015 Welch] Noting a number of aircraft in Alaska capturing an errant localizer signal due to magnetic variation, Bryant introduced John Swigart, AFS-408. who gave the OSWG a briefing on magvar and how it affects ILS precision approaches. The C059/C060 OpSpec merging project will address magnetic variation.

[3/18/2015 Welch] Bryant presented draft OpSpec C0xx Category II/III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations, combining current paragraphs C059 and C060. With one minor exception, the intent is not to change policy. The simplified language should provide more clarity. The draft will be posted on several public websites, including the Aviation Safety Draft Documents Open for Comment and the A4A OSWG website. Bryant encouraged OSWG members to comment.

 

201308          A061 Use of Electronic Flight Bag (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date: August 6, 2013                        Date Closed:

FAA Lead: Brian Hint, AFS430, 202 267-8415, brian.hint@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Jim Winkelman, Alaska Airlines, 206 392-6347, jim.winkelman@alaskaair.com

Issue Statement: Request updated guidance.

Background: Reference AC 120-76C Guidelines for the Certification, Airworthiness, and Operational Use of Electronic Flight Bags.

Intended Outcome:

Notes:

[8/6/2013 Kane] New business.

[2/5/2014 Newcomer] On ship position, moving map is now Type B (FAA Order and Advisory Circular)

[2/5/2014 Newcomer] Ops Spec will add language to reduce AC120-76C to harmonize with EASA.

[2/5/2014 Newcomer] Install or portable with Type A or Type B; eliminate classes. Cancel Type C EFB user forum in Memphis in May.

[2/5/2014 Newcomer] Eliminate all the software versions in the table as long as the POI validates the revision method.

[2/5/2014 Newcomer] Table will be in drop down format.

[5/8/2014 Hint] An interim change will be developed for the OpSpec language to:

(1)  Clarify when an OpSpec for EFB functions are required.

(2)  Make it clear that AMMD with own-ship is a Type B Software application.

(3)  Allow for an easier transition for the next version (which will eliminate Type C software applications and require OpSpecs only for Type B EFB Software applications).

[6/10/2014 Hint] Tables for Operator/POI entry will be updated to include a drop-down menu (based upon FAR Part) to standardize table input.

[6/10/2014 Hint] Eliminate all the software versions in the table as long as the POI validates the revision method.

[6/10/2014 Hint] Discuss long term vision for EFB OpSpec requirements.

[10/8/2014 Kane] No meeting notes entered.

(continued on next page)

201308          A061 Use of Electronic Flight Bag (page 2 of 2)

Notes:

[3/18/2015 Hint] Brian gave the OSWG a Power Point EFB policy update (not included herein). Changes for draft AC120-76D will include revised definitions for tablet use and harmonization with EASA requirements. We can expect a review of both documents in July.

[7/22/2015 Hint] Brian gave the OSWG a short PP brief. Draft AC120-76D is under review by AFS400 leadership. Brian will upload draft 8900.1 inspector guidance to the A4A OSWG site. References to class and Type C software will be removed. M/M/S will be added to the paragraph and where hardware/software are defined in the manual. ICAO requires this in the Operations Manual, including the hardware manufacturer and model, EFB application name, and any restrictions and limitations.

 

201315          C070 Airports Authorized for Scheduled Operations (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date: February 5, 2013                     Date Closed:

FAA Lead: Theo Kessaris, AFS240, 202 267-4561, theodora.kessaris@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Doug Snow, Federal Express, 901-397-8228, douglas.snow@fedex.com

Issue Statement: Adequate Airports for ETOPS would be entered in C070 under a new category of “E” for “Adequate Airport for ETOPS”. C070 would then be revised for the addition of the new “E” category airport.

Background: Listing ETOPS alternate airports in paragraph B342 Extended Operations (ETOPS) with Two Engine Airplanes Under part 121 is somewhat inaccurate. The FAA believes that listing those airports in a HQ approval OpSpec serves no purpose to the FAA or industry.

Intended Outcome: Update OpSpec C070: Allow the selection of “E” airports and make the OpSpec applicable for part 121 supplemental and part 135 certificate holders.

Notes:

[2/5/2013 Kane] New business.

[5/7/2013 Kane] Meeting notes are missing.

[8/6/2013 Schramek] Ongoing discussion…; concern of the alphabet soup. Per Theo, no it won’t—Language of regular, provisional, or fueling will transfer from B342 to C070. Operators will not have to designate an airport as an “E” when it is already an “R”.

[8/6/2013 Schramek] Industry is waiting on a legal interp. Reason for delay is due to other priorities.

[8/6/2013 Schramek] Supplemental Carriers will list ETOPS adequate airports in C070.

[2/5/2014 Newcomer] Theo will go to AFS-220 to see if they can take on the aircraft table.

[6/10/2014 Newcomer] American Airlines has issues with listing multiple aircraft types authorized into a regular airport. They are requesting a possible concept of provisional aircraft.

[10/8/2014 Kessaris] Theo provided a copy of the draft C070 template. The associated guidance for C070 is finished. The template is tied to the B342 Extended Operations (ETOPS) with Two Engine Airplanes project. Estimated publication date for both C070/B342 is no later than June, 2015.

[3/17/2015 Kessaris] C070 and B342 paragraph language has been finalized. Guidance is still a work in progress. Both the guidance and the Advisory Circular have to be tweaked, including training guidance for flight followers. Space will be included for an ETOPS Alternate. Theo expects to have a document ready for review by the next domestic meeting in July.

(continued on next page)

201315          C070 Airports Authorized for Scheduled Operations (page 2 of 2)

Notes:

[7/22/2015 Kessaris] A work in progress, the document is not ready for OSWG review. Theo continues to develop policy for initial and additional ETOPS authorizations―The approval process, what to expect from HQ, what the CMO requires. Development continues for approval agreements, streamlining the process, deleting memos (ie: AFS-1 approvals) and reducing the bureaucracy. Aircraft registration numbers and ETOPS alternate airports will not be required. Part 121 Supplemental Operations will be re-named. The end result will be posted on the FAA’s Draft Documents Open for Comment web site. Theo wants the OSWG to weigh-in and review how templates are populated. One note: The nature of validation testing should match the nature of the validation and may not always be required. The CMO can provide information to HQ and recommend waiving the validation test and/or who participates in validation testing.

[11/4/2015 Kessaris] Draft documents are complete and under review. Policy has been updated based on lessons learned…; application process, validation flight requirements, etc. For those new to ETOPS, revised guidance reduces the guess work. Once approved by AFS-200, an FAA internal memorandum will allow CMO approval for adding new aircraft with the same M/M/S required by C070 and B342 (Reference OSWG Issue 201214―B342 Extended Operations (ETOPS) with Two Engine Airplanes Under part 121).

201403          E096 Weight and Balance Control Procedures (awaiting publication)

Initial Agenda Date: June 10, 2014                          Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  George Padalec, AFS-330, 734 487-7212, george.padalec@faa.gov

                     Robert Higgins, AFS-330, 502 753-4283, robert.j.higgins@faa.gov

                     Mark Williams, AFS-330, 816 329-4042, mark.e.williams@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Mike Keller, American Airlines, 918 292-2416, mike.keller@aa.com

Issue Statement: 8900.1 Volume 3, Chapter 47 guidance only speaks to weight and CG and has omitted or failed to fully emphasize the requirement in part 25 §25.1583(c) Weight and Loading Distribution.

Background:

Intended Outcome: Add a new table to OpSpec paragraph E-096 titled Load and Control. The table would be authorized for issuance once the CFT has given concurrence to the CMO. The CMO would enter the section/chapter manual where that specific instructions and guidance exist.

Notes:

[6/10/2014 Weiderman] The FAA intends to change the title of E096 to reflect its purpose, weighing aircraft. It was determined that the current title—Weight and Balance Control Programs, could mislead a person to think it applies to “operational aspects” of weight and balance.

[10/8/2014 Padalec] Changes will be done to other OpSpecs that will affect E096…: The extent has not been determined. The Cargo Focus Team will be a part of this discussion.

[3/17/2015 Padalec] Revisions will possibly include aircraft weighing. Answering a question from the floor, AFS-300 will collaborate with other AFS divisions regarding a change in title and reversion to a “D” paragraph.

[7/22/2015 Tillman] Awaiting publication. Calvin Tillman, AFS-330, informed the OSWG that the revision is on hold until implementation of operation specifications for cargo operations. Regarding the paragraph number: Only the title will change. The paragraph will remain an “E” OpSpec.

[7/22/2015 Bollin] Awaiting publication.

[11/4/2015 Williams] Awaiting publication.


201420          A034 Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date: October 8, 2014                       Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Rob Burke, AFS 280, 202 267-8262, robert.burke@faa.gov

                     Rick Van Keuren, AFS-280, 720 241-1452, richard.van-keuren@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Ellen Birmingham, United Airlines, 872 825-5193, ellen.birmingham@united.com

Issue Statement: This OpSpec is in dire need of amendment.

Background: There is no consideration for Flight Crew, Inflight, and/or Dispatch AQPs—For example, Table 1 specifies initial and final approval dates for Indoctrination; but no place to add this for the various work groups. Table 2 requires aircraft M/M/S, which is too detailed even for pilot training, but again, does not accommodate Dispatchers or Flight Attendants. In addition, Table 2 lists Instructors and Evaluators by aircraft M/M/S. The IE curriculum may or may not be fleet specific, but there are IE Indoc, IE Qualification and IE Continuing Qualification curricula separate from the pilot Indoc, Qual, and CQ.

Intended Outcome: Revise and update the OpSpec.

Notes:

[10/8/2014 Burke] Note revised 1/22/2015: Rob gave the group a look at proposed changes to the Operations Specification. AFS-280 is looking to combine information for all part 121 training programs into a single specification. A few industry commentators would prefer smaller pieces of information in several specs…; publish the OpSpec or reference the training manual. The draft Training Operations Specification was exclusive to the current OSWG briefing, in further development and not for public dissemination. This document was not included in the post-meeting notes. AFS-280 appreciates the input provided by the OSWG. AFS-280 subsequently sought the input from an AFS focus team and FAA field offices. The proposed OpSpec along with associated guidance will be published for public comment. The OSWG is encouraged to comment.

[3/17/2015 Bollin] Rob Burke was unavailable. John gave the group an update: AFS280 is proposing a requirement for listing related aircraft designations for consolidation and OE (Reference Notice 8900.286 Part 121 Training Program Review). FedEx foresees a plethora of deviations! With limited character space in the A005 tables, the operator has difficulty listing current deviations. Based on anticipated limitations for AQP training and a subsequent increase in deviation requests, FedEx recommends the requirement be incorporated in the air carrier’s A034 Advanced Qualification Program (AQP). This affects a certificate holder’s business plan and others in the room echoed FedEx concerns. Steve Kane will take the IOU back to Rob Burke. Sherry Pippin, AFS-280 and author of the paragraph, will address the domestic OSWG in July.

(continued on next page)

201420          A034 Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) (page 2 of 2)

Notes:

[7/22/2015 Burke] Reference Rob’s PP Brief. Public comments have been reviewed and AFS-280 is in the process of adjusting associated guidance. Rob provided a sample template. A small work group to review the template will be solicited from the Air Carrier Training Rulemaking Committee (ACT ARC) meeting next month in DC. Consideration is being given to OSWG participation in the ARC. Industry is concerned that the proposed OpSpec is a redundant authorization for already-established approvals as provided in all training programs and found in authorized deviations and exemptions.

[11/4/2015 Van Keuren] Rick, Ellen, and a number of FAA/Industry representatives met in Dallas, TX this past August to discuss industry concerns regarding the revision to A034. A draft OpSpec A034 Approved Training Program: 14 CFR part 121, and an associated proposed List of Values were published.

A034 has morphed from a limited listing of Advanced Qualification Program approvals to encompass subparts N, O, and P curriculums. [ed: will be retitled] Table 1―Approved Training Program Documentation, is a list of approved manuals and general records. Table 2―AQP Primary Curriculum Approvals, has been reorganized and simplified to include only AQP Primary curricula (Indoc, Qualification, and Continuing Qualification). Table 2 provides an expanded capability over the current A034 to capture all Indoc curricula approvals. This will require entry of historical approval data. If the information is not available, we will address in policy what to enter in lieu of the date. Several industry OSWG members recommended removing the Table 4 date column altogether. (currently being reviewed by AFS-280).

Formatting will not be allowed in the Conditions and Limitations column in Table 6―Training Program Deviations, however, more characters will be available than currently allowed in A005―Exemptions and Deviations. The ability to select the same condition or deviation multiple times will also be incorporated. A question was raised: “What constitutes a “training deviation”; N is training, O is qualification, and P is qualification for dispatchers. Should training and qualifications be segregated?” Rick will look into renaming Table 6―Training and Qualification Deviations. Industry OSWG members suggested a better structure to house all deviations in A005 with the ultimate goal to make A005 more functional. Several industry OSWG members suggested eliminating A034 Table 6 altogether, or at the very least, reduce duplicate OpSpec entries and use Table 6 to reference A005 for approved deviations (under review by AFS-280).

