November 16, 2016 Domestic Meeting Agenda

(OSWG meetings are open to the public. RSVP is not required.)

This is an interactive, hyperlinked document.

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

Select Ctrl Home or Ctrl Shift Home to return to this page.

 

Domestic Meeting Agenda

Domestic Issues

Joint Domestic/International Issues

International Issues

Chronological Table of Contents of Current Issues

Chronological Table of Contents of Closed/Archived Issues

General Discussion Notes

OSWG Issue Proposal Template

AFS Document Production Flow Chart

Meeting Information

Directory

Accommodations

Reference

Attendance

Note the latest revision date; delete previous editions.

Revised December 2, 2016


November 16, 2016 Domestic Meeting Agenda

(OSWG meetings are open to the public. RSVP is not required.)

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 Ellen Birmingham / Domestic FAA Chair Steve Kane

Discussion:

·   Fill out stakeholder survey Deleted

·   Next meeting: Tuesday/Wednesday, March 7/8, 2017, hosted by FAA, Washington DC

                           Wednesday, September 13, 2017, hosted by A4A, Washington DC

·   Chronological Table of Contents of Closed/Archived Issues

·   Aviation Safety (AIR and AFS) Draft Documents Open for Comment

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

·   Changes to Boeing Aircraft Data Plates

·   Economic Authority and Insurance Management (eAIM) project update

·   NavLean Operations Approval Portal System (OAPS) project update

·   WebOPSS update

·   OSWG Domestic Industry Chair election

·   OSWG Issues…

 

Domestic Issues in order of discussion

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

201420      A034  Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) (closed)

201308      A061 Use of Electronic Flight Bag (awaiting publication)

201502      A447  Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) Notification Information (closed)

201511      B054  Oceanic and Remote Airspace Navigation Using
   Single Long-Range Navigation System (S-LRNS)
(closed)

200605      B343  Performance Based Fuel (closed)

201610      C064  Terminal Area IFR Operations in Class G Airspace and at Airports without an    Operating Control Tower—Nonscheduled Passenger and All Cargo Operations

      C080  Terminal Area IFR Operations in Class G Airspace and at Airports without an      Operating Control Tower for Scheduled Passenger Operations (closed)

201515      D091  Requirements: Air Carrier Maintenance Providers (closed)

201403      E096                                                                                                           Aircraft Weighing (awaiting publication)                                                                                                

 

Domestic Issues in order of discussion

      Current

201602      A196  Air Cargo Operations

      A396  Special Air Cargo Operations

201304      A097, A098, A099 Passenger and Baggage Weight Programs

201612      A013  Part 121 Operations Without Certain Emergency Equipment

201315         C070           Airports Authorized for Scheduled Operations

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

201305           C059  Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations

201001      C060  Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations     

201611      B036  Oceanic and Remote Continental Navigation

              Using Multiple Long-Range Navigation Systems (M-LRNS)

201608      C384  Required Navigation Performance Procedures with Authorization Required

201613      B045  Extended Overwater Operations

              Using a Single Long-Range Communications System (SLRCS)

201614      A056  Data Link Communications

Any Other Business (AOB)

      Adjourn

Joint Domestic/International Issues in order of discussion

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

      Current

201201      EASA Third Country Operators (TCO)

201512      Canadian Private Operator Access to OpSpecs, MSpecs and LOAs

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…

201301      D097  Aging Aircraft Programs

                 Part 129 D097 Aging Aircraft Programs (awaiting publication)

 

International Issues in order of discussion

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

201302      Part 129 D485          Aging Airplane Inspection and Records Review (awaiting publication)

      Current

201607          Part 129 C381      Special Non-14 CFR part 97

                                    Instrument Approach or Departure Procedures (Optional)

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

201609          Part 129 C063      IFR RNAV 1 Departure Procedures (DP) and

                                Standard Terminal Arrivals (STAR)—U.S. Airports

201606          Part 129 Navigation Terminology

201101          Part 129 A028      Aircraft Wet Lease Arrangements

201430          Part 129 D095      Minimum Equipment List (MEL) Authorization

201605          Part 129 D108      Maintenance Program—Continuous Airworthiness—
              U.S. Registered Airplanes

201603          Part 129 A001      Issuance and Applicability, and Reports

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

201201      EASA Third Country Operators (TCO) JS

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

201606      Part 129 Navigation Terminology IS

201612      A013  Part 121 Operations Without Certain Emergency Equipment DS

201420      A034  Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) CL

201614      A056  Data Link Communications DS

201308      A061  Use of Electronic Flight Bag AP

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

201602      A196 Air Cargo Operations DS

201602      A396 Special Air Cargo Operations DS

201502      A447  Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) Notification Information CL

201611      B036 Oceanic and Remote Continental Navigation

              Using Multiple Long-Range Navigation Systems (M-LRNS) DS

201613      B045  Extended Overwater Operations

                 Using a Single Long-Range Communications System (SLRCS) DS

201511         B054           Oceanic and Remote Airspace Navigation
                 Using Single Long-Range Navigation System (S-LRNS) CL

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

200605         B343           Performance Based Fuel CL

201305           C059           Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations… DS

201001         C060           Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations… DS

201610      C064  Terminal Area IFR Operations in Class G Airspace and at Airports without an    Operating Control Tower—Nonscheduled Passenger and All Cargo Operations CL


 

            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

201610      C080  Terminal Area IFR Operations in Class G Airspace and at Airports without an          Operating Control Tower for Scheduled Passenger Operations CL

201608      C384  Required Navigation Performance Procedures with Authorization Required DS

201515      D091  Requirements: Air Carrier Maintenance Providers CL

201301      D097  Aging Aircraft Programs CL

201403      E096  Aircraft Weighing AP

201603      Part 129 A001          Issuance and Applicability, and Reports IS

201101          Part 129 A028      Aircraft Wet Lease Arrangements IS

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

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

201609          Part 129 C063      IFR RNAV 1 Departure Procedures (DP) and

                                Standard Terminal Arrivals (STAR)—U.S. Airports IS

201607          Part 129 C381      Special Non-14 CFR part 97

                                    Instrument Approach or Departure Procedures (Optional) IS

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

201301      Part 129 D097          Aging Aircraft Programs AP

201605          Part 129 D108      Maintenance Program—Continuous Airworthiness—
              U.S. Registered Airplanes IS

201302      Part 129 D485          Aging Airplane Inspection and Records Review AP

 

 

            Chronological Table of Contents of Closed/Archived Issues

 

Meeting

OSWG meetings are open to the public. RSVP is not required.

Afternoon Session 1300–1600, Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Domestic Industry PreMeeting, National Business Aircraft Association, Washington DC

FAA Pre-Meeting, FAA Headquarters, Washington DC

Morning Session (Domestic) 0900–1200, Wednesday, November 16, 2016

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

Telcon Dial-in: 719 234-7872, Passcode: 118 895 8923 #

Afternoon Session (Domestic) 1300–1500, Wednesday, November 16, 2016

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

Telcon Dial-in: 719 234-7872, Passcode: 118 895 8923 #

 

 

Next Meeting:  Domestic/International, Tuesday/Wednesday, March 7/8, 2017

                          Navy Memorial Heritage Center, Washington DC (click for directions)

                          Domestic, Wednesday, September 13, 2017

                          Airlines for America (A4A), 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/.

·   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.

 

Accommodations  (effective November 14-18, 2016)

 

Click here for a list of Washington District of Columbia hotels. (Standard rates apply, no government or corporate rates have been negotiated.)

Daily Washington DC federal government lodging/per diem rate: $182.00 / $69.00

 

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            Ellen Birmingham, United Airlines

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

Domestic Industry            Jim Stieve, Southwest Airlines

Vice-Chairman:                 469 603-0930, jim.stieve@wnco.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

IATA Facilitator               Jeff Miller, IATA

                                          +1 305 266-7552, millerj@iata.org

 

 

200605     B343 Performance Based Fuel (page 1 of 5) (FAA Brief) (closed)

Initial Agenda Date: April 27, 2006                         Date Closed: November 16, 2016

FAA Lead:  Gordy Rother, AFS-220, 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 5) (FAA Brief) (closed)

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 5) (FAA Brief) (closed)

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 5) (FAA Brief) (closed)

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.

[3/8/2016 Bollin] Adam and Gordy were unavailable for the meeting. Documents were finally submitted for coordination and publication last month. [ed: The Notice and 8900.1 guidance are not linked to the agenda.] Gordy emailed: “UAL is the only operator that will be issued this in the short term. UPS, FedEx and American have expressed considerable interest.”

[3/8/2016 Birmingham] The OSWG agreed to move the issue to awaiting publication.

[7/20/2016 Moates] Steve Moates, AFS-220, informed the OSWG: Documents were signed by AFS-200 this month.

[7/20/2016 Birmingham] The OSWG agreed to hold the issue open.

(continued on next page)

200605          B343 Performance Based Fuel (page 5 of 5) (FAA Brief) (closed)

Notes:

[9/16/2016 Bollin] 8900.383 OpSpec B343, Performance-Based Contingency Fuel Requirements for Flag Operations is published.

[11/16/2016 Rother] Gordy (former AFS-430 and now assigned to AFS-220) gave the OSWG a brief.

The OSWG inquired: Why the change on the number of required data points? Gordy responded: Two seasons drive the need for additional data points.

If an air carrier/operator is interested in conducting performance based fuel operations, a Letter of Intent must be sent to their CHDO to start discussions on required items for issuance of OpSpec B343. This authorization is still considered a deviation. Existing data can be used to support the certificate holder’s application.

Changes to B043 Special Fuel Reserves in International Operations, are coming.

The FAA will visit with United Airlines next month.

[11/16/2016 Birmingham] After four years on the agenda (ten years for the original discussion), the OSWG elected to close and archive this issue. A discussion of B043 Special Fuel Reserves in International Operations will be opened as a new issue. FedEx’s Doug Snow has volunteered as Industry lead.

 

201001             C060 Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations   (page 1 of 10)

                Part 129 C060     Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

Initial Agenda Date:  January 20, 2010                     Date Closed:

FAA Lead: Jim Tittinger, AFS-410, 202 267-8981, james.tittinger@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 10)

                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 10)

                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 [ed: broken link]. 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 [ed: no longer posted]. 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 10)

                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 10)

                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 10)

                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 10)

                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 10)

                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 10)

                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 [ed: no longer posted] and the A4A OSWG website[ed: login required]. Bryant encouraged OSWG members to comment.

[1/6/2016 Bollin] FAA Order 8900.1 policy change  439, effective 1/6/2016, incorporates new information into Volume 12, Chapter 2, Section 5, Part 129 OpSpecs C052, C059, C060, C067, and C384. This change includes RNP AR application process improvement and clarification that headquarters provides concurrence on RNP AR applications. The change also updates for realignment of IFOs under AFS-50. [ed: draft OpSpec C0xx is not published]

[3/2/2016 Bollin] Draft Notice N8900.xx OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C060, Category (CAT) II and CAT III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations was presented to the Flight Standards Document Control Board (DCB). Paragraphs C059 will be decommissioned in WebOPSS. The CAT II authorizations and requirements contained in C059 will be combined with the CAT III authorizations and requirements of the old C060 and incorporated in the new C060 Category II/III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations.  

[3/9/2016 Hope] [Bryant Welch has retired] Chris provided the Joint OSWG with a PP brief. Industry inquired, where will SA CAT I be authorized? Chris’s response: Not in C059, C59 will be decommissioned after a 6 months compliance period. The combined C059/C060 template will go to public comment in April/May. Chris noted that an operator’s MAGVAR tables need to be current for autoland or the operator will be required to use an HGS system.

[7/20/2016 Tittinger] Chris Hope is acting manager, AFS-410, and was unavailable for the meeting. Jim Tittinger, AFS-410 Program Analyst, briefed the OSWG. The combined C059/C060 (new C060) left the DCB on May 27, has been formatted, and currently available for public comment (click here) [ed: no longer posted]. Comments are due by August 26, 2016.

(continued on next page)

201001             C060 Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations   (page 10 of 10)

                Part 129 C060     Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

Notes:

[11/16/2016 Christianson] Kel updated the OSWG: Jim Tittinger, AFS-410, has assumed FAA lead for the C059/C060 project. Comments continue to be reviewed and incorporated into the new C060 document. No timeline was given for publication.

 

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.

[3/9/2016 Pronczuk] Danuta gave the OSWG a look at the draft paragraph. The revision was forwarded to the FAA AGC office for a legal review. Changes include:

·   The deletion of the column to identify the party with operational and maintenance control.

·   Insertion of the following boilerplate text: “The Lessor shall at all times be responsible for and maintain the operational control and airworthiness of the aircraft identified in the lease agreements.” Under a wet lease agreement the Lessor maintains operational control and responsibility for the airworthiness of the aircraft under lease. Inserting boilerplate text to this effect provides the necessary clarity.

 

201201             EASA Third Country Operators (TCO) (page 1 of 8)

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 8)

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 8)

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 8)

Notes:

[5/8/2013 Pronczuk] Once the ICAO registry of AOC’s (reference OSWG Issue 200901 [ed: closed 3/9/2016]) 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 8)

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. [ed: broken link]

[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 8)

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.

(continued on next page)

 

201201             EASA Third Country Operators (TCO) (page 7 of 8)

Notes:

[3/9/2016 Pronczuk] Thomas Mickler, European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Representative—Washington DC, gave the OSWG a PP brief. EASA TCO authorization is a single European process for vetting the safety performance of foreign (non-EU) commercial air transport (CAT) operators. A TCO authorization addresses compliance with ICAO Standards, it is not an operating permit: Operating permits are issued by States. EASA’s TCO authorization will be a prerequisite for EU Member States to grant operating permits. Member States are not supposed to require demonstration with ICAO safety provisions.

To date, the TCO model and working procedures have been implemented. The TCO Web-Interface has been successfully deployed and applications from 730 TCO (7,440 aircraft) have been registered. Most common ICAO discrepancies have been identified and analyzed. ICAO standards qualifying for mitigating measures by TCO have been identified and agreed to by Member States. The first 22 TCO authorizations were issued in July 2015. As of February, 2016, over 280 authorization files have been completed covering 75% of all Third Country Operator aircraft flying to EASA Member States.

Major commercial air carriers are already authorized and we are now dealing primarily with business aviation. Numerous SMS and FDR non-compliances issues are to be addressed separately, as these non-compliances are tolerated until end of the transition period.

ICAO differences requiring mitigation include ACAS II, Flight Data Recorders, CCTV, ELT, reinforced cockpit doors, English language proficiency, pilot proficiency checks, Flight Data Analysis Programs, and Safety Management Systems.