Table 7―N, O, and P Only – Training Program Reductions (IAW 121.405(d)), also refers to qualifications. The OSWG recommended the Table be retitled. Table 8―Contract Training Approval, replaces OpSpec/MSpec/LOA A031—Outsourced Training:… for 121 air carriers only.

201421          C052 Straight-in Non-Precision, APV,               (FAA Brief) (page 1 of 2)

                                and Category I Precision Approach and Landing Minima—All Airports

Initial Agenda Date: October 8, 2014                       Date Closed: November 4, 2015

FAA Lead:  Cathy Graham, AFS-470, 202 267-8842, catherine.m.graham@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Not Applicable

Issue Statement: OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C052 is not required for Part 91 operators. NBAA and other organizations have received inquiries from foreign states asking for proof that the part 91 operators have approval to fly to LPV minima on GNSS based approaches.

Background: AFS400 and AFS800 are receiving inquiries from part 91 operators requesting documentation to show foreign states their authorization to fly LPV minima. The FAA is still investigating the details of how many operators this might encompass and which states require documentation. In the meantime Flight Standards is developing Order 8900.1 guidance to accompany an optional LOA for part 91.

Intended Outcome: Develop an optional LOA template available for part 91 operators who plan to fly LPV minima in foreign states. The LOA will not be required to fly LPV minima in the United States.

Notes:

[10/8/2014 Graham] AFS-200, -400, and -800 are working on draft 8900.1 guidance and an LOA template.

[3/17/2015 Bigler] FAA lead Cathy Graham was unavailable for brief. Trent Bigler, AFS-470, filled in. Recently, some foreign States have requested evidence of approval and training from State of Registry for operations, including RNAV (GPS) instrument approach procedures (IAP) with Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance (LPV) lines of minima using the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) or the satellite based augmentation system (SBAS). Requirements to operate in another State are found in the applicable State Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP). 14 CFR part 91 §91.703 requires persons operating civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the United States to comply with ICAO Annex 2 when operating over the high seas and when within a foreign country. Within the U.S., the FAA does not require part 91 operators to have an LOA to fly RNAV (GPS) IAP to LPV minima. Some foreign nations have requested evidence of training a approval to fly GNSS-based approaches to LPV minima. The FAA developed an optional LOA to satisfy that request and is currently under review. A similar approach was taken for C063 RNAV and RNP terminal operations. Part 91 operators requiring authorization should contact their local FSDO. Only operators flying to foreign States that require this LOA need apply.

(continued on next page)

201421          C052 Straight-in Non-Precision, APV,               (FAA Brief) (page 2 of 2)

                                and Category I Precision Approach and Landing Minima—All Airports

Notes:

[7/22/2015 Christianson] FAA lead Cathy Graham was unavailable. Kel Christianson, AFS-470, reiterated that C052 was optional for part 91 operators. As a side note, Kel informed those flying into Europe: The C052 LOA will provide States with evidence of FAA approval for LPV minima.

[7/22/2015 Bollin] Awaiting publication.

[8/13/2015 Graham] Notice N8900.318 Optional Letter of Authorization (LOA) for Straight-In Non-Precision, APV, and Category I Precision Approach and Landing Minima—All Airports, was issued for 14 CFR part 91 operations. A C052 LOA is available in WebOPSS.

[11/4/2015 Winkelman] Closed.

201424                                                                                  B039 Operations within North Atlantic (NAT)                                                                  (page 1 of 3) (awaiting publication)

                                    Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications (MNPS) Airspace

Initial Agenda Date: October 8, 2014                       Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Gordy Rother, AFS-430, 612 253-4409, gordon.rother@faa.gov

                     Kevin Kelley, AFS-470, 202 267-8854, kevin.c.kelley@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Doug Snow, Federal Express, 901 397-8228, douglas.snow@fedex.com

                           Steve Smith, American Airlines, 682 315-4806, stephen.smith@aa.com

                           Mike Boynton, American Airlines, 817 967-5327, mike.boynton@aa.com

Issue Statement: The North Atlantic Minimum Navigation Performance Specification (MNPS) to Performance Based Navigation (PBN) transition will cause a revision to B039.

Background: The North Atlantic Systems Planning Group (NATSPG) has concluded that NAT MNPS airspace will transition to NAT PBN airspace. Beginning January 1, 2015, operators seeking authorization to operate in NAT MNPS airspace will be required to meet the navigation specifications of RNAV 10 or RNP 4. Operators already authorized MNPS are grandfathered until January 1, 2020. (ICAO Doc. 7030, NAT Chapter 4, Para. 4.1.1.5.1.5)

Intended Outcome: Revise applicable OpSpec/MSpec/LOA for U.S. operators to comply with this requirement. Transition to PBN will support improved air navigation services, e.g. reduced lateral and longitudinal separation minima.

Notes:

[10/8/2014 Kelley] Notice 8900.249 OpSpec/MSpec/LOA B039 Operations within North Atlantic Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications Airspace, was published on January 9, 2014.

[10/8/2014 Kelley] Kevin briefed the OSWG: NAT MNPS Change to OpSpec B039 Version 5, October 7, 2014. The FAA will maintain an authorization for the NAT via OpSpec, MSpec or LOA, just as it does today. Kevin requested the OSWG appoint one or two representatives to address the forthcoming changes to the templates. The FAA will monitor and evaluate possible (global?) changes to Communications and Surveillance requirements (PBCS) and implementation of “High Level Airspace”. Progress of the NAT Reduced Lateral Separation Minima (RLat SM) trial is set to begin in November, 2015.

[11/24/2014 Kane] Issue 201124 was inadvertently closed during the October 2014 meeting. Previous OSWG meeting notes and lead assignments were made in error. Corrections have been made The issue is renumbered 201424 and remains open.

(continued on next page)

 

201424                                                                                  B039 Operations within North Atlantic (NAT)                                                                  (page 2 of 3) (awaiting publication)

                                    Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications (MNPS) Airspace

Notes:

[3/17/2015 Kelley] Kevin gave an interesting presentation with an eye-opening study showing a truncation of waypoint identification resulting in the same designation for multiple fixes. Reference page 18, North Atlantic (NAT) Safety Analysis and Reduced Separation Implementation Group April 2015 meeting agenda item 2: Update to draft North Atlantic Operations Bulletin—Special Emphasis Items (SEI) for Operation in NAT Reduced Lateral Separation Minimum (RLatSM) Trials. (Credit to Ian Black, British Airways, for the long-titled .pdf.)

Operators seeking authorization to operate in NAT MNPS airspace are required to meet the navigation specifications of RNAV 10 or RNP 4. (NAT MNPS will be renamed NAT HLA, High Level Airspace, in February 2016.) Operators already authorized MNPS are grandfathered until January 1, 2020. In collaboration, AFS-240 and AFS-470 are working to rewrite the OpSpec and supporting Notice and 8900.1 guidance. (Reference Kevin’s Power Point presentation and OSWG meeting update.) The NAT Ops Bulletin SEI lists considerations for reduced lateral separation (down to 25NM). The truncation issue will require an avionics fix, waypoint renaming, and mandatory, specific flight crew navigation and data entry cross-check training. (The FAA proposes to give waypoints alpha-numeric names. Other States are not eager to change the Lat/Long format.)

NAT RlatSM trials between the two core NAT tracks with the heaviest traffic are set to begin in November, 2015. Also expect implementation of enhanced Strategic Lateral Offset Procedures (SLOP) this summer. The FAA does not intend to revise OpSpec B041: North Atlantic Operation (NAT/OPS) with Two Engine Airplanes under Part 121. Kevin and Gordy plan to present a draft OpSpec paragraph at the next domestic meeting in July.

[7/22/2015 Kelley] …not yet. Kevin updated his PP brief. In the fall/winter of this year, the FAA will participate in future rulemaking to delete §91.705, Appendix C to 14 CFR Part 91, and AC91.70A. ICAO Annex 2 Rules of the Air and ICAO Doc 7030 Regional Supplementary Procedures will then be the regulatory basis for B039. Based on United Airlines flight data, additional plotting and procedural methods of course compliance will be incorporated. “N/A” will be removed from the RNP Type column in B036 CLASS II Navigation Using Multiple LongRange Navigation Systems (MLRNS). In addition to defining NAT MNPS as HLA, Class II will be classified as Oceanic and Remote Continental. Any aircraft MNPS certified will have no problem receiving RNP10 authorization. In a mixed mandated airspace, RNP4 is better served than RNP10. The revised B039 and Advisory Circular 90-105 are not yet ready for viewing.

(continued on next page)

201424                                                                                  B039 Operations within North Atlantic (NAT)                                                                  (page 3 of 3) (awaiting publication)

                                    Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications (MNPS) Airspace

Notes:

[7/22/2015 Kelley] OSWG members made several recommendations to simplify nav tables in the paragraph and those found in B054—CLASS II Navigation Using Single LongRange Navigation System (SLRNS). A rewrite of B054 to accommodate routes over the Gulf of Mexico and “Blue Spruce” land routes from North America to Europe is also in the works.  (The industry chairman has asked to add B054 to the November 2015 domestic OSWG agenda.) Reference Kevin's brief for more detailed information. Kyle Besaw, United Airlines will sign on as an industry lead for B039 and B054.

[11/4/2015 Kelley] Notice and guidance presented to the Document Control Board (DCB) in late October. Reference Notice 8900.B039 Operations in North Atlantic High Level Airspace and revision to Order 8900.1 V3 C18 S4 P3-816 B039 guidance. Kevin updated his brief and thanked United, American and FedEx for their participation. Existing B039s may exist until January, 2020. Class II airspace is now defined as “Oceanic and Remote Continental” airspace. February 4, 2016, is the target date for the designation (re-naming) transition from NAT MNPS to “North Atlantic High Level Airspace (NAT HLA).” A revision to AC 91-70 Oceanic and International Operations, is going through FAA internal coordination.

[11/4/2015 Kelley] Awaiting publication.

 

201425             C081        Special Non 14 CFR part 97

                                    Instrument Approach or Departure Procedures  (awaiting publication)

Initial Agenda Date: October 8, 2014                       Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Kel Christianson, AFS-470, 202 267-8838, kel.christianson@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Not Required

Issue Statement: Revise C081 to include RVFPs and STARs. Update process for inspectors to follow in order to provide carriers with proper guidance for developing, submitting and publishing special instrument procedures.

Background: (Previous OSWG issue closed in 2013.) A public instrument flight procedure (IFP) is one that has been promulgated under 14 CFR Part 97. Often times Special instrument flight procedures that have been authorized for multiple users have been referred to as “Public Specials”. In actuality, these are not “public” procedures although some in the industry continue to refer to them as such. The majority of those “Special” IFPs that have been authorized for multiple users are maintained by the Aeronautical Products Division of Mission Support Services, formerly known as AeroNav Services or the National Flight Procedures Office. The Aeronautical Products Division enters into a reimbursable agreement to develop/maintain those Special IFPs used by a single operator. The issue concerning the appropriateness of seeking reimbursement (from operators) for Special IFPs that have been authorized for multiple users has been referred to Legal.

Intended Outcome: Determine who is responsible for “Specials” or move them to the public domain. Move inspector guidance from 8900.1 V4 to V3. Provide operators with one OpSpec to list special airports and procedures authorized. Update templates with new tables and information. Provide description of other OpSpecs that may be required.

Notes:

[10/8/2014 Christianson] Issue update presented to the OSWG for information only.

[10/8/2014 Kane] Awaiting publication.

[3/17/2015 Bollin] Awaiting publication: The document continues to make its way through the AFS-140 process.

[7/22/2015 Bollin] Awaiting publication.

[11/4/2015 Bollin] Awaiting AVS-1 signature.

 

201427             Aircraft Wake Turbulence Separation Re-Categorization (RECAT) (FAA Brief)

Initial Agenda Date:  February 5, 2014         Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Wayne Gallo, AFS-430, 202 267-9082, wayne.gallo@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Not Applicable

Issue Statement: Reference SAFO 12007 published October 22, 2013. The FAA currently uses six (6) wake turbulence separation categories based primarily on weight: Super (A380), Heavy, B757, Large, Small+, and Small. RECAT applies advances in knowledge of wake physics over the breadth of the current wake categories. The FAA recently approved a re-categorization of wake turbulence separation minima from the current standard to a new standard (RECAT Phase I). This approval was based on years of joint research and development by the FAA, Eurocontrol, scientific experts in wake, and experts in safety and risk analysis. Categories are now based on weight, certificated approach speeds, wing characteristics, along with special consideration given to aircraft with limited ability to counteract adverse rolls. RECAT places aircraft into six (6) categories (labeled A-F) for both departure and arrival separation.

Background: FAA wake turbulence research, headed by AJT-2A, in conjunction with Volpe, NASA, MITRE, and other contractors/scientific organizations, has concluded that previous wake turbulence aircraft separation standards were extremely conservative.

Intended Outcome: Increase capacity at airports by decreasing separation distance between lead/follower aircraft when applicable.

Notes:

[2/5/2014 Gallo] RECAT was implemented in MEM on November 1, 2012 and implemented in SDF on September 9, 2013. Proposed future locations in FY 14 are MIA, CVG, SFO, ATL, and PHL.

[12/16/2014 Bollin] Implementation dates set for MIA, CVG, SFO, ATL, Houston, New York, Charlotte, Chicago, and Northern California. (Reference SAFO 14007)

[3/17/2015 Bollin] Wayne Gallo was unavailable to comment. John advised the OSWG: Airports have added to SAFO.  A question from the floor raised the speculation that RECAT will increase the go-around rate. John Swigart, AFS-408 explained that FAA Air Traffic Management is aware of the issue.

 

201430             Part 129 D095 Minimum Equipment List (MEL) Authorization (FAA Brief)

Initial Agenda Date: February 5, 2014         Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-52, 202 267-0923, danuta.pronczuk@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Not Applicable

Issue Statement: FAA no longer authorizes a foreign air carrier operating with U.S.-registered aircraft to use an FAA-approved MEL via a Letter of Authorization.

Background: In March, 2011, the FAA published a final rule which stated in part that MEL approvals will be accomplished via OpSpecs. Processing of the amendment to the OpSpec has been initiated and it is expected to be out for comment shortly. Expect additional clarification for a single extension.

Intended Outcome: Revise Part 129 D095 to reflect MEL authorization via OpSpecs.

Notes:

[2/5/2014 Pronczuk] FAA Brief.

[3/18/2015 Pronczuk] This project remains on hold.

 

(page 1 of 2)201501             Economic Authority and Insurance Management (eAIM) System (FAA Brief)

Initial Agenda Date: March 18, 2015           Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Steve Kane, AFS-260, 202 604-5564, steve.kane@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Not Applicable

Issue Statement: Current application processes are labor intensive and inefficient. Many steps necessary to process 14 CFR part 298 Air Taxi registrations and amendments, and 14 CFR part 205 aircraft accident liability insurance forms would be eliminated by increased automation. Providing an environment where applicants and the FAA can check the economic authority status of an operator would also cut down on additional phone and email inquiries. To accomplish these goals, the current system requires a complete redesign of the application, configuration, database and processes.

To that end, the FAA is developing a new Economic Authority and Insurance Management (eAIM) system, providing an online interface to external users, operators, and insurance personnel to complete and submit (Office of the Secretary of Transportation) OST Forms 4507, 6410, and 6411 to the FAA. Changing to online processing will also change the business processes for air taxi registrations and amendments, and administering insurance.

Background: Since the mid-1990s when the DOT delegated responsibility for processing part 298 registrations, and part 205 insurance applications to the FAA, AFS-260 has been successfully using the Operations Safety System Insurance Headquarters (OPSS Insurance HQ) application to capture DOT information (OST Forms 4507, 6410, and 6411). However, due to FAA budgetary constraints, staffing to support insurance and air taxi registration processing has been cut by half while at the same time changes in the commercial aviation industry are increasing.

The technology used in OPSS Insurance HQ is outdated and incompatible with the FAA information technology infrastructure and standard client desktop for FAA employees. Microsoft no longer supports the database on which Insurance HQ is based. Since Insurance HQ and its database are no longer updated with security patches, there is a significant risk of degradation in functionality, information security, and the potential for data loss and/or corruption of data.

Furthermore, the OPSS Insurance HQ application requires a significant amount of manual processing and storage of documents outside of the system, resulting in inefficient processing and unnecessary workload burden on the analysts maintaining and managing the information.

(continued on next page)

 

(page 2 of 2)201501             Economic Authority and Insurance Management (eAIM) System (FAA Brief)

Intended Outcome: eAIM system operations include:

·   Monitor, control, and surveillance of insurance information,

·   Functions to update insurance information,

·   Functions to alert industry and Certificate Holding District Offices (CHDOs) of Insurance policy cancellation, termination, and other changes to operator policies.

The new system is designed to automate the process of insurance tracking and deficiency notification for commercial air carriers and other air operators. Insurance information is gathered and stored at FAA HQ. A portion of this application functions at the CHDO level to notify the certificate holder’s ASI when the certificate holder’s insurance has expired or been cancelled.

The new system will maintain all current Insurance HQ information, as well as expand to provide for: online form submission and processing, online payment options, forms captured and maintained as records within the system, record processing status information, and increased data sharing with WebOPSS.

Notes:

[3/18/2015 Kane] Reference Steve’s eAIM Power Point Brief.

[3/18/2015 Kane] Steve introduced Teia Savage and Katherine Tatum, AFS-260 Insurance Program Analysts to the OSWG. He described the heavy workload required to process initial and renewal insurance forms and part 298 exemptions. (There are in excess of 18,000 aircraft in the insurance system alone.) AFS-260 has contracted with Lockheed Martin to update the time-consuming manual application process to an automated system with website interface access by industry employees, insurance brokers, FAA inspectors, OST officials, and program analysts. The digital system will be more user-friendly, with direct feed from brokers, industry, and agencies. The fitness condition of a respective air carrier/operator will be updated and known in real time.

[7/22/2015 Kane] The software application is 70% complete and anticipated to roll-out in late September/early October. Steve updated the OSWG and provided a more in-depth review of the process: The current tracking, authorizing and monitoring of insurance packages will be replaced by a more transparent digital system: An electronically submitted insurance package will be visible from inception to approval. (Paper applications will also be accepted.) FAA inspectors will be able to instantaneously review the current insurance and part 298 exemption status of an operator. The process will be streamlined with applications halted for error corrections along the way, allowing analysts to provide a timely approval. AFS-260 has set a goal of processing a part 298 exemption application in less than 30 days. (PS: You will never see a 24-hour turn time.)

 

201502             A447 Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) Notification Information (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date: March 17, 2015           Date Closed:

FAA Lead: John Bollin, AFS-260, 916 202-3608, john.bollin@faa.gov

Industry Lead: David Stape, Delta Air Lines, david.stape@delta.com

Issue Statement: Request to amend A447 Table 2—Method of Notification to allow email addresses in addition to facsimile number.

Background: A447, Emergency AD Notification Requirements, currently requires operators to identify a primary facsimile number to receive emergency AD notifications from the FAA. To increase the distribution of a faxed AD notification, Delta Air Lines associates an email distribution list to the fax number. The e-mail distribution list is comprised of several managers, general managers, and directors who need to be aware of Emergency AD Notifications. The problem is fax number security is more susceptible to spam and junk faxes. As spam and junk faxes are received through the Emergency AD Notification fax number, the junk and spam then gets distributed through the email distribution list. Delta wants assurance that only Emergency AD Notifications are received through the method of notification without the risk or annoyance of spam.

Intended Outcome: To allow an email address in addition to facsimile number for Emergency AD Notifications.

Notes:

[3/17/2015 Bollin] This is an FAA internal, AFS-260 IT fix. Adding email URLs is not difficult, but it is a process. WebOPSS does not allow for 2 primary contacts (in the case of a merger: DL/NW, UA/CA, US/AA). A447 is a 400 series data collection paragraph; it is not an authorization. The OSWG suggested expanding the table to allow multiple primary/secondary signatures. Question from the floor: Will the FAA allow a group email address? Answer: OK if a valid address. Post meeting addendum: John will also look into amending part 129 A447 Emergency Airworthiness Directives (AD) Notification Requirements for U.S.-Registered Aircraft.

[4/13/2015 Grusche] Post meeting note: This is a Flight Standards Certification, AIR, requirement for disseminating emergency ADs to industry. The AD notification interface and A447 templates were designed at AIR’s direction to function the way they do now—AIR does not allow 2 primary contacts or email addresses. Email does not have a guaranteed receipt indicator and for that reason AIR has not allowed its use in the past.

As with any template revision, revising the eleven A447 templates (including foreign air carrier requirements outlined in 14 CFR part 129 and §129.14) requires a published Notice and updated 8900.1 guidance. AFS-260 will liaison with AIR. A WebOPSS hotfix can be deployed within a week; guidance publication takes months.

201502             A447 Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) Notification Information (page 2 of 2)

Notes:

[7/22/2015 Bollin] Industry reiterated: Fax machines are typically unmonitored and are susceptible to spam! Email systems are constantly monitored and reviewed and can be easily distributed within the operator to address an immediate airworthiness directive. John reiterated: This is a certification issue, not an AFS issue. Industry requests an AIR point of contact to review the issue at the next OSWG meeting and inquired about other Airlines for America forums in which AIR participates? Mark Lopez, A4A, replied no, but A4A can contact AIR if needed. John will reset the priority of this issue.

[11/4/2015 Bollin] John updated the OSWG on the FAA progress. Domestic and international A447 templates have been created. Guidance has been developed and a Notice has been written. John plans to submit the documents to the FAA’s Document Control Board next month. If all goes well, the documents should be posted for public comment in January, 2016.

 

201503             A051          Fixed Wing Night Vision Goggle (NVG) Operations

            D094    Fixed Wing Night Vision Goggle (NVG) Operations

                      Maintenance Program  (FAA Brief) (awaiting publication)

Initial Agenda Date: March 17, 2015           Date Closed:

FAA Lead: Chris Holliday, AFS-250, 202 267-4552, chris.holliday@faa.gov

Industry Lead: TBD

Issue Statement: Authorize fixed wing night vision goggle use.

Background: Part 135 helicopter operators have been operating using night vision googles for a number of years. These operations have been authorized via OpSpecs A050 and D093. The FAA has recently received requests from operators desiring authorization to use night vision googles in part 135 fixed wing operations. The agency intends to utilize the lessons learned from helicopter night vision goggle operations to develop parallel OpSpecs A051 and D094 (proposed designations) for fixed wing night vision goggle operations.

Intended Outcome: Develop OpSpec templates for fixed wing night vision goggle operations.

Notes:

[3/17/2015 Holliday] AFS-250 brief on the scope of the project and requesting industry input. Reference Chris’ proposed airplane NVG operations brief. Highlights: Proposed OpSpec paragraphs do not alter current regulation, incorporate takeoff and landing authorization, will include a single pilot option, will limit to VMC, and contain airworthiness requirements and a table of NVG checks. 8900.1 inspector guidance will include training and checking maneuvers. Chris expects to publish the new templates with corresponding guidance this fall.

[7/22/2015 Kane] Awaiting publication.

[11/4/2015 Holliday] Awaiting publication.

 

201504             A323        Use of a Liquid Water Equivalent System (LWES) (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date: March 18, 2015           Date Closed: November 4, 2015

FAA Lead:  Chuck Enders, AFS-220, 202-267-4557, charles.j.enders@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Andy Newcomer, UPS, 502 359-5713, anewcomer@ups.com

Issue Statement: Request optional standard language for paragraph A023 to include Liquid Water Equivalent System (LWES).

Background: During the last two winters, operators have used non-standard language for the authorization of LWES.

Intended Outcome: Optional standard language to be added based on the approved “non-standard” language.

Notes:

[3/17/2015 Bollin] Chuck Enders was unavailable. Gordy Rother, AFS-240, and Adam Giraldes, AFS220, briefed the OSWG. Draft language for LWE is in the works for A023 or a stand-alone OpSpec. Cargo operators FedEx and UPS use LWE systems and love the A023 “open language”. They would like to see the program in an “approved” manual with corresponding 8900.1 guidance. The OSWG recommendation will be forwarded to Chuck.

[7/22/2015 Bollin] Chuck Enders was unavailable. An Advisory Circular, Order 8900.1 inspector guidance, and a new OpSpec, A323, are awaiting publication. The AC provides guidance for the FAAs standard for a Liquid Water Equivalent System (LWES). The AC will apply to anyone proposing to design, procure, construct, install, activate, or maintain an LWES. An LWES is an automated weather measurement system that determines the Liquid Water Equivalent (LWE) rate in conditions of frozen or freezing precipitation. The LWE rate is used by the system with the appropriate endurance time (ET) regression equations and regression coefficients specified in an FAA-approved current database to determine the holdover time (HOT) or check time (CT) for an aircraft’s applied anti-icing fluid. Thus, the LWES incorporates a Holdover Time Determination System (HOTDS) or Check Time Determination System (CTDS). The HOT is used to determine how long a fluid would provide protection assuming that the current conditions do not change. The CT is used to determine the fluid’s current protection capability, while incorporating varying weather conditions. Expect authorization to use LWES during the 2015/16 winter season.