Thomas left the OSWG with several key messages:

·   Only commercial operations into EASA Member States are affected.

·   Assessments are evaluated against ICAO Standards (not EU Regulations).

·   Authorization is based on EASA‘s confidence in the foreign AOC holder.

·   Assessments are risk-based, data-driven.

·   Validation of a foreign AOC remains within the scope of OpSpecs.

·   Authorized operators are monitored for safety performance.

·   Operating permits are issued by Member States and free of charge.

·   Applications are managed online.

Regarding ICAO Annex 16 Environmental Protection, this is an ICAO Annex and not safety related; therefore, Annex 16 is not covered by TCO authorization. It is correct that member states ask for a noise certificate.

FAQs: http://easa.europa.eu/TCO and/or  TCO@easa.europa.eu.

(continued on next page)

201201             EASA Third Country Operators (TCO) (page 8 of 8)

Notes:

[10/4/2016 Bollin] InFO 16018, European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Third Country Operators (TCO) Authorization, is published. Non-European Union (EU) commercial air operators, referred to as TCOs, are reminded of the EASA-TCO authorization needed by November 26, 2016, to conduct operations into the EU.

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

(page 1 of 3)

Initial Agenda Date: October 16, 2012                     Date Closed:

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

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

(page 2 of 3)

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.

[1/19/2016 Kessaris] FAA Order 8900.1 policy change 442, effective 1/19/2016, incorporates new information into Volume 3, Chapter 18, Section 4 Paragraph B342 C.2): “AFS-200 approves airplanes for ETOPS based on the airplane M/M/S and the aircraft engine, which together make up the Airplane Engine Combination (AEC). Once AFS-200 approves the PI to grant initial ETOPS authority based on a particular AEC and specific airplanes listed by registration number in B342, adding or removing an airplane by registration number in Table 1 [ed: not included herein] does not require further coordination with, or approval by, AFS 200. If the AEC has not yet been approved for ETOPS, coordination and approval by AFS 200 is required. All airplanes approved for ETOPS with two-engine airplanes must be listed in the certificate holder’s OpSpec D086, Maintenance Program Authorization for Two-Engine Airplanes Used in Extended Range Operation.”

[3/8/2016 Kessaris] Theo answered questions regarding FAA Order 8900.1 policy change 442, effective 1/19/2016 (see above).

[6/17/2016 Bollin] Theo’s ETOPS bundle (AC 120-42C, N8900.ETOPS, templates and 8900.1 guidance) was moved from the Document Control Board to AFS-140.

(continued on next page)

 

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

(page 3 of 3)

Notes:

[7/20/2016 Kessaris] AFS-140 is formatting the document for formal coordination and posting for a 30-day public comment period. Expect to see both C070 and B342 documents open for public comment in September.

[9/8/2016 Kessaris] Draft AC 120-42C, Notice N8900.ETOPS4 and 8900.1 guidance was posted on the Flight Standards Service (AFS) Draft Documents Open for Comment website. Comments are due by October 7. 2016.

This bundle revises OpSpecs B342, B344, and C070 to provide clarity and updated guidance on Extended Operations (ETOPS) for parts 121 and 135 operators, including the addition of ETOPS adequate airports to C070. The updated guidance includes new information on the ETOPS application and authorization process.

The Draft AC 120-42C, Extended Operations (ETOPS and Polar Operations) was also posted on the Flight Standards Service (AFS) Draft Advisory Circulars (ACs) Open for Comment website. Comments are due by October 7, 2016.

[9/21/2016 Kessaris] In response to industry request, the comment period has been extended to November 30, 2016.

[11/16/2016 Kessaris] Industry requested a further extension for public comment. In response, the FAA has extended the comment period for the “ETOPS Bundle” (C070, B342 and B344 documents) to January 15, 2017.

 

201301             D097 Aging Aircraft Programs   (page 1 of 2) (awaiting publication)

            Part 129 D097 Aging Aircraft Programs

Initial Agenda Date: February 6, 2013                     Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Dave Hoyng, AFS-330, 325 260-8658, david.a.hoyng@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Alan Clay, American Airlines, 817 967-5157, alan.clay@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.

(continued on next page)

 

201301             D097 Aging Aircraft Programs   (page 2 of 2) (awaiting publication)

            Part 129 D097 Aging Aircraft Programs

Notes:

[11/4/2015 Winkelman] Awaiting publication.

[1/29/2016 Bollin] Part 129 D097 is added. The issue is moved to the Joint Domestic/International session for a March 2016 International OSWG update.

[3/9/2016 Williams] Mark provided a quick brief. The issue is awaiting publication.

[7/20/2016 Williams] Mark updated the OSWG: Formal coordination was completed on July 11. Comments are now being addressed. A slew of guidance changes will be affected: V3 C18 S6, V6 C11 S23, V6 C11 S24, V6 C11 S26, V12 C2 S6, Notice 8900.D097, AC 120-97, AC 120-98, and AC 120-102. Mark expects publication in late August.

[7/20/2016 Birmingham] The OSWG agreed to hold the issue open.

[11/16/2016 Williams] AFS-330 continues to work on disposing comments from Formal Coordination/Public review. Dave Hoyng, AFS-330, is the new FAA lead and Alan Clay, American Airlines, is the new Industry lead.

 

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

          Part 129 D485 Aging Airplane Inspection and Records Review (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: 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.

(continued on next page)

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

          Part 129 D485 Aging Airplane Inspection and Records Review (awaiting publication)

Notes:

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

[11/4/2015 Bollin] Part 129 D485 added. Issue moved to Joint Domestic/International session for March 2016 International OSWG update.

[3/9/2016 Williams] Mark provided a quick brief. The issue is awaiting publication.

[3/21/2016 Bollin] Notice 8900.355 OpSpec/MSpec/LOA D485 Aging Airplane Inspection and Records Review has been published.

[7/20/2016 Birmingham] The OSWG elected to close and archive the domestic D485 issue. The Part 129 D485 issue will remain awaiting publication for a March 2017 international session update.

 

201304          A097, A098, A099 Passenger and Baggage Weight Programs (page 1 of 3)

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 3)

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 [ed: no longer posted]. 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.

(continued on next page)

 

201304          A097, A098, A099 Passenger and Baggage Weight Programs (page 3 of 3)

Notes:

[10/22/2015 Bollin] 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.

[3/8/2016 Bollin] Adam Giraldes was unavailable for the meeting. The public comment period closed in December 2015. A plethora of comments are being reviewed. Adam will update the OSWG in July.

[7/20/2016 Moates] Adam Giraldes was unavailable for the meeting. Steve Moates, AFS-220, briefed the OSWG. Comments were adjudicated and the Advisory Circular was sent to AFS-140 for revision. Look for publication by the end of the calendar year. Industry would like to comment prior to publication.

[11/16/2016 Moates] Adam Giraldes was unavailable for comment. Steve Moates, AFS-220 Manager, briefed the OSWG. Industry reiterated their desire for a second public comment period prior to publication.

 

201305             C059 Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

Part 129 C059     Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

(page 1 of 3)

Initial Agenda Date:  February 6, 2013         Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Jim Tittinger, AFS-410, 202 267-8981, james.tittinger@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)

201305             C059 Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

Part 129 C059     Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

(page 2 of 3)

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[ed: login required]. Bryant encouraged OSWG members to comment.