[7/22/2015 Bollin] This issue will be retitled A323 Use of a Liquid Water Equivalent System (LWES) in the next agenda.

(continued on next page)

 

201504             A323        Use of a Liquid Water Equivalent System (LWES) (page 2 of 2)

Notes:

[10/13/2015 Bollin] The Advisory Circular, AC 120-112 Use of Liquid Water Equivalent System to Determine Holdover Times or Check Times for Anti-Icing Fluids, was published in July. Notice 8900.332 OpSpec A323, Liquid Water Equivalent System (LWES) and FAA Order 8900.1 V3 C27 S5 Liquid Water Equivalent Systems, are effective this month.

[11/4/2015 Moates] Chuck Enders was unavailable. Steve Moates, Acting AFS-220 Branch Manager, briefed the OSWG: Information was published last month [ed: see note above]. AFS-200 will approve applications…. Three requests have been submitted to date. Southwest Airlines is the first air carrier to be issued a cold soaked fuel frost exemption. Others will be published using the Southwest model.

[11/4/2015 Winkelman] The issue is closed.


 

201505          Part 129 C384   Area Navigation (RNAV) Required Navigation Performance (RNP)       Instrument Approach Procedures with Special Aircraft and

                        Aircrew Authorization Required (AR)  (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date: March 18, 2015           Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-52, 202 267-0923, danuta.pronczuk@faa.gov

                     Trent Bigler, AFS 470, 202 267-8844, trent.bigler@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Mike Barfoot, Air Canada, 905-676-2176, michael.barfoot@aircanada.ca

Issue Statement: Outdated OpSpec and FAA inspector guidance needs to be tailored for part 129 International Operations. Update and harmonize AC 90-105 Approval Guidance for RNP Operations and Barometric Vertical Navigation in the U.S. National Airspace System with the PBN Manual. (Reference OSWG Issue 201428 C384 Required Navigation Performance Procedures with Authorization Required)

Background: AC 90-105 was issued in January, 2009. Part 129 OpSpec paragraph C384 was last updated in January, 2010.

Intended Outcome:

OpSpecs Part 129 C384—

·   Harmonize terminology with ICAO.

·   Delete RNP SAAAR and insert RNP AR (Area Navigation Required Navigation Performance Authorization Required).

·   Delete inspector guidance.

·   Delete requirements covered by ICAO annex 6 Part I to include 3.1.4, 4.2.1, 9.3.1, 9.4.3 a)5, 9.4.3.5 b), Attachment E (1.2, 3.3), and 10.3.

·   Revise Table as follows:

  Add an additional column “Additional Aircraft Capabilities” with dropdowns.

  Add two additional dropdowns for the limitations column:

“Not authorized to use temperature compensation system.”

“Not authorized procedures with missed approaches requiring RNP less than 1.0.”

·   Split the Navigation System column into two individual columns (one for M/M/S and one for Software Version).

 

(continued on next page)

 

201505          Part 129 C384   Area Navigation (RNAV) Required Navigation Performance (RNP)       Instrument Approach Procedures with Special Aircraft and

                        Aircrew Authorization Required (AR)  (page 2 of 2)

Intended Outcome:

FAA Order 8900.1—Amend inspector guidance for part 129 as follows:

·   Add:

  Regulatory basis.

  Acceptable criteria to the FAA.

  Radius to Fix (RF) leg capability requirement on all operators who want to conduct RNP AR in U.S. airspace.

  ICAO Annex 6 references to include those deleted from OpSpec.

  ICAO Doc 9613 paragraph 7.2 reference confidence in RNP AR approvals when issued by a foreign state.

  Clarification on chart terminology. All U.S. RNP SAAAR charts are updated as they are amended to the new terminology of RNP AR.

·   Harmonize terminology with ICAO. Specifically, delete RNP SAAAR and insert RNP AR (Area Navigation Required Navigation Performance Authorization Required).

·   Amend:

  FAA acceptance of Aircraft Qualification and Operational Documentation and add relevant ICAO references in ICAO doc 9613 and doc 9905.

  Headquarter approval for FAA reorganization. (IFOs reporting directly to AFS-50).

·   Clarify requirements applicable to foreign operators operating in U.S. airspace.

·   Delete repetitions.

·   Move direction for populating the OpSpec into a job aid to be located under the guidance button in WebOPSS for OpSpec C384.

Notes:

[3/18/2015 Pronczuk] Danuta thanked Trent Bigler, AFS-470, for his hard work and expertise in the development of this new amendment. Significantly, in the interest of public safety, all U.S. commercial certificate holders and foreign operators who want to conduct RNP AR in U.S. airspace must have RF leg capability. Operators are reminded of their responsibility to advise the FAA of changes to Navigation System software version. Trent advised the OSWG of the significance/critically related to software version changes. A Notice, draft paragraph template, and associated guidance is posted on the AFS Foreign OpSpecs Draft Documents Open for Comment website. (reference document title OpSpec C384, RNP AR—Area Navigation (RNAV) Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Authorization Required (AR): 14 CFR Part 129) OSWG members are encouraged to submit comment. The comment period closes on June 1, 2015.

 

201506             Bxxx        Class I Navigation Using Multiple GPS

                      Outside the U.S. Class A Airspace (proposed) (page 1 of 3)

Initial Agenda Date: March 17, 2015           Date Closed: November 4, 2015

FAA Lead:  Gordy Rother, AFS-430, 612 253-4409, gordon.rother@faa.gov

                     Adam Giraldes, AFS220, 817 3504564, adam.giraldes@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Doug Snow, Federal Express, 901-397-8228, douglas.snow@fedex.com

Issue Statement: Both ICAO and the FAA recognize the use of GPS for Class I navigation (reference FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 4, Chapter 1, Section 2, Paragraph 4-23). Industry proposes to add the term “GPS” to OpSpec paragraph A002 Definitions and Abbreviations, “Airways Navigation Facilities” and “Class I Navigation”. Precedence for change is found in FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 18, Section 3, Paragraph 3-737 “Washington headquarters will add definitions when it becomes apparent that they are needed.”

This modification of definition would allow for the use of controlling language in the development of a new OpSpec paragraph Bxxx “Class I Navigation Using Multiple GPS Outside U.S. Class A Airspace”. The proposed OpSpec would permit a certificate holder to dispatch any flight, anywhere worldwide with a 45-minute final reserve fuel, provided that the aircraft has multiple GPS receivers installed. The receivers must be operational at dispatch, and an enroute PRAIM forecast must be calculated before departure which shows that there is sufficient PRAIM forecast for the enroute portion of the flight. See the Intended Outcome section below.

Language from current paragraphs B043 Special Fuel Reserves In International Operations, and B343 Fuel Reserve for Nonstandard Flag and Supplemental Operations, would be incorporated into the new paragraph and require more accurate fuel planning for the destination alternate, more accurate winds aloft forecasts, necessitate all fuel quantity indicators be operational, call for a fuel bias program, fuel shortfalls estimate and route deviations, and entail training for dispatchers and flight deck crewmembers.

Background: For decades many technical improvements in aviation have increased the reliability and predictability. However, both economic and environmental factors require a more efficient use of fuel, both to reduce the overall cost of the operation, as well as to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that affect the atmosphere. U.S. flag and supplemental carriers are saddled by outdated regulations mandating unnecessary fuel carriage to mitigate what technology has all but eliminated. Operators investing in newer technologies and improved processes should be able to receive a return on investment, both in the form of streamlined operations, as well as reduced fuel carriage. Technology and improved flight planning has outpaced regulation: 14 CFR part 121 §121.645 Fuel supply: Turbine-engine powered airplanes, other than turbo propeller: Flag and supplemental operations turned 50 years old last year. It’s time for an update while maintaining the same standards of safety.

201506             Bxxx        Class I Navigation Using Multiple GPS

                      Outside the U.S. Class A Airspace (proposed) (page 2 of 3)

Intended Outcome:

If a multiple GPS system is operational at dispatch, and the PRAIM analysis shows that sufficient satellite coverage is forecasted to be available to the ANSP-required level of RNP, and when the aircraft is outside the operational service volume of ground-based ICAO standard airway navigational facilities, the aircraft would not be required to board the 10% reserve fuel required by OpSpec B043(b)(2), or the 5% enroute reserve fuel required by OpSpec B343(c)(Table I). The navigational mitigation would be provided by GPS, and a PRAIM forecast showing sufficient enroute PRAIM. When one, or both of, an aircraft’s GPS systems is inoperative at dispatch, the operator would not be able to take credit for the elimination of enroute reserves provided for by the revised definition of Class I Navigation in proposed paragraph Bxxx. When the enroute PRAIM forecast shows that insufficient RNP will be available that would permit the aircraft to navigate to the degree of accuracy required by ATC, reduced fuel reserves provided by Bxxx would not be available. Adoption of proposed paragraph Bxxx would:

(1)  Reduce unnecessary fuel carriage and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).

(2)  Simplify fuel planning rules, given the navigational accuracy of GPS combined with the improved accuracy of flight planning systems and the winds aloft forecasts.

Notes:

[3/17/2015 Bollin] OSWG Issue 201506 was added after the agenda was closed. Gordy Rother, AFS-240, and Adam Giraldes, AFS-220, have been assigned and will brief the OSWG in July.

[7/22/2015 Rother] (ed: Proposed OpSpec Bxxx was erroneously titled B099 when introduced at the last meeting.) There are a number of issues impacted when using multiple GPS avionics outside Class A airspace. (PS: AFS-400 is making a conscious effort to sunset the terms “Class I” and “Class II”. Reference OSWG Issue 201424 notes.) During the discussion Gordy observed that Bxxx navigation requirements will impact B043 fuel planning. In many parts of the world, a carrier authorized A012 is able to dispatch under domestic fuel rules in lieu of flag requirements. Industry Chairman Jim Winkelman, placed a motion before the OSWG to add a review of B043 to the November 2015 agenda.

(continued on next page)

 

201506             Bxxx        Class I Navigation Using Multiple GPS

                      Outside the U.S. Class A Airspace (proposed) (page 3 of 3)

Notes:

[11/4/2015 Giraldes] Adam and Gordy were unavailable to brief in person. Adam provided the OSWG with an update via telcon. To date, no formal conversations have been occurred: AFS-200 has been putting their focus and effort into publishing and closing OSWG Issue 200605 B343 Performance Based Fuel. If a certificate holder is not a scheduled network air carrier, B343 is worthless. A review of B043 was added to the agenda: Reference OSWG Issue 201510 B043 Special Fuel Reserves in International Operations. OpSpecs B043 and new B343 will not be revised.

[11/4/2015 Winkelman] The issue is closed.

 

201507                Part 129 C051 Terminal Instrument Procedures    (page 1 of 2)

Part 129 C054 Special Limitations and Provisions for Instrument

                        Approach Procedures and IFR Landing Minimums

Initial Agenda Date: March 18, 2015           Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Bryant Welch, AFS-410, 202 267-8981, bryant.welch@faa.gov

                     Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-52, 202 267-0923, danuta.pronczuk@faa.gov

Industry Lead: TBD

Issue Statement: OpSpec Part 129 C054 is outdated. Amend OpSpec Part 129 C051.

Background: The FAA released OpSpec Part 129 C054 in 1997. In 2000 (revised in 2013) ICAO adopted and made applicable, standards for continuing an instrument approach (ICAO Annex 6 Part I, 4.4.1.2 and 4.4.1.3). This new standard together with 14 CFR part 129 §129.5 (foreign air carriers conducting operations within the United States must conduct those operations in accordance with the standards contained in ICAO Annex 6) makes OpSpec Part 129 C054 no longer necessary.

Intended Outcome: Decommission foreign OpSpec paragraph C054 and amend paragraph Part 129 C051 as follows:

·   Add weather conditions reported by the U.S. National Weather Service, a source approved by that Service, or a source approved by the Administrator

·   Delete subparagraph b. “Lower than standard takeoff minimums exercised by the foreign air carrier as described in these operations specifications shall not be less than those lower than standard takeoff minimums that are authorized by the foreign air carrier’s regulatory authority” (covered in Part 129 C056 IFR Takeoff Minimums—Airplanes (Optional)).

Notes:

[3/18/2015 Welch] Bryant reviewed the proposed decommission of C054 and amendment to C051. A Notice, draft paragraph template, and associated guidance are posted on the AFS Foreign OpSpecs Draft Documents Open for Comment website. (reference document title: The International Programs and Policy Division (AFS-50) together with the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division (AFS-400) have drafted Notice to decommission OpSpec C054, and amend OpSpec C051 for part 129.) OSWG members are encouraged to submit comment. The comment period closes on June 1, 2015.

(continued on the next page)

 

201507                Part 129 C051 Terminal Instrument Procedures    (page 2 of 2)

Part 129 C054 Special Limitations and Provisions for Instrument

                        Approach Procedures and IFR Landing Minimums

Notes:

[3/18/2015 Pronczuk] A question from the floor: Will the FAA adopt the new ICAO standard and amend its regulations to harmonize with EASA (the approach ban to 1000 feet AGL)?  Danuta advised that she was not aware that such a rulemaking has been initiated. The standard was just adopted and it is expected that a final decision on this issue has not yet been made. Regardless, the International Programs and Policy division would not have the lead on a rulemaking activity for U.S. certificate holders. Danuta further explained: The FAA is constantly faced with making choices of which rulemaking activities to undertake/pursue. Projects are weighted for safety and public interest and compete for limited resources and time.

[10/9/2015 Bollin] OpSpec Part 129 C054 has been decommissioned and Part 129 C051 updated. Order 8900.1 V12, C2, S5 Part 129 Part C Operations Specifications has been revised.

 

201510             B043        Special Fuel Reserves in International Operations  (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date: November 4, 2015       Date Closed: November 4, 2015

FAA Lead:  Gordy Rother, AFS-430, 612 253-4409, gordon.rother@faa.gov

                     Adam Giraldes, AFS220, 817 3504564, adam.giraldes@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Doug Snow, Federal Express, 901-397-8228, douglas.snow@fedex.com

Issue Statement: During the July 2015 OSWG meeting discussion of Issue 201506 Bxxx Class I Navigation Using Multiple GPS Outside the U.S. Class A Airspace (proposed), it was observed that Bxxx navigation requirements will impact B043 fuel planning.

Background: For decades many technical improvements in aviation have increased operational reliability and predictability. Both economic and environmental factors require a more efficient use of fuel to reduce overall cost, as well as to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that affect the atmosphere. U.S. carriers are saddled by outdated regulations which are still on the books mandating unnecessary fuel carriage to mitigate what technology has all but eliminated. Operators investing in newer technologies and improved processes should be able to receive some return on investment, both in the form of streamlined operations, as well as reduced fuel carriage.   

Intended Outcome: Reference Proposed OpSpec B043 Template. A modification to paragraph B043 would:

·   Eliminate fuel considerations for Oceanic or Remote Continental Airspace (formerly Class II Airspace) related fuel reserves for (1) those aircraft equipped with an operational Dual GPS authorized in B036, or a single GPS authorized under B054, and (2) when the predictive RAIM forecast shows sufficient PRAIM to the ANSP-required level of PRAIM. (Requires the ability to forecast enroute PRAIM.) Example: If a given airspace is RNP4 required, and the PRAIM forecast shows that RNP4 would be available for the portion of the flight in Oceanic or Remote Continental Airspace, then the aircraft would not be required to carry the additional 10% fuel reserve. If there is a RAIM gap, the maximum duration of the gap may not exceed that stated in ICAO Doc 7030 Regional Supplementary Procedures, or NAT Doc 007 North Atlantic Operations and Airspace Manual. Aircraft not meeting the above (GPS Inoperative on dual GPS aircraft, insufficient PRAIM, etc.) would continue to carry the 10% fuel reserve for that time outside Continental Airspace in excess of two hours under current OpSpec B043 standards.

·   Reduce unnecessary fuel carriage and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).

(continued on next page)

 

201510             B043        Special Fuel Reserves in International Operations  (page 2 of 2)

Notes:

[11/4/2015 Giraldes] Adam and Gordy were unavailable to brief in person. Adam provided the OSWG with an update via telcon. To date, no formal conversations have been occurred: AFS-200 has been putting their focus and effort into the publication of B343, and closing OSWG Issue 200605 B343 Performance Based Fuel. With the new definitions for Class I and Class II airspace, B043 Class II fuel reserves will not be required with adequate PRAIM. Adam informed the OSWG: When an air carrier/operator enters Class II airspace, they may be within range of Class I airspace. Some systems can go in and out of Class II, therefore requiring a 10% fuel reserve. Adam recognizes the need for clarification. There is an ongoing discussion with the nav specialists who wrote the initial B043 paragraph, to fix current problems and interpretations, and foresee what the future holds. For now, no changes to B043 are in the works.

[11/4/2015 Winkelman] The issue is closed.


201511             B054        Class II Navigation Using Single Long-Range Navigation System (S-LRNS)

(page 1 of 2)Initial Agenda Date: November 4, 2015       Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Kevin Kelley, AFS-470, 202 267-8854, kevin.c.kelley@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Kyle Besaw, United Airlines, 872 825-3135, kyle.besaw@united.com

                           Perry Lewis, United Airlines, 872 825-4821, perry.lewis@united.com

                           Steve Smith, American Airlines, 682 315-4806, stephen.smith@aa.com

                           Mike Boynton, American Airlines, 817 967-5327, mike.boynton@aa.com

Issue Statement: Introducing a new template for B054 Class II Navigation Using Single Long-Range Navigation System (S-LRNS).

Background:

·   Class II Navigation is now titled Oceanic/Remote Continental Airspace Navigation.

·   Reference AC90-105 Approval Guidance for RNP Operations and Barometric Vertical Navigation in the U.S. National Airspace System: A requirement for GPS Fault Detection and Exclusion (FDE) prediction during flight planning for RNP 10 (using GPS only) was added.

·   The area where the use of a single long-range navigation system is authorized was expanded.

·   Reference a proposed change to B039, the term “operational control personnel” in place of dispatchers, flight followers, etc. was introduced.

·   Limitations on the use of RNP 10 with a single LRNS were clarified.

·   The term “RNP 10 (Limited)” was introduced.

Intended Outcome: To provide an OpSpec/MSpec/LOA B054 that is clear, to the point, and free of redundant, vague or otherwise unnecessary language―And one that is reflective of changes to other guidance material relating to oceanic/remote continental operations.

(continued on next page)

 

(page 2 of 2)201511             B054        Class II Navigation Using Single Long-Range Navigation System (S-LRNS)

Notes:

[11/4/2015 Kelley] Kevin followed his brief of OSWG Issue 201424 B039 Operations within NAT MNPS Airspace, with an updated B039/B054 NAT MNPS Airspace presentation. Kevin thanked United, American and FedEx for their input and participation. Publishing B054 is slightly behind B039. Reference the AFS-470 PBN Guidance and Approval website.

The NAT Reduced Lateral Separation Minimum (RLatSM) trials will start in this month. (For some background, take a look at the National Air Traffic Control Service (NATS) RLatSM trials presentation.) RNP 4 based on S-LRNS will be added.

Enroute RNP 2 will be implemented in March 2016. Australia will transition to PBN by February (reference Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) PBN booklet). How will FAA accommodate? AFS will revise B036 Class II Navigation Using Multiple Long-Range Navigation Systems (M-LRNS), and AC 90-101A Approval Guidance for RNP Procedures with AR, by end of this year.

RNP 2 ICAO flight plan coding? Australia will use “RNP2”. US air traffic systems cannot process RNP2. Kevin asked ATO about accommodating the RNP2 flight plan entry: Australia RNP2 is exclusionary. Reference the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) PBN booklet for more information. The revision to B036 should coincide with the change.

Plotting Method vs. Procedural Method for aircrew tracking: The FAA discussion is ongoing. United is using the Procedural Method.

Documents posted will be open for a 45 day public comment period.

 

201512             Canadian Private Operator Access to OpSpecs, MSpecs and LOAs (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date: November 4, 2015       Date Closed:

FAA Lead: 

Industry Lead: Brian Koester, NBAA, 202 783-9454, bkoester@nbaa.org

Issue Statement: The FAA has no policy to address the issuance of Operations Specifications (OpSpecs), Management Specifications (MSpecs), or 14 CFR part 91 Letters of Authority (LOA) to foreign private operators.

Background: 14 CFR part 129 allows for the issuance of OpSpecs to foreign commercial operators. Transport Canada also allows the issuance of OpSpecs to foreign commercial operators. It is assumed that the safety risk of issuing these approvals to foreign commercial operators is mitigated by the fact that the oversight of these approvals by foreign authorities is adequate given that these foreign operators are required to operate under operating certificates issued by their national authority which include these same approvals.

Canada requires private operators to operate under the equivalent of a commercial air operator certificate (referred to as a Private Operator Registration (POR) in the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs)) and requires separate and specific approvals of OpSpecs (referred to as Special Authorizations in the CARs) which are documented in the Operations Specifications section of the POR. The Canadian private operator regulations are as demanding or more demanding in many instances than 14 CFR part 135 regulations and include the requirement to have a Safety Management System (SMS), quality assurance (via compliance audit) and management review (QA) of the SMS. Click here for an example of a simple POR including one of the many possible Special Authorizations.

Intended Outcome: The FAA develops and implements a policy that permits the issuance of OpSpecs, MSpecs or LOAs to Canadian POR holders based on proof of issuance of equivalent documents by Transport Canada with the exception of special approach procedures. Special approach procedures would be issued based on the fact that the CARs require the procedures and any required training to be documented in the private operator’s operations manual which renders following the procedures and conducting the training mandatory by regulation.

(continued on next page)

 

201512             Canadian Private Operator Access to OpSpecs, MSpecs and LOAs (page 2 of 2)

Notes:

[9/15/2015 Bollin] Excerpt from FAA News and Update: On September 15, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) signed agreements with two international regulatory partners, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and Transport Canada (TCCA) that allow the authorities to rely on each other’s regulatory systems. The agreements will eliminate duplicate processes, get safety enhancing equipment installed on aircraft more quickly, and save time and money for both industry and the regulatory authorities involved.

Strong partnerships are a key to consistent safety standards around the world. Based on more than a decade of FAA cooperation with EASA and over fifteen years with TCCA, the agencies have established confidence in each other’s regulatory systems. Rooted in that confidence, the new safety agreements allow reciprocal acceptance of the majority of Technical Standard Order (TSO)-approved articles. This change benefits U.S., Canadian, and European aerospace industries organizations by eliminating the need for applications, additional validation and administrative review by each party.

The new agreement with EASA also facilitates acceptance of the classification for basic Supplemental Type Certificates (STC’s). An audit process will ensure that technical classifications continue to meet established criteria, and make sure standards are being met.

Reference FAA-EASA Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA), Revision 5 of the Technical Implementation Procedures, and the FAA-TCCA Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA), Amendment 1 to Revision 1 of the Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness.

 

201513             C382        Landing Performance Assessment

                      at Time of Arrival for Turbo Jet Operations  (FAA Brief)

Initial Agenda Date: November 4, 2015       Date Closed: November 4, 2015

FAA Lead: Chuck Enders, AFS-220, 202 267-4557, charles.j.enders@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Alan Clay, American Airlines, 817 967-5157, alan.clay@aa.com

Issue Statement: FAA Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment (TALPA) status brief.

Background: Responding to a number of runway excursions culminating with the December 2005 Southwest Airlines accident at Chicago’s MDW airport, the FAA formed an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) in March 2008 to address landing distance assessment at time of arrival, and accounting for contaminated runways at time of takeoff. In September 2010, a plethora of congressionally mandated rulemaking projects coupled with a projected 8+ year timeline to complete current rulemaking projects, resulted in the suspension of the ARC. Non-rulemaking options were considered and an implementation charter team was formed. In January 2013, a non-rulemaking implementation charter was signed off by all involved FAA lines of business. Reference Chuck Enders September 2015 TALPA Brief and American Airlines Sample OpSpec C382.

Intended Outcome: Industry brief on the status of the FAA’s TALPA safety case, pending 2016 NOTAM system modifications, timeline for publication of a new NOTAM Advisory Circular, and status of the 2015 winter operations AC 150/5200-30D.

Notes:

[11/4/2015 Moates] Chuck Enders was unavailable. Steve Moates, Acting AFS-220 Branch Manager, briefed the OSWG: Currently, the TALPA project is voluntary; hence, the future of C382 is uncertain and dependent on industry involvement. The FAA is still uncertain whether to design the OpSpec and collect data, or develop the paragraph using previously collected data. Jim Winkelman, Alaska Airlines, identified training airport personnel as a major piece of the program. It’s difficult to get airports involved. He also expressed concerns about the implementation steps for operators…: How much time will they have to put into practice a policy requiring participation by one aircraft at a time. The FAA understands the timeline and has set early FY 2017 for compliance. The agency will keep the OSWG and industry informed through the A4A and other interested groups.

[11/4/2015 Winkelman] The OSWG was briefed and the issue is closed.

201514             D107        Line Maintenance Authorization  (FAA Brief) (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date: November 4, 2015       Date Closed:

FAA Lead: Mark Williams, AFS-330, mark.e.williams@faa.gov, 816 329-4042

Industry Lead:

Issue Statement: In support of US/EU Safety Agreement, Annex 2, a change is required to provide EASA approved repair stations the authorization to perform line maintenance functions on non U.S.-registered aircraft.