[1/6/2016 Bollin] FAA Order 8900.1 policy change  439, effective 1/6/2016, incorporates new information into Volume 12, Chapter 2, Section 5, Part 129 OpSpecs C052, C059, C060, C067, and C384. This change includes RNP AR application process improvement and clarification that headquarters provides concurrence on RNP AR applications. The change also updates for realignment of IFOs under AFS-50. [ed: draft OpSpec C0xx is not published]

(continued on next page)

201305             C059 Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

Part 129 C059     Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

(page 3 of 3)

Notes:

[3/2/2016 Bollin] Draft Notice N8900.xx OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C060, Category (CAT) II and CAT III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations was presented to the Flight Standards Document Control Board (DCB). Paragraphs C059 will be decommissioned in WebOPSS. The CAT II authorizations and requirements contained in C059 will be combined with the CAT III authorizations and requirements of the old C060 and incorporated in the new C060 Category II/III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations.  

[3/9/2016 Hope] [Bryant Welch has retired] Chris provided the Joint OSWG with a PP brief. Industry inquired, where will SA CAT I be authorized? Chris’s response: Not in C059, C59 will be decommissioned after a 6 months compliance period. The combined C059/C060 template will go to public comment in April/May. Chris noted that an operator’s MAGVAR tables need to be current for autoland or the operator will be required to use an HGS system.

[7/20/2016 Tittinger] Chris Hope is acting manager, AFS-410, and was unavailable for the meeting. Jim Tittinger, AFS-410 Program Analyst, briefed the OSWG. The combined C059/C060 (new C060) left the DCB on May 27, has been formatted, and currently available for public comment (click here) [ed: no longer posted]. Comments are due by August 26, 2016.

[11/16/2016 Christianson] Kel updated the OSWG: Jim Tittinger, AFS-410, has assumed FAA lead for the C059/C060 project. Comments continue to be reviewed and incorporated into the new C060 document. No timeline was given for publication.

 

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

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) (awaiting publication)

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.

[2/29/2016 Hint] Draft AC120-76D [ed: removed 7/5/2016] public comments due. Reference Flight Standards Service Draft Advisory Circulars (ACs) Open for Comment. Draft 8900.1 Volume 3 Chapter 18 Section 3 OpSpec/MSpec/LOA A061 Electronic Flight Bag Program inspector guidance has been updated.

[3/8/2016 Bollin] Brian Hint was not be available for the meeting. The public comment period closed. Expect final publication in late spring/early summer 2016. AFS-400 will create a job aid for an EFB modification plan.

[3/8/2016 Hint] The OSWG agreed to move the issue to awaiting publication.

[7/20/2016 Bollin] Comments were adjudicated and the documents sent to AFS-140 for technical composition. Final publication has been moved to early August.

[7/20/2016 Birmingham] The OSWG agreed to continue awaiting publication.

[11/16/2016 McLellan] Publication has been delayed. Scott McLellan, AFS-410, filled in for Brian Hint and gave the OSWG a PP Presentation Update: OpSpec A061 and an EFB Preview. Based on an unrealistic expectation for an ever-changing software environment, the latest draft Advisory Circular revision is major and will be posted for public comment. Highlights include: Managing an EFB program and expanding the ability for an air carrier/operator to manage minor changes; reducing FAA approval requirements for minor software changes; removing hardware classes and Type C software requirements. Type A applications will not need formal FAA Principle Inspector authorization, and Type B apps may require formal authorization if they are new to the operator, or significant changes to flightcrew training or procedures are required. Operational testing or temporary evaluation periods will be indicated in an air carrier/operator’s A061 authorization.

[11/16/2016 Birmingham] The OSWG agreed to continue awaiting publication.

 

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).

[3/8/2016 Kessaris] “We’re getting close.” AFS-220 has completed their review of the revision. The package is in coordination before submitting for formal comment.

[6/17/2016 Bollin] Theo’s ETOPS bundle (AC 120-42C, N8900.ETOPS, templates and 8900.1 guidance was moved from the Document Control Board to AFS-140.

[7/20/2016 Kessaris] AFS-140 is formatting the document for formal coordination and posting for a 30-day public comment period. Expect to see both C070 and B342 documents open for public comment in September.

[9/21/2016 Kessaris] In response to industry request, the comment period has been extended to November 30, 2016.

[11/16/2016 Kessaris] Industry requested a further extension for public comment. In response, the FAA has extended the comment period for the “ETOPS Bundle” (C070, B342 and B344 documents) to January 15, 2017.

 

201403          E096 Aircraft Weighing  (page 1 of 2) (awaiting publication)

Initial Agenda Date: June 10, 2014                          Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  George Padalec, AFS-330, 734 487-7212, george.padalec@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: Prior to the year of 2006 all Weight and Balance authorizations were provided under Operation Specification E096 (Weight and Balance Control Procedures). After the year 2006, “A” series Operation Specification A096 (Actual Passenger and Baggage Weight Program for All Aircraft), A097 (Small Cabin Aircraft Passenger and Baggage Weight Program), A098 (Medium Cabin Aircraft Passenger and Baggage Weight Program) and A099 (Large Cabin Aircraft Passenger and Baggage Weight Program) were created to provide specific Certificate Holder’s Weight and Balance program authorizations. The “A” series OpSpec data was taken out of OpSpec E096 however the title for EO96 was never changed. E096 title has been miss-leading to industry as the title was never corrected when it went thru its major revision in 2006.

Intended Outcome: Add a new table to OpSpec paragraph E096 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.

(continued on next page)

201403          E096 Aircraft Weighing  (page 2 of 2) (awaiting publication)

Notes:

[7/22/2015 Bollin] Awaiting publication.

[11/4/2015 Williams] Awaiting publication.

[3/8/2016 Padalec] Cargo Focus Team involvement coupled with the emergence of proposed OpSpec A196 Air Cargo Operations impacts the publication of E096. The issue is removed from awaiting publication to current.

[7/20/2016 Williams] Missing “Background” information was added to this OSWG issue. E096 will be retitled “Airplane Weighing”. Informal coordination is complete…; awaiting formal coordination.

[11/16/2016 Williams] The E096 bundle (Notice 8900.E096 OpSpec E096 Aircraft Weighing Based on Regulatory Part and Notice 8900.1 OpSpec E096 CHG – Aircraft Weighing guidance) was approved for publication last week. AFS-140 is now routing for AFS-1 approval…; expect publication in the next week or so. Awaiting publication.

    

201420          A034 Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) (page 1 of 3) (closed)

Initial Agenda Date: October 8, 2014                       Date Closed: November 16, 2016

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 3) (closed)

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.

201420          A034 Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) (page 3 of 3) (closed)

Notes:

[3/8/2016 Bollin] Rob Burke and Rick VanKeuren were not available for the meeting. In an email, both Rob and Rick replied “As of date, there are no updates to provide; AFS-280 is developing internal FAA guidance. We’ll have more for the July 2016 OSWG meeting.”

[7/20/2016 Bollin] Rob Burke and Rick VanKeuren were not available for the meeting. Revisions to OpSpec templates will include pilots, dispatchers and flight attendants. …still a work in progress.

[11/16/2016 Birmingham] Rick VanKeuren has transferred and Rob Burke was not available for comment. The FAA has put the issue on hold. Until the issue is reactivated, Ellen requested the OSWG close 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.

[3/9/2016  Pronczuk] This project remains on hold.

 

(page 1 of 3)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 3)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.)

(continued on next page)

 

(page 3 of 3)201501             Economic Authority and Insurance Management (eAIM) System (FAA Brief)

Notes:

[3/9/2016 Kane] Steve provided an update on the continuing development of the new AFS-260 programs eAIM and OAPS. Due to IT funding issues, both systems have experienced setbacks. The aircraft liability insurance module, eAIM, will be the first to go public by mid-2017.

[11/16/2016 Grusche] FAA Information Technology has instituted new processes that are holding up system changes, e.g.: eAIM. The eAIM prototype software will be ready for January/February, 2017 testing.

 

(page 1 of 3) (closed)201502             A447 Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) Notification Information

Initial Agenda Date: March 17, 2015           Date Closed: November 16, 2016

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.

(page 2 of 3) (closed)201502             A447 Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) Notification Information

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.

[3/9/2016 Bollin] The package was pulled and reviewed by AIR and AGC. FAA legal responded: There are no legal obstacles to changing the distribution method, from fax to email, for emergency ADs to transport plane operators as long as the corresponding OpSpecs are revised to require that transport plane operators provide the FAA with a valid email address and retain the requirement that operators acknowledge receipt. This analysis does not address the required good cause finding required to forego notice and comment or to shorten the time period in which the regulation may become effective.

Requiring compliance with OpSpec A447 is sufficient to prove actual notice because requiring a valid email address and acknowledgment of receipt is more than was required in Michigan v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 176 (6th Cir. 1986) (finding that actual notice was provided by sending letter without requiring acknowledgment of receipt). Operation specifications (OpSpecs) prescribe the authorizations, limitations, and procedures under which certain aircraft operations must be conducted. No person may operate as a direct air carrier or as a commercial operator, or operate an aircraft under part 119, part 121, or part 135, in violation of the appropriate OpSpecs. 14 CFR 119.5(g)/(l). OpSpec A447 requires the carrier/operator to “maintain an up‑to‑date information system that provides the FAA a means of notifying the carrier/operator of telegraphic/emergency ADs” and to confirm receipt of an AD. FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 12, Ch. 2, Sec. 3, OpSpec A447. Thus, to operate in accordance with the federal aviation regulations, an operator must have provided a means to receive emergency ADs and acknowledged receipt of the emergency AD.

[7/20/2016 Bollin] Awaiting publication: Documents forwarded from AFS-140 to final coordination with a due date of August 5. We should see final product in September.

(continued on next page)

 

(page 3 of 3) (closed)201502             A447 Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) Notification Information

Notes:

[9/29/2016 Bollin] N8900.386 OpSpec/MSpec/TSpec/LOA A447, Emergency Airworthiness Directive Notification is published and OpSpec/LOA A447 8900.1 guidance has been updated. Reference

·   Volume 3, Chapter 18, Section 2 Automated Operations Safety System;

·   Volume 3, Chapter 18, Section 3 Part A Operations Specifications—General; and

·   Volume 12, Chapter 2, Section 3 Part 129 Part A Operations Specifications.

[11/16/2016 Bollin] The OSWG inquired about adding multiple Emergency AD contact email addresses. John informed the group that the decision requiring a single responsible party was made by AGC (FAA legal). Regardless of method of notification (email, facsimile, or the U.S. Postal Service), the certificate holder is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition. A person or organization (dispatch, maintenance control, etc.) must be designated as the certificate holder’s AD Notification Representative for notice of emergency ADs. A 24-hour dispatch center, maintenance control office, or a “duty officer” with a corporate email address will suffice.

[11/16/2016 Bollin] The OSWG also inquired about the time frame converting from fax to email notification. Reference the Notice: “Action. This is a mandatory amendment, with a compliance date of 180 days from the HQ Control Date of the templates in WebOPSS or the date indicated by the A447 expiration date in WebOPSS.”

[11/16/2016 Birmingham] The OSWG elected to close and archive the issue.


 

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 4)

Initial Agenda Date: March 18, 2015           Date Closed:

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

                     Jeff Kerr, AFS-470, 202 267-6389, jeffrey.kerr@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 4)

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.

(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 3 of 4)

Notes:

[5/19/2015 Bollin] FAA Order 8900.1 policy change  400, effective 5/19/2015, includes minor editorial updates to part 129 OpSpec C063; revises part 129 OpSpec C083 to clarify policy on foreign air carriers aircraft swaps and additional authorizations while the State of the Operator of the foreign air carrier remains in IASA Category 2; and revises part 129 OpSpec C384 to harmonize the OpSpec and related guidance with new terminology, update for RF leg capability, tailor inspector guidance to international operators, address reorganization, improve data collection, and application/template development. Reference 8900.1 Volume 12, Chapter 2, Section 5, part C Operations Specifications—Airplane Terminal Instrument Procedures and Airport Authorizations.

[1/6/2016 Bollin] FAA Order 8900.1 policy change 439, effective 1/6/2016, incorporates new information into Volume 12, Chapter 2, Section 5, Part 129 OpSpecs C052, C059, C060, C067, and C384. This change includes RNP AR application process improvement and clarification that headquarters provides concurrence on RNP AR applications. The change also updates for realignment of IFOs under AFS-50.

[3/9/2016 Bigler] Trent introduced John Barry, an aerospace engineer and technical pilot assigned to the FAA’s Aircraft Certification Service—Design, Manufacturing and Airworthiness Division—Systems and Equipment Standards Branch (AIR-131). John provided the International OSWG with a more detailed review of RNP. Click here for John’s presentation—Performance Based Navigation: Today and Tomorrow. Reference OSWG Issue 201608—C384 Required Navigation Performance Procedures with Authorization Required.

[9/6/2016 Bollin] Order 8900.1 (FSIMS) change 478 incorporates new information into Volume 12, Chapter 2, Section 5, OpSpec C384. This change provides relief to operators currently issued C384 when the aircraft manufacturer documents that the aircraft modifications do not have an effect on RNP AR operations for which FAA HQ concurrence was already received. The change also adds references to the RNP AR Compliance Traceability Matrix and recommends best practices to expedite HQ review.

(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 4 of 4)

Notes:

[11/2/2016 Bollin] InFO 16020 Naming of Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP) in the United States (U.S.) and at International Airports is published. This InFO serves to notify operators about changes regarding the titling of PBN IAPs, which are changing at some locations outside of the U.S. from “RNAV (GNSS) RWY XX” to “RNP RWY XX” and “RNAV (RNP) RWY XX” to “RNP RWY XX (AR)”. Operators should understand the differences in approach titling and that at international locations “RNP RWY XX” is not necessarily “RNP AR”. As necessary for foreign operations, OpSpec C052 and, as applicable, C384 templates will require revision.


 

201511             B054        Oceanic and Remote Airspace Navigation  (page 1 of 3) (closed)

                             Using Single Long-Range Navigation System (S-LRNS)

Initial Agenda Date: November 4, 2015       Date Closed: November 16, 2016

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)

 

201511             B054        Oceanic and Remote Airspace Navigation  (page 2 of 3) (closed)

                             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 [ed: closed July 20, 2016], 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 [ed: Removed as of 7/5/2016]. 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 the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) How PBN Affects You). 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) How PBN Affects You 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.

[2/3/2016 Kelley] Documents presented to the FAA Document Control Board and moved to formal publication the following week.