Background: D107 authorizes repair stations to perform line maintenance on U.S. registered aircraft for certificate holders conducting air carrier operations under 14 CFR Parts 121 and 135, and for foreign air carriers or foreign persons operating U.S.-registered aircraft in common carriage under 14 CFR Part 129. Non U.S.-registered aircraft are excluded.

Intended Outcome: Authorize EASA approved repair stations to perform line maintenance for Part 129 foreign air carriers/operators who use foreign registered aircraft. Renumber current paragraphs (b) and (c), and add new paragraph (b) as follows:

(a)  …

(b)  The certificate holder under the provisions of US/EU Safety Agreement, Annex 2 is authorized to perform line maintenance functions that apply to certificate holders conducting air carrier operations for foreign air carriers or foreign persons operating non U.S.-registered aircraft in common carriage under 14 CFR Part 129, and listed in Table 1.

(c)  …

(d) …

Update 8900.1 Volume 3, Chapter 18, Section 10 to reflect this change.

(continued on next page)


 

201514             D107        Line Maintenance Authorization  (FAA Brief) (page 2 of 2)

Notes:

[11/4/2015 Williams] [ed: OSWG Issue 201514 D107 was scheduled for discussion during the joint international/domestic meeting in March 2016 to identify implementation concerns.] Prior to adjournment, Mike Keller, American Airlines, inquired about EASA authorization. American is unable to place non-U.S.-registered aircraft in Table 1 and needs this revision to D107. Mark notified the OSWG that a revision to D107 was in work, and needed soon to support the US/EU Safety Agreement, Annex 2. It will be released before the March 2016 meeting. Mike inquired: “What can we do today?”: The AA CMO will not dictate what entry should be made in Table 1 to allow EASA authorization, and suggested using “AA”…. Questions: Is line maintenance at an EASA authorized repair station for an American Airlines B777 conducted under part 121 or part 145? What rational is used for a British Airways B777 contracted with American for line maintenance? A sidebar phone discussion was held between Mike Keller, Mark Williams, and AFS-300 Deputy Tony Janco to discuss the AA issues directly. The recommendation offered to AA was to work with their CMO PI and utilize “non-standard text” stating the pending paragraph until the change is made. Industry desires clarification on what to put into the table to allow for EASA authorization. The table is sufficient to implement the new paragraph.

201515             D091        Requirements: Air Carrier Maintenance Providers  (FAA Brief)

Initial Agenda Date: November 4, 2015       Date Closed:

FAA Lead: Mark Williams, AFS-330, mark.e.williams@faa.gov, 816 329-4042

Industry Lead:

Issue Statement: 14 CFR Part 135 certificate holders type certificated for a passenger seating configuration, excluding any pilot seat, of ten seats or more have new requirements per 14 CFR 135.426 and 135.427 in regards to Maintenance Providers.

Background: New section 135.426 and additional subsection 135.427(b)(10) will become effective March 4, 2016―

14 CFR part 135 §135.426(h) Each certificate holder who contracts for maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations must provide to its FAA Certificate Holding District Office, in a format acceptable to the FAA, a list that includes the name and physical (street) address, or addresses, where the work is carried out for each maintenance provider that performs work for the certificate holder, and a description of the type of maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration that is to be performed at each location. The list must be updated with any changes, including additions or deletions, and the updated list provided to the FAA in a format acceptable to the FAA by the last day of each calendar month. (80 FR 25216 corrected the effective date of the final rule to March 4, 2016.)

14 CFR part 135 §135.427(b)(10) Policies, procedures, methods, and instructions for the accomplishment of all maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations carried out by a maintenance provider. These policies, procedures, methods, and instructions must be acceptable to the FAA and ensure that, when followed by the maintenance provider, the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations are performed in accordance with the certificate holder's maintenance program and maintenance manual. (80 FR 25216 corrected the effective date of the final rule to March 4, 2016.)

Intended Outcome: Commission OpSpec D091 for Part 135 (10 or more) to identify

·   maintenance providers; and  

·   policies, procedures, methods, and instructions for the accomplishment of all maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations carried out by a maintenance provider.

Notes:

[11/4/2015 Williams] D091 was required in the 1990s and subsequently removed for no apparent reason. Revised paragraph D091 will be reactivated for part 135 certificate holders…; requiring a list of all maintenance providers. The OSWG asked “Can industry reference a document that lists the maintenance providers?” Mark answered yes, similar to one found for part 121 providers. [ed: not available herein]

November 2015 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes

·   [Jim Winkelman] Jim chaired his last OSWG and relinquished the gavel to Ellen Birmingham. Jim Stieve, Southwest Airlines Senior Manager Regulatory Programs and Compliance, was unanimously elected OSWG Domestic Industry Vice-Chairman. Steve Kane, FAA Chairman, was absent and home with the flu. John Bollin filled in as acting FAA Chairman.

·   [Ellen Birmingham] Ellen led a diverse discussion of FAA/Industry collaboration, OSWG meeting location and frequency:

Elaborating on the successful industry/agency meeting in Dallas to find a solution to the A034 AQP rewrite, Ellen recommended more one-on-one encounters during the OSWG meeting week and/or in the offices of FAA assigned leads nationwide.

John McGraw, Airbus Americas Senior Advisor and former Deputy Director Flight Standard Service, asked to see a raise of hands of FAA personnel in the room…: a third of the audience. When asked to see the hands of those who traveled into Washington to attend the meeting, less than 5% of the hands remained up…. It was a unanimous decision to continue hosting the meetings in DC. Industry also voiced their desire to hold three meetings a year. The March 8/9 joint international/domestic OSWG meeting will be hosted by the FAA. The NBAA agreed to sponsor a domestic only meeting July 20, 2016, and A4A will host a domestic only meeting November 16, 2016.

Several industry members volunteered to solicit participation and meeting site support from the Regional Airline Association.                                      

·   [John Bollin] Concerns were raised regarding the public distribution of personal information found in the OSWG roster and sign-in sheets. Until further notice, personal information will be removed from public rosters posted on the FAA and A4A web sites.

·   [John Bollin] We finally made some headway posting documents to the FAA’s Draft Documents Open for Comment web site. Theo Kessaris put up the A025 template and AC 120-78A electronic signature, electronic recordkeeping, and electronic manual system/program documents. Throughout the day, members were encouraged to add their comments to posted files.

Theo also brought up the question of what should be published on an industry website, specifically the A4A OSWG site.

·   [Jim Winkelman] §121.445 Pilot in command airport qualification: Special areas and airports update: No added information.

 

November 2015 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·   [Andy Newcomer] Domestic and international CAT II/III and foreign RNP charting issues: (Reference AFS-410 Category I/II/III ILS Information and Hannover, Germany RNP Rwy 9L/R 27L/R.) UPS no longer receives chart update email notifications and the changes are no longer highlighted in red text. Chris Hope, AFS-410, explained that the highlighted chart changes were implemented to comply with current Section 508 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. (For those who wish to explore Section 508 further, click here to review the preamble to Section 508 standards.) Chris will look into the email notification process.

Andy pointed out that new Jeppeson foreign airport CAT III tailored approach chart coverage is not available from the FAA. AC120-105 and FAA Orders for foreign terminals require review and approval prior to adding an approach to WebOPSS and a certificate holder’s OpSpecs; hence, industry is issued a chart that must be internally NOTAMed unusable until authorized. Andy recommended adding a “Pending Authorization” to the system.

Regarding foreign RNP charting, ICAO has come up with a new naming convention: Germany is changing their approaches from RNAV GNSS to RNP. Kel Christianson, AFS-470, will look into revising OpSpec C052. (After all, it’s just an RNAV GPS approach.)

·   [Monica Grusche] Monica provided a WebOPSS update: The software upgrade implemented in August resulted in a couple of glaring issues. (1) Expanding text boxes that stopped expanding has been corrected, and (2) the intermittent inability to open and view .pdf documents remains open―The IT folks have yet to solve the problem. Expect updated browser capability in the next software release.

·   [John Bollin] New Economic Authority and Insurance Management (eAIM) and NavLean Operations Approval Portal System (OAPS) software systems will not be deployed until mid-spring next year.

·   [John Bollin] Email marina.murphy@faa.gov to request to be added to the Quarterly OpSpec Changes email distribution list.

·   [John Bollin] Thank you Ellen Birmingham for taking copious articulate notes.

·   [John Bollin] The next OSWG meeting will be a joint international/domestic conclave held at the Navy Memorial Heritage Center in Washington DC, Tuesday/Wednesday, March 8/9, 2016. Discussions are under way to support one or more WebOPSS orientation sessions concurrent to the OSWG meeting in the same facility. The day-long session includes a comprehensive presentation followed by hands-on training facilitated by FAA Principal Inspectors.

 

July 2015 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes

·   [Jim Winkelman] §121.445 Pilot in command airport qualification: Special areas and airports update: Industry withdrew the request to make ABQ a special airport.

·   [Chuck Schramek] Draft Documents Open for Comment…: Still struggling with getting draft documents posted for review. Who’s responsible for directing the posting of documents coupled with what documents to post are the problems. Steve will take the IOU to define consistency for what will and will not be posted on the site. 

As a heads-up, industry reiterated their desire to review 8900.1 guidance proposals prior to publication. With the understanding that it is FAA policy, Industry would only make suggestions/comments. FAA chair Steve Kane lamented that it’s been discussed at HQ and doesn’t get much traction. Mark Lopez, A4A coordinator for the Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) Industry Group (IG), likened the OSWG to the MMEL IG’s work addressing 8900.1 rewrites for the MMEL. Although FAA Order 1100.1 provides AFS support for both the OSWG and the MMEL IG, formal FAA recognition of the groups is not a priority of the agency―there will be no formal process for industry review of  8900.1 guidance. Steve  recommends the OSWG request each FAA lead allow for a guidance review for associated OpSpec changes. Similar to the MMEL IG, industry needs to get involved earlier in the process. As a side note, Wink responded that the FAA lead needs to be willing to work with OSWG industry lead. Both FAA and Industry are looking to outreach other FAR part operators to join the OSWG.

Post OSWG Meeting update: Steve Kane had discussions with Kevin West, AFS-290, Jodi Baker, AFS-201, and Les Smith, AFS-200. AFS-200 will support posting Draft Documents Open for Comment and promulgate a discussion with other AFS divisions.

·   [Steve Kane] Template changes with no guidance…: D301 was issued in May 2015 with new security requirements to notify the POI. 8900.1 Volume 3 Chapter 3 Section 1 guidance and the OpSpec template lagged. C078 guidance was waiting for RVR 300 HUD clarification.

 

July 2015 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·   [Steve Kane] Late FAA Notices with reduced implementation timelines. Industry expressed concern regarding the timely publication of Notices. For example, with a 30-day implementation period, if it takes 2 weeks to publish, that only leaves 2 weeks for execution by the operator. Manuals often require at least 30 days for FAA approval. Industry requests that Notices use date of publication vs. date of Notice for implementation. Theo Kessaris explained, if an operator cannot meet the timeline to implement a Notice, they should call the contact on the Notice to discuss the issue. The publication date is based on the date it is signed. If it is a timeline incumbent on the FAA, pick up the phone and have a conversation. Although most carriers have a bulletin system that can address immediate action. Wink replied that there have been more and more of these late publications. Theo responded that there are two separate versions of the 8900.1, the standard edition and the new SAS edition. Guidance revisions don’t necessarily post at the same time. This will improve going forward. Paul Lepine, AFS Document Control Board (DCB) Chairman, informed the OSWG that getting a document through the DCB now takes 4 months vs. 18 months. Industry recommends adding 2 weeks to compliance dates for Notices.

·   [Steve Kane] Non-Standard OpSpec text and -300 paragraphs requiring headquarters approval…. Industry requests guidance on making small editorial changes vs. substantive changes meeting the threshold for HQ free-text approval. Theo Kessaris pointed to Notice 8900.293 Requirements for Nonstandard Templates, Nonstandard Text, and Temporary Time-Limited Authorizations, published in April 2015, to explain the use of non-standard text boxes. (Also reference 8900.1 Volume 3 Chapter 18, Section 12.) The FAA needs to build a tighter box so that text doesn’t change the authorization of an OpSpec paragraph. It’s unfortunate that it takes an act of God to get things moving―It won’t change in the near future.

Wink asked: “What about specifically C300 or C384? It’s odd that we have to go through the process of  HQ approval.” Kel Christianson took the IOU to look at C300 free text language requirements. Theo chimed in: “Look at B342 Extended Operations (ETOPS)…: You don’t need HQ approval for ETOPS alternates. If you go to template specific guidance, and guidance specifies no HQ approval, then you don’t need HQ approval.” John Swigart, AFS-407 added: “We can fix and adjust the guidance for C384.”  Wink continued: “…adding airplanes to C300?”  Kel responded: “If it is the same M/M/S, it shouldn’t take that long if the documents are there. When we don’t have the documents together, that takes extra time.”  Theo: “Typically, these requests are routed through the Region and then to the AFS Next Gen branch.” Steve ended with: “We’re updating the process of going through Region on its way up to HQ and again, through the Region on its way back down to the CMO/FSDO. Region will only be notified and not require to concur as documents are passed through the system.”