[3/8/2016 Walton] Kevin Kelley was unable to attend. Madison Walton, AFS-470, presented a brief on Atlantic Offshore RNAV Y-Routes. Y routes lay within the Atlantic High Offshore Airspace. They will be designated RNAV with GNSS required. Non-GNSS RNAV systems no longer qualify, i.e. DME/DME. The Notice to Airmen Publication (NTAP), Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP), and recently revised AC90-105A Approval Guidance for RNP Operations and Barometric Vertical Navigation in the U.S. National Airspace System and in Oceanic and Remote Continental Airspace will provide guidance.

[3/8/2016 Birmingham] The OSWG agreed to move the issue to awaiting publication.

(continued on next page)

201511             B054        Oceanic and Remote Airspace Navigation  (page 3 of 3) (closed)

                             Using Single Long-Range Navigation System (S-LRNS)

Notes:

[7/20/2016 Bollin] The Notice and 8900.1 guidance are in AFS-400 final review. John anticipates publication by the end of the month.

[7/20/2016 Birmingham] The OSWG agreed to hold the issue open.

[7/27/2016 Bollin] Notice 8900.373 OpSpec/MSpec/LOA B054, Oceanic and Remote Airspace Navigation Using a Single Long-Range Navigation System and FAA Order 8900.1 Change 473 to Volume 3, Chapter 18, Section 4 guidance are published. B054 has been retitled “Oceanic and Remote Airspace Navigation Using a Single Long Range Navigation System.” The term “Class II” navigation has been replaced by “oceanic and remote airspace” navigation. The change also allows B054 to now authorize both oceanic and remote operations and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) 10 operations while equipped with only a single long-range navigation system (LRNS) on special routes.

[11/16/2016 Birmingham] The OSWG elected to close and archive the issue. However, proposals regarding the kind of operations authorized in B054 and B036 were presented by Kevin Kelley, AFS-470. Reference OSWG Issue 201611—B036 Oceanic and Remote Continental Navigation Using Multiple Long-Range Navigation Systems (M-LRNS). The OSWG directed the chair to open a new issue for a discussion regarding oceanic and remote navigation using single and multiple Long-Range Navigation systems (B036/B054).

201512             Canadian Private Operator Access to OpSpecs, MSpecs and LOAs (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date: November 4, 2015       Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Everette Rochon, AFS-820, 202 267-1142, everette.rochon@faa.gov

                     Jody Hemler, AFS-820, 202 267-0159, joseph.k.hemler-jr@faa.gov

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.

[3/9/2016 Bollin] Everette Rochon and Jody Hemler met with Brian Koester and other interested parties in an offsite meeting after the session.

 

 (closed)201515             D091        Requirements: Air Carrier Maintenance Providers  (FAA Brief) (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date: November 4, 2015       Date Closed: November 16, 2016

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

Industry Lead: Not Applicable

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.

 

(continued on next page)

 (closed)201515             D091        Requirements: Air Carrier Maintenance Providers  (FAA Brief) (page 2 of 2)

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]

[3/9/2016 Williams] Not much to report…; the issue continue to be a work in progress.

[7/20/2016 Williams] AFS-300 management decided not to add D091 to Part 135 (10 or more) certificate holders, as there has been no risk identified to support this. For Part 121 air carriers, D091 will continue to be used. The requirement for the FAA to audit EMPs every 3 years is to be withdrawn and will be reflected in 8900.1 guidance (V3 C42 S1). Coordination with AFS-900 will be required to update the EMP DCT template and keep it available in SAS in case it is needed based on identified risk. The EMP performance assessment that is automatically added to the CAP every 3 years also needs AFS-900 coordination so that it can be discontinued.

[11/16/2016 Williams] Not much to report. Airlines for America (A4A) still wants to consider sunsetting D091 for Part 121 air carriers. Mark will take this idea back to AFS-300. The OSWG directed the chair to close the FAA brief and open an OSWG issue for discussion. A4A’s Mark Lopez will assume Industry lead.

 

201602             A196 Air Cargo Operations

          A396 Special Air Cargo Operations (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date: March 8, 2016             Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Steve Albert, AFS-220, 503 615-3201, steve.albert@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Mike Citrano, Atlas Air, 917 680-0310, michael.citrano@atlasair.com

                           Russ Hoffmann, Atlas Air, 305 798-3279, leroy.hoffmann@atlasair.com

Issue Statement: Publish Part 121 OpSpec A196 Air Cargo Operations granting authorization to conduct cargo operations with specific make/model/series (M/M/S) of airplanes and different loading schemes; and OpSpec A396 Special Air Cargo Operations granting authorization to conduct special cargo operations with specific make/model/series (M/M/S) of airplanes and different loading schemes.

Background: The FAA initiated a “Tiger Team” to review cargo operations following the accident at Bagram AFB, Afghanistan (click here for video). This resulted in a cargo focus team charged with reviews of cargo manuals for compliance. The team determined a need for better control of the manual process and recommended to AFS-200 and AFS-300 that a new Operations Specification would provide this control. This aligns with new AFS policy on continued headquarters review of all special cargo operations. The team also developed an amended Advisory Circular 120-85A, which defines special cargo.

Intended Outcome: The goal is to develop an OpSpec based on FAA and industry consensus that provides the FAA with a tool to assist the cargo operators in achieving a higher level of safety. This team is requesting early input from all stakeholders to develop this specification.

Notes:

[3/8/2016 Bollin] Draft Part 121 OpSpec A196 Air Cargo Operations, Draft 8900.1 V3 C18 S3 A196 Air Cargo Operations, and Draft Notice N8900.XXX Air Cargo Operations [ed: not included herein] were posted on the AFS Document Control Board agenda for internal FAA review on February 24.

[3/8/2016 Albert] Steve walked the OSWG through a Power Point Brief.

[7/12/2016 Albert] Steve added OpSpec A396 Special Air Cargo Operations to the OSWG Issue title and Issue Statement.

[7/12/2016 Bollin] OpSpec 196 and 396 templates were posted on the AFS Draft Documents Open for Comment website[ed: no longer posted]. Comments are due by August 11, 2016.

(continued on next page)

201602             A196 Air Cargo Operations (Proposed)

          A396 Special Air Cargo Operations (Proposed) (page 2 of 2)

Notes:

[7/20/2016 Moates] Steve Albert was unavailable for the meeting. Steve Moates, AFS-220, briefed the OSWG. The comment period was extended for an additional 30 days. Comments are due by September 16. Definitions for “cargo” and “special cargo” will be added to OpSpec A002. Steve Kuhar, FedEx, clarified that the definitions need to be very specific and leave little doubt for industry and FAA inspector interpretation. Industry will provide comments.

 

[10/20/2016 Bollin] A002 Definitions for “cargo” and “special cargo” have been revised and posted in N8900.A002 on the AFS Draft Documents Open for Comment website. Comments are due by November 18, 2016.

[11/16/2016 Moates] Steve Albert was unavailable for comment. Steve Moates, Manager, AFS-220, briefed the OSWG. The Notice 8900.A002 comment period will close by the end of the week. AFS-220 is in the process of incorporating comments on record to date. Industry finds it difficult to provide comment on new OpSpecs/MSpecs/LOAs that are not based on a rule or without appropriate definitions.

201603             Part 129 A001 Issuance and Applicability, and Reports (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date: March 9, 2016             Date Closed:

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

                     Paul Thoren, AWP-203, 310-725-7332, paul.thoren@faa.gov

                     Harold Kernahan, AWP-203, 510 748-0122, harold.e.kernahan@faa.gov

Industry Lead: TBD

Issue Statement: There is no provision in Part 129 OpSpec A001 to record the expiration date (if applicable) of a foreign air carrier’s Air Operator Certificate (AOC). A001 paragraph g(2) does not differentiate between nonscheduled overflights and nonscheduled operations that involve a landing in US airspace.