 

July 2015 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·   [Monica Grusche] WebOPSS update: During the recent system software update, FAA IT folks found errors that could not be resolved; “we’ll have to go through this again”. Messages will be posted as before. Expect another 4-day outage. The new software is fine in compatibility mode but may not be fully compliant with the Internet Explorer 11 browser. The PI has the option to provide verbal authorization following up with a LOA and eventual OpSpec. Changes to WebOPSS are mostly seen by HQ as back end refinements. Some minor enhancements to the interface will be provided.

·   [Paul Lepine] NavLean Operations Approval Portal System (OAPS) project update―Several years in development, John Swigart, AFS-470, and Paul introduced the new Operations Approval Portal System (OAPS). The NavLean effort took a look at all processes in the approval of an Instrument Approach Procedure; discovering that a plethora of databases don’t talk to each other, including those governing OpSpecs. OAPS doesn’t change any guidance or basic approval procedure, but mirrors the process and brings it into the electronic age. For example, a C384 application will be uploaded to the POI, automatically forward to the Region and/or HQ. The operator will be able to check the status of their request at any time. The system takes away the mystery of where things are. Electronic signatures are used to move the document from one office to the next. After the C384 specialists finish their review, a letter is auto-generated and sent to AFS-200 and AFS-400 for digital signature. The letter is then auto transmitted back to the POI. OAPS should be operational by October 2015, and tied into WebOPSS aircraft M/M/S. Increased WebOPSS/OAPS interconnection is planned in the future. Paul gave the OSWG a live demo of the system using a VPN connection to FAA servers. An external server coupled with a training package for operators is being developed. Once in place, Paul is looking for a few good volunteers to test the system. (ed: Richard Buergel, NetJets, Jim Stieve, Southwest, Chuck Schramek, Delta, Ellen Birmingham, United, and Bill King, FAA, raised their hands.)

·   [Kevin Kelley] Rick Buergel, NetJets, inquired about bundled OpSpecs. Speaking for Trent Bigler, AFS-470 lead on this project, Kevin Kelly informed the group that along with revisions to associated OpSpecs, AC90-105 Approval Guidance for RNP Operations and Barometric Vertical Navigation in the U.S. National Airspace System has been updated to version 105A. An operator’s aircraft and associated avionics will be recognized across the system. Operator’s will no longer have to submit evidence for each individual OpSpec in a bundle…. Only one application will be required. If you are authorized for RNP2, you automatically receive authority for RNP4 and RNP10. All related OpSpec paragraphs and the AC were signed this week.

·   [Calvin Tillman] A question at large from the OSWG: Does the FAA still intend to decommission D485. Yes, guidance has been drafted and ready for formal coordination. Regarding D097, free text is being removed and guidance is being sent out for informal processing.

July 2015 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·   [Bryant Welch] The Little Rock Jeppesen Aeronautical Chart is the first CAT III minima single chart published. The rest are coming.

·   [Steve Kane] An rulemaking advisory committee was formed to cancel outdated Advisory Circulars and Orders. Reference AFS-1 Memorandum―Cancellation of Advisory Circulars and Orders.

·   [Steve Kane] Email marina.murphy@faa.gov to request to be added to the Quarterly OpSpec Changes email distribution list.

·   [John Bollin] Thank you Ellen Birmingham for taking copious articulate notes.

·   [John Bollin] The next domestic OSWG meeting will be hosted by NBAA in Washington DC, Tuesday/Wednesday, November 3/4, 2015.

 

March 2015 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes

·   [Jim Winkelman] In separate correspondence, an updated draft OSWG Procedures Guide was distributed for industry review. Once comments have been incorporated, the draft will be forwarded to the FAA Chairman for a document rewrite.

·   [Steve Kane] Two WebOPSS Orientation sessions ran concurrent to the OSWG meeting in the same facility. Over 50 participants employed by domestic and foreign air carriers/operators were offered a day-long introduction to WebOPSS. The orientation included a presentation followed by an afternoon of hands-on training facilitated by FAA Principal Inspectors. AFS-260 is working to fund future WebOPSS orientation programs.

·   [Steve Kane] Why is there a trifling of industry participation in the CAST S4xx Program?... An inquiry, not an issue. It is a voluntary program and Steve wanted to know if the low volume of entries was a question of manpower; collecting information, determining if it meets the requirements, and/or running it through the safety department and corporate leadership? Is there a benefit to the certificate holder?

Although S4xx paragraphs reside in WebOPSS, It is important to note that the paragraphs are not regulatory Operation Specifications. “S” paragraphs are not FOIAble. WebOPSS was not designed to be a data collection tool; however, with no other viable mechanism to collect the information, “S” paragraphs (along with Letters of Authorization) have morphed into OpSpecs and WebOPSS. Steve understands the need for the FAA to sell the importance and benefits of CAST SEs to the industry. Other meetings will be taking place to review the CAST findings. Reference FAA Order 8900.1 V3 C18 S12 Part S—Voluntary Data Submission.

 

March 2015 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·   [Mark Lopez] The Airlines for America A4A Operations Council OpSpecs Working Group website has matured. Although the portal requires A4A authorization and is password protected, Mark has opened the site to all interested parties, including those foreign operators in attendance at the meeting. Industry (both foreign and domestic) and FAA employees without access and having an interest in the proceedings of the OSWG may contact Mark Lopez, Director, Technical Operations, at mlopez@airlines.org. In the email subject line, specify “A4A website request”.

A quick tutorial:

OSWG meeting agenda’s may be found by clicking the left column tab titled “Document Library”. Open the folder titled “OSWG Meetings”. Open a folder for the desired year of the meeting and then the folder with the desired month of the meeting. You will find the agenda and any linked supporting documentation and/or presentations.

Members may comment on documents submitted to the OSWG for review. Select the left hand column link titled “Draft OpSpecs” and follow the instructions. Any member can “check-out” a document for review/comment. Allowing only one member at a time to comment, the process provides a venue for discussion and historical archive. Once the comment period on any posted document is over (typically 30 days) A4A will send a copy of all comments to the point of contact (POC) listed on the comment log. There are currently 5 part 129 foreign OpSpecs open for comment with a due date of June 1, 2015 (reference AFS Foreign OpSpecs Draft Documents Open for Comment).

Any member proposing a new agenda item will find the format for submitting their proposal by clicking on the link titled “OSWG Issue Proposal Template” under the right hand column subtitled “Links”. Members may also link to the FAA’s “Aviation Safety Draft Documents Open for Comment” website, Notices to Airmen, and the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations.

·   [Jim Winkelman] An Industry OSWG member asked the question: Multiple operators of single aircraft 14 CFR part 91 operations must have multiple sets of LOAs. Is it possible in WebOPSS to create a single source of information for the operator to carry over, i.e.: A single 4-letter identifier issued for 6 operators. Steve indicated he would have a discussion with Monica and Teri Kerby, WebOPSS Technical Support, to review the process. Steve considers this as doable template development and will add it to the July 2015 agenda.

·   [Steve Kane] Eddie Miller, AFS-50, speaking for AFS-400 , proposed adding a discussion regarding domestic and international helicopter specifications H106 and H116. Steve inquired about the Primary Office of Responsibility (POR). Was it AFS-50, AFS-400, or should it be AFS-200? John Bollin informed Eddie and the OSWG in general that more detail was required and the proposal should be submitted prior to the meeting in a standard format (see John Bollin note below).

March 2015 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·   [Mike Filippell] §121.445 Pilot in command airport qualification: Special areas and airports update: Doug Snow, FedEx Training and Standards, requested the addition of VNKT, Tribhuvan International, Kathmandu, Nepal (mountainous terrain, steep approach and departure gradients, host nation-imposed simulator-based familiarization requirement). The FAA concurred and Mike Filippell, AFS-220, gave the group a briefing.

·   [Dale Roberts] Fatigue Education and Awareness Training (FEAT) Program update: New 14 CFR part 117 §117.9 requires fatigue education and awareness training. The preamble to part 117 outlines mandatory training standards. The primary difference between Public Law 111-216, and the regulation is definition: In public law training is accepted vs. approved—Although the elements are the same, 14 CFR requires persons administering part 117 to have approved training. OpSpec A319 Fatigue Education and Awareness Training satisfies approval of the training program. The OSWG is requesting to revisit the E/D/G allowance? Dale Roberts, AFS-220, will provide a written definition of “annual training”.

·   [John Bollin] NavLean Instrument Flight Procedures project update: As part of the Next Generation (NextGen) Air Transportation System blueprint, the Flight Standards Service was tasked with overseeing the implementation of a simplified process for developing and approving departure, en-route, arrival, and terminal Instrument Flight Procedures (IFP). Currently, all charting is done manually and much of the work is repetitive. In the future, third party contractors will be able to electronically transmit new navigational charts directly to the FAA’s charting database. Operators will be able to make requests to fly the new procedures through an automated, internet-based work flow system. Accountability, communication, and FAA oversight will be enhanced. Although the end result is simple to explain, the process of getting there is complicated. This endeavor is several years in the making and a priority of the Administrator.

Background: In response to industry requests and a Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) recommendation to identify and solve operational approval and certification issues that may impede adoption and acceleration of NextGen capabilities, the FAA initiated a cross-agency Navigation Procedures project to streamline policies and processes used to implement IFPs in the National Airspace System. Sponsored by Aviation Safety (AVS) and the Air Traffic Organization (ATO), designated working groups using “Lean Management” techniques, reviewed all activities used to request, prioritize, process, improve, and implement IFPs. The “nav lean” working groups issued their findings in September, 2010. [Reference NavLean Instrument Flight Procedures 2010 Report].

 

March 2015 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

Under the direction of FAA Program Analyst Paul Lepine, AFS-260 is the lead for implementing the working group’s recommendation 21 (NavLean 21). The Mitre Corporation was contracted to outline the functional requirements for developing the approval portal system and supporting ongoing efforts to create the interface. In March, 2014, Mitre issued a Functional Requirements Document (FRD) and an IT team was contracted to transform the FRD into a final product; the Operations Approval Portal System (OAPS).

John Swigart, AFS-470, has been involved with the project for over 5 years and gave the OSWG an update: Operations approval is a fundamental requirement for use of a flight procedure. WebOPSS is the system used to issue Operations Specifications (OpSpecs), Management Specifications (MSpecs), Letters of Authorization (LOAs) and other legal documents which record the conditions and limitations of an air carrier certificate and other regulatory obligations of air carriers and air agencies. However, WebOPSS does not currently track or record any of the background, data, or decision-making that may result in an operations approval that may be authorized within an OpSpec. WebOPSS has a web interface but does not have the abilities for workflow assignments, workflow tracking, bundling procedures for a single approval, or fast-tracking approvals.

OAPS is designed to meet those goals with enough flexibility to incorporate additional approval processes (ETOPs, CAT I/II/III, etc.). The system will allow the FAA to schedule the Inspector and the timing of the workflow and the applicants to track the status of their applications in real time. The proposed web-based system will allow bundling and fast-tracking of related aircraft and operations approval requests to eliminate duplication of effort and streamline the approval process. Additional benefits will be the gathering of avionics and software version status that is not captured anywhere today.

OAPS is scheduled to roll out in September.

·   [John Bollin] John has reformatted the OSWG Issue Proposal Template and added it to the OSWG agenda as a standard page. The template has been posted on the OSWG Publications website in FSIMS and may also be found on the A4A OSWG website. Members wishing to submit a proposal to the OSWG should use this format and forward their issue to their respective industry or FAA chairperson.

·   [Steve Kane] WebOPSS update: The new release is undergoing testing and remains several months away.

·   [Mike Barfoot] Jerome Hecq, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Emirates Airline, was elected International Industry Vice-Chairman.

·   [John Bollin] The next joint domestic/international OSWG meeting will be held in Washington DC, Tuesday/Wednesday, March 8/9, 2016.

 

October 2014 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes

·   [John Bollin] John assisted those experiencing problems navigating the new digital agenda.

·   [John Bollin] New linked item: the meeting attendance sheet…; check your information and reply if correction is required.

·   [John Bollin] How come it takes so long to publish a document? The recently revised AFS System Level Process for Production of Policy, Guidance, and Information Documents (Document Flow Chart) has been added to the agenda.

·   [Mark Lopez] Airlines for America is beta testing the A4A Operations Council OpSpecs Working Group website. The portal requires A4A authorization and is password protected. As the site matures, meeting agendas (past, and present), documents open for public comment, and general information will be posted.