Background: Scenario: DOT economic authority for an air carrier expires on mm dd, 2019.

DOT does not include a provision in reference to the AOC in its economic authority and a foreign authority issues the AOC with a mm dd, 2017 expiration date. The economic authority date exceeding the AOC date is a frequent scenario for Russian and Ukranian operators to whom the LAX IFO has responsible oversight for operations within the United States.

The table in Part 129 OpSpec A001 has a block for DOT Economic Authority expiration and lacks a space for AOC expiration. Currently, AOC expiration dates are tracked via excel spreadsheet. To further complicate matters, a number of foreign air carrier AOCs list expiration dates while others do not. Not all operators remember to provide updated copies of their AOC. Language found in A001 makes reference to the operator’s requirement to be in possession of a valid AOC.

In May of 2011 the FAA replaced the non-scheduled flight notification method table within Part 129 OpSpec A001 with boiler plate language that specified by when, to whom, and by which method a notification needs to be made. (Notice 8900.154 OpSpec A001 for Part 129 cancelled 5/19/12) The 2011 OpSpec amendment was made to ensure that the FAA was able to meet its surveillance and safety oversight responsibility:

·   Surveillance—An inspector conducting a surveillance activity at an airport needs to have the ability to readily verify if an aircraft that he/she sees flying in and does not recognize is authorized to operate into the airport at which he/she is conducting surveillance; and

·   Safety oversight responsibility—Even though the DOT may grant open skies to a Part 129 foreign air carrier, under which the DOT authorizes the carrier to fly to any U.S. airport that the carrier’s CAA has authorized it to fly to, the safety oversight responsibility for that carrier remains with the FAA.

(continued on next page)

201603             Part 129 A001 Issuance and Applicability, and Reports (page 2 of 2)

Background:

In February 2016, the Los Angeles International Field Office (LAX IFO) brought to AFS-50 HQ attention, questions in regards to foreign air carrier responsibility and overflights. This prompted AFS-50 to initiate a review of existing A001 paragraph g(2) language.

Intended Outcome: Until a long term fix can be implemented, the Principle Inspector is authorized to use free text in A001 paragraph a. table column 2 or paragraph a. table column 4, to list the AOC expiration date. In A001 paragraph g(2), differentiate between nonscheduled overflights and nonscheduled operations that involve a landing in U.S. airspace.

Notes:

[3/9/2016 Pronczuk] Danuta gave the OSWG a look at the draft paragraph. The international OSWG made the following recommendations:

·   Adding another column (State of the Operator AOC Expiration) would require additional OpSpec amendments for those operators whose AOC expires every 2 years. A copy of the AOC is required to be carried on board the aircraft (ICAO standard).

·   Lift the requirement to capture DOT economic authority (Expiration) as it adds to the number of times the OpSpecs needs to be amended. If there is a question, the information can be obtained on www.regulations.gov, or via the newly required agent for service in the United States etc.

·   Provide relief on the number of required nonscheduled notifications once the FAA meets its ramp inspection oversight responsibilities for the year.


 

201605             Part 129 D108   Maintenance Program—Continuous Airworthiness—

                        U.S. Registered Airplanes (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date: March 9, 2016             Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Charlie Fellows, AFS-350, 202 267-1706, charles.fellows@faa.gov

Industry Lead: TBD

Issue Statement: Maintenance programs for a foreign air carrier or foreign operator operating under part 129 §129.14 are approved via the issuing of part 129 OpSpec D085. All equipment listed in part 129 D108 and installed on the aircraft is on condition; therefore, there is no requirement to list the equipment in OpSpecs. (There are zonal job task cards that inspect the box/mounting/cables and the area of installation.) The FAA is conducting rulemaking that will revise Appendix G to 14 CFR part 91, removing the requirement to review and approve RVSM maintenance programs.

Background: At the time of application, the Principal Inspector reviews a certificate holder’s FAA approved aircraft maintenance program, ensuring the elements for operations in RVSM airspace are present. Once the rule is published, PIs will no longer need to review the certificate holder’s stand-alone or existing maintenance program for operations in RVSM airspace. In most cases the basis for required maintenance to conduct RVSM are found in the RVSM design Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA). Since maintaining the aircraft to the standards described in its design ICA is required by other regulations, the FAA approved aircraft maintenance program remains unchanged. The FAA has determined that all navigation equipment requiring performance specifications listed in D108 and installed on the aircraft, is on condition and not required to be listed in OpSpecs.

Intended Outcome: Decommission OpSpec D108 for part 129.

Notes:

[3/9/2016 Williams] Charlie Fellows was unable to brief the International OSWG. Mark Williams, AFS-330, addressed the meeting and informed the group that there is a proposed RVSM rule (docket FAA-2015-174.6) change. If it moves forward, current paragraphs will be revised to align with the rule, including D108.

This action would revise the FAA's requirements for an application to operate in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) airspace. The proposal would eliminate the burden and expense of developing, processing, and approving RVSM maintenance programs. As a result, an applicant would no longer be required to develop and submit an RVSM maintenance program solely for the purpose of an RVSM authorization to operate in RVSM airspace. Because of other, independent FAA airworthiness regulations, all aircraft operators would nevertheless continue to be required to maintain RVSM equipment in an airworthy condition.

(continued on next page)

201605             Part 129 D108   Maintenance Program—Continuous Airworthiness—

                        U.S. Registered Airplanes (page 2 of 2)

Notes:

[8/17/2016 Bollin] Notice 8900.378—OpSpec D108, Maintenance Program—Continuous Airworthiness—U.S.-Registered Airplanes, for Part 129, is published. Part 129 OpSpec D108 is decommissioned. Reference associated revisions to Notice 8900.377—OpSpec/MSpec/LOA D092, Airplanes Authorized for Operations in Designated Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Airspace, and Notice 8900.376—OpSpec/MSpec/LOA B046, Operations in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Airspace.

 

201606             Part 129 Navigation Terminology

Initial Agenda Date: March 9, 2016             Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Mark Wisniewski, AFS-470, 202 267-8843, mark.ctr.wisniewski@faa.gov

Industry Lead: TBD

Issue Statement: “Class II” is United States terminology for airspace outside the service volume of a ground navaid, and is not harmonized with the ICAO definition. Furthermore, foreign air carriers and foreign operators are probably operating in U.S. airspace that requires “Class II” navigation without any of that addressed in their Operation Specifications. Example: Operations in the state of Alaska. The requirements of transition through U.S. remote airspace needs to be addressed, otherwise no foreign air carrier/foreign operator may operate in Alaska.

The name change from “Class II” navigation to “oceanic/remote continental” navigation requires not only a change to a certificate holders A002 Definitions and Abbreviations, but also provides an opportunity to rectify the aforementioned oversight with respective to navigation by foreign air carriers and foreign operators in the NAS that is outside airspace where Class I procedures are applicable. 

Background: To enhance safety, the FAA is harmonizing with ICAO terminology by adopting “Oceanic/Remote Continental” in place of “Class II” navigation. As part of the harmonization, the FAA has found the following 14 CFR part 129 OpSpecs to be relevant:

A002  Definitions and Abbreviations,

A003  Aircraft Authorized for Operations to the United States, and

B035  Class I Navigation En route in United States (U.S.) Airspace

           Using Area or Long-Range Navigation Systems.