·   [Andy Newcomer] Andy Newcomer’s last day in office. Jim Winkelman is the new Domestic Industry Chairman. Ellen Birmingham, UAL, was elected Domestic Industry Vice-Chairwoman.

·   [Andy Newcomer] The single-day OSWG meeting schedule worked: in by 0900, out by 1500 with an hour for lunch. The membership agreed to conduct three meetings in 2015. The previously scheduled March 17/18 joint international/domestic session, and domestic only sessions scheduled for July 22 and November 4. Domestic only pre-meetings will be held in the morning of March 17 and the afternoon of July 21 and November 3. A4A will host the July meeting and NBAA will host the November meeting.

·   [Andy Newcomer] The joint international/domestic OSWG meeting is scheduled for Tuesday/Wednesday, March 17/18, 2015 at the Navy Memorial Heritage Center, Washington DC. Submit issues for discussion to an OSWG FAA or industry co-chair. The agenda will be distributed 3-4 weeks prior to the meeting.

·   [Steve Kane] Steve offered details of the no fee, WebOPSS training scheduled for the March, 2015 joint international/domestic meeting. A team of qualified FAA instructors has been formed. Two one-day, 6-hour sessions will be offered. The Tuesday session is reserved for international air carrier/operator registration. The Wednesday course will be earmarked for domestic registrants. Danuta Pronczuk, International FAA Chairwoman, informed the group of the intense interest from the international community. Vacant seats for the domestic session on Wednesday will be offered to international registrants on a wait list. All enrollees will require FAA Principle Inspector authorization for attendance and eventual access to WebOPSS and assigned digital signature. Detailed information and a registration process will be provided at a later date.

 

October 2014 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·   [Steve Kane] Updating the changing ICAO age 60 pairing requirement: AFS-200 will publish a policy statement (Notice) on or soon after the effective date of the new ICAO standard, announcing that the FAA will no longer enforce §121.383(c)(2) because it is contrary to 49 U.S.C. Section 44729. The agency will initiate rulemaking to conform §121.383 to the statute. Outside US airspace, carriers are required to operate according to the rules of the member state. Certificate holders will need to check with each DGAC and ensure they are not contrary to the rules of that country.

·   [Monica Grusche] A substantial WebOPSS update is in the works and should be released in about a month or so. The release updates the backend platform for WebOPSS as well as incorporating 40+ fixes and enhancements.

·   [Monica Grusche] AFS-260 is also overhauling the system that manages Air Taxi Registrations and Amendments and aircraft accident liability insurance. The new Economic Authority and Insurance Management (eAIM) System is scheduled to be released in Spring 2015.

·   [Steve Kane] §121.445 Pilot in command airport qualification: Special areas and airports update: No changes to date.

 

June 2014 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes

·   [John Bollin] John assisted those experiencing problems navigating the new digital agenda.

·   [John Bollin] The latest (October 2011) OSWG Procedures Guide has been uploaded to FSIMS. John is working on a revision incorporating current policies and procedures.

·   [John Bollin] AFS-260 is exploring the use of the AFS Draft Documents Open for Comment web site for public comment to upcoming and ongoing OSWG issues.

·   [Steve Kane] Steve recommended combining the two half-day domestic only sessions into a single, one-day meeting…: All AFS divisions would be represented, facilitating greater participation and interaction with FAA SMEs during the session. Industry agreed to a joint meeting on Wednesday, October 8, 2014, in the A4A conference room. The industry only and FAA only pre-meetings will be held Tuesday afternoon.

·   [Andy Newcomer] No change will be made to the joint international/domestic OSWG calendar—Meetings will continue to be scheduled for three sessions spanning two days. After coordinating calendar dates with international chair persons Danuta Pronczuk and Mike Barfoot, and confirming location with Steve Kane, the next joint international/domestic meeting will be held on Tuesday/Wednesday, March 17/18, 2015, at the Navy Memorial Heritage Center, Washington DC.

 

June 2014 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·   [Steve Kane] No fee, WebOPSS training will be scheduled for the March, 2015 joint international/domestic meeting. Two one-day, 6-hour sessions will be offered. Detailed information and a registration process will be provided at a later date.

·   [Steve Kane] Responding to a question regarding ICAO changing the age 60 pairing requirements, Danuta Pronczuk did a little great deal of research and forwarded her findings to Steve Kane. Steve spoke with FAA rulemaking (ARM)—They are aware of the changes taking place. Direct to final rule making is possible and there is a good chance the domestic rule can be amended in time to coincide with the effective date of the ICAO changes. AFS-200 will be the POC for any rulemaking effort.

·   [Kel Christianson] Responding to a question regarding a MITRE study on cold weather altimetry, AFS-470 is drafting text and guidance for cold weather altimeter procedures at airports identified in the MITRE study. Airports will be listed as a Notice to Airman “Digital Product”. Industry recommended that the FAA develop policy and train controllers.

·   [Andy Newcomer] …will chair the OSWG one last time in October. Jim Winkelman will start his 2-year tour next year. The 2015/16 Vice-Chairman position remains open.

·   [Monica Grusche] Digital Certificate Service updated: Subscribers will now receive prompts to renew 30, 15, 5 and 1 day before expiration with the new signature provider.

·   [Monica Grusche] The Maintain Operator Data–Aircraft menu has been expanded to display more than 10 aircraft.

·   [Monica Grusche] If a Maintain Operator Data item is blank, it will load “NA” (not applicable) into a document instead of “No system data.”

·   [Monica Grusche] The 8900.1 guidance for Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) Safety Enhancement (SE) Surveys under new Part S has been released. A total of 24 CAST SE surveys are expected to be released in groups of 6 with the first 6 and an InFO published on June 4, 2014. Survey response is voluntary.

·   [Monica Grusche] AFS-260 is developing a “work around” for batch processing and eliminating dropped signatures when you batch process.

·   [Paul Lepine] Working with several contractors, AFS-260 will establish a web-based operations approval entry portal and a web-based work package to accommodate the needs of multiple FAA Lines of Business. Expected release date: September 2015. Reference Paul’s NavLean Recommendation 21 presentation. [not included herein]

·   [Steve Kane] §121.445 Pilot in command airport qualification: Special areas and airports update: New Quito, Ecuador International Airport (Tababela) was added.

 

Significant Historical OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes

·   [February 2014, Monica Grusche] FAA transitioned to a new digital certificate provider in June, 2013. Industry users can acquire or renew a digital signature certificate from the agency’s DCS Home Page at https://dcs.faa.gov/. This site also includes instructions on how to acquire or renew such certificates. The FAA is unable to support signatures renewed with previous digital signature providers. Industry has inquired about adding additional credit card forms of payment for purchasing digital certificates through DCS, such as American Express and Discover. The FAA and the DCS contractor are investigating whether the agency can absorb the fees within the current digital certificate cost structure.

·   [February 2014, Monica Grusche] Obtaining a digital certificate does not determine access to WebOPSS.  Industry must approach their Principle Inspector to request access to WebOPSS. The PI must (1) vouch for the user having been adequately trained to use the system, (2) sponsor the user for external access to the FAA network, and (3) request a WebOPSS account for the user.  Digital certificates should not be purchased until and unless access to WebOPSS has first been established.

·   [February 2014, Monica Grusche] WebOPSS transitioned its operations and maintenance support to a new contractor in May, 2013. The agency and the contractor are making significant progress working through bug fixes and cleanup issues with WebOPSS. The FAA is in the process of packaging the latest of these items in an application update which should be released in the next couple months. One of the enhancements in the release package will be the ability to display more aircraft at a time on the Maintain Operator Data—Aircraft area of WebOPSS.  The default will still be 10, but there will be options to change to 25, 50, or 100 aircraft at a time.

·   [August 2013, Monica Grusche] The contract with Team Askin, the agency’s digital service provider, expired. The FAA has signed with Lockheed Martin for WebOPSS maintenance and Digital Certificate Service (DCS). The new DCS website is https://dcs.faa.gov/. The price remains the same: $30.50 per digital signature for the first issuance (good for a year). Foreign air carriers and foreign persons who are not a U.S. resident may complete and submit a notarized proof of identity form. The form and instructions are available on the DCS website. Operators who obtained their digital signature from Team Askin can still use their digital signature until it expires before renewing with the new DCS.

 

OSWG Issue Proposal Template

One or more of the following may initiate the need for a revision to an authorizing document:

·   FAA Regulatory Change

·   FAA Policy Change

·   ICAO SARP Change (Standards and Recommended Practices)

·   Comments or suggestions from Industry

·   Comments or suggestions from an IFO/FSDO or another FAA Division

Comments or suggestions from Industry will initially be reviewed at the next OSWG meeting following the receipt of the comment or suggestion via a draft OpSpec proposal or agenda discussion item. Each proposed revision to an authorizing document submitted to the OSWG may vary in terms of the amount of required data needed to support justification. Simple proposals for typographical errors, minor wording changes, or basic technical changes may be adequately justified by a single sentence or short paragraph as applicable. Proposals for which technical evaluation is necessary may require a more substantial discussion and written justification.

Copy and paste the following OSWG agenda format and complete the highlighted paragraphs. Submit the proposal to the Industry or FAA Chairperson at least 30 days prior to the OSWG meeting date. All proposals will be forwarded to the FAA Chairperson for review, FAA Lead assignment, and OSWG agenda publication.

YYYY## xxxxx [assigned by the FAA OSWG Coordinator]

Operations Specification: [number and full title]

Initial Agenda Date: [assigned]                    Date Closed: [assigned]

FAA Lead: [assigned by the FAA Chair]

Industry Lead: [assigned by the Industry Chair]

Issue Statement: Provide a brief summary of the issue to be addressed.

Background: Provide relevant background information including the regulatory basis for the proposal. This may include applicable CFR, Bulletins, Advisory Circular, or other regulatory documents that support the proposal. (Documents, presentations, and any other information open to public review will be linked to the agenda.)

Intended Outcome: Provide a statement of specific goals or intended outcome. This may include specific proposed text to be added or revised in the affected document. Include a description of the benefits that the proposal may have on Industry operations or the negative outcomes that may result from not enacting the proposal.

Notes: …from meetings.
AFS System Level Process for Production of Policy, Guidance, and Information DocumentsAFS 002-103 Process Flow MapPage 1 of 2 Hyperlinked References (select Ctrl End to return to references page 2 of 2)

FAA Order 8900.1 Flight Standards Information Management System (FSIMS)

FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 3 Chapter 18 Operations Specifications

Section 1 Operations Specifications: Background Information

Section 2 Automated Operations Safety System

Section 3 Part A Operations Specifications—General

Section 4 Part B Operations Specifications—En route Authorizations and Limitations

Section 5 Part C Operations Specifications—Airplane Terminal Instrument Procedures and

                                                                        Airport Authorizations

Section 6 Parts D and E—Maintenance MSpecs/OpSpecs/LODAs

Section 7 Part H—Helicopter Terminal Instrument Procedures and

                              Airport Authorizations and Limitations

Section 11 Parts A, B, and D Operations Specifications for part 145 Repair Stations

FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 12 Chapter 2 Foreign Air Carriers Operating to the U.S. and Foreign Operators of U.S.-Registered Aircraft Engaged in Common Carriage Outside the U.S.

Section 2 Part 129 Operations Specifications Overview and Issuance

Section 3 Part 129 Part A Operations Specifications

Section 4 Part 129 Part B Operations Specifications— En route Authorizations and
                                                                                       Limitations

Section 5 Part 129 Part C Operations Specifications— Airplane Terminal Instrument
                                                                                       Procedures and
                                                                                       Airport Authorizations

Section 6 Part 129 Part D Operations Specifications—         Aircraft Maintenance

Section 7 Part 129 Part H—Helicopter Terminal Instrument Procedures and

                                             Airport Authorizations and Limitations

 

Page 2 of 2 Hyperlinked References (select Ctrl End to return to this page)

Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Aeronautics and Space

part 91 General Operating Rules

part 91 §91K Fractional Ownership Operations

part 119  Certification: Air Carriers and Commercial Operators

part 121  Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations

part 125  Certification and Operations: Airplanes Having a Seating Capacity of 20 or

               More Passengers or a Maximum Payload Capacity of 6,000 Pounds or

               More; and Rules Governing Persons on Board Such Aircraft

part 129  Operations: Foreign Air Carriers and Foreign Operators of

               U.S.-Registered Aircraft Engaged in Common Carriage

part 135  Operating Requirements: Commuter and On Demand Operations and

               Rules Governing Persons On Board Such Aircraft

FAA Flight Standards Service, AFS-1

Air Transportation Division, AFS-200

Aircraft Maintenance Division, AFS-300

Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, AFS-400

General Aviation and Commercial Division, AFS-800

FAA Employee Directory

Aviation Safety Draft Documents Open for Comment

Regulatory and Guidance Library

WebOPSS FAA Field User Guide

WebOPSS