Intended Outcome: Update 14 CFR part 129 OpSpecs A002, A003 and B035.

Notes:

[3/9/2016 Wisniewski] Mark shared current drafts of foreign air carrier/foreign operator templates for Part 129 A002, Part 129 A003 and Part 129 B035.

201607             Part 129 C381   Special Non-14 CFR part 97

                        Instrument Approach or Departure Procedures (Optional)

Initial Agenda Date: March 9, 2016             Date Closed:

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

Industry Lead: TBD

Issue Statement: Issuing RNAV visual (RVFP) via Letter of Authorization (LOA) for foreign air carriers does not provide the FAA with the necessary transparency to perform its oversight function.

Background: Flight operations quality assurance (FOQA) and Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) reports indicate flightcrews will sometimes descend at excessive rates during approach, resulting in an un-stabilized approach. Many of these reports come from flightcrews conducting visual approaches to runways not served by vertically guided approach procedures. However, the events can also occur at airports with vertically guided approach procedures when visual approach operations impose altitude restrictions that interfere with the flightcrew’s ability to establish a stabilized approach. Many of the aircraft involved in these events are equipped with RNAV systems capable of providing lateral, vertical, and airspeed guidance/reference. Procedures such as RVFP, which capitalize on the capabilities of these RNAV systems, are beneficial because they promote flight path repeatability, may reduce air traffic communications and enhance safety. The design and implementation of RVFP differ from that of charted visual flight procedures (CVFP) in a number of regards. First, RVFP developed under FAA Order 8260.55 guidance are for use only by pilots of aircraft equipped with instrument flight rules (IFR)-approved RNAV systems. Second, these procedures are not “public” in nature, approved via a process similar to that of “special” Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP). RVFP are not “special IAPs” by definition, but rather are simply considered “special procedures”. Third, a lead operator may design RVFP through FAA Flight Standards Service oversight.

There is currently no ICAO standard for RVFP. To date, numerous foreign air carriers have been authorized, via an LOA, to fly RVFPs in U.S. airspace. The most sought after RVFPs by foreign air carriers were found to be RNAV Visual Rwy 13L and RNAV Visual Rwy 13R to KJFK.

Intended Outcome: Incorporate RNAV visuals into Part 129 C381.

Notes:

[3/9/2016 Christianson] Comparing the existing C381 template to the AFS-470 proposed template, Kel provided the OSWG with an update to the OpSpec revision, including a review of jetBlue’s issued RNAV visual approach to JFK Runway 13L.

[6/8/2016 Bollin] The document package was moved from the DCB to AFS-140 for formal coordination formatting and editing.

201608             C384        Required Navigation Performance Procedures with

                      Authorization Required            (FAA Brief) (page 1 of 3)

Initial Agenda Date: March 9, 2016             Date Closed:

FAA Lead: Jeff Kerr, AFS-470, 202 267-6389, jeffrey.kerr@faa.gov

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

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

Issue Statement: Revise FAA guidance regarding multiple OpSpec approvals for FMCS software upgrades.

Background: In the process of amending their Operations Specifications C063, C300, and C384 to include an upgraded version of their FMCS software, Alaska Airlines was notified by HQ to provide additional documentation not required in 8900.1 guidance. This request delayed the approval process for an operational necessary paragraph.

United Airlines had similar issues receiving approvals through the system using the current guidance available. C384 is the only paragraph that does not allow authorization for a specific Block Point statement. United’s B777 C384 application to upgrade a number of Block Points was in process for over six months.

Furthermore, approval for software versions of FMC programing resides in three specifications: C063, C300, C384. Two of these require headquarters approval: C384 from AFS-400 and C300 from another office. It seems unreasonable to allow the CMO to approve software version upgrades in one specification and not the others, much less have two headquarters offices involved. It was the CMO’s understanding that headquarters was going to allow the CMO to process all specifications, including 300 series when limited to software version revisions.

Intended Outcome: AFS-400 is resolving the issue. 8900.1 guidance will be changed to reflect the addition of Boeing required data (or not) for FMC software upgrades affecting RNP.

(continued on next page)


 

201608             C384        Required Navigation Performance Procedures with

                      Authorization Required            (FAA Brief) (page 2 of 3)

Notes:

[3/8/2016 Bigler] Accompanied by John Barry, an aerospace engineer and technical pilot assigned to the FAA’s Aircraft Certification Service—Design, Manufacturing and Airworthiness Division—Systems and Equipment Standards Branch (AIR-131), Trent briefed the OSWG (click here for PP presentation) on approval guidance for Required Navigation Performance with Authorization Required (RNP AR) approach procedures. [ed: The nomenclature Required Navigation Performance Special Aircraft and Authorization Required (RNP SAAAR) is being phased out and replaced by RNP AR.] FAA HQ does not authorize paragraph C384! After reviewing an operator’s request, HQ will send a memorandum of concurrence to the POI. The POI will then approve and issue OpSpec C384. Air carriers and operators desiring OpSpec C384 should access the AFS-470 Performance Based Flight Systems Branch Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Guidance and Approval website, the AFS-470 Additional Information for RNP AR website (Ed: deleted June 2016), and AC 90-101A Approval Guidance for RNP Procedures with AR dated 2/9/16.

If an air carrier/operator only desires to make a software change, reference FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 18, Section 5, Paragraph C384. Air carriers/operators must submit the manufacturers compliance document to the POI for C384 software changes. A Boeing/Airbus compliance document will suffice. OPC listings must be submitted. AFS-470 is creating a compliance table for software builds. If the manufacturer’s documents specifically state there are no changes, the POI can approve without FAA HQ concurrence.

If an air carrier/operator is issued C384, they may be eligible for Advanced RNP. Radio to fix (RF) legs, parallel offset, and scalability are required. Reference the AFS-470 website and recently revised AC90-105A Approval Guidance for RNP Operations and Barometric Vertical Navigation in the U.S. National Airspace System and in Oceanic and Remote Continental Airspace.

Every RNP AR approach procedure must be vetted against applicable FAA Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) 8260 series forms. Foreign RNP AR approach procedures are validated in a simulator, and then posted to the AFS-470 Foreign Facilities Approved for RNP AR Operations spreadsheet.

Click here for John Barry’s detailed brief—Performance Based Navigation: Today and Tomorrow—presented to the International OSWG. Reference OSWG Issue 201505—Part 129 C384 Area Navigation (RNAV) Required Navigation Performance (RNP)      Instrument Approach Procedures with Special Aircraft and Aircrew Authorization Required (AR).

[7/20/2016 Bigler] Trent was unavailable. The issue was tabled until the next meeting.

201608             C384        Required Navigation Performance Procedures with

                      Authorization Required            (FAA Brief) (page 3 of 3)

Notes:

[11/2/2016 Bollin] InFO 16020 Naming of Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP) in the United States (U.S.) and at International Airports is published. This InFO serves to notify operators about changes regarding the titling of PBN IAPs, which are changing at some locations outside of the U.S. from “RNAV (GNSS) RWY XX” to “RNP RWY XX” and “RNAV (RNP) RWY XX” to “RNP RWY XX (AR)”. Operators should understand the differences in approach titling and that at international locations “RNP RWY XX” is not necessarily “RNP AR”. As necessary for foreign operations, OpSpec C052 and, as applicable, C384 templates will require revision.

[11/16/2016 Christianson] The OSWG raised questions regarding changes to C384 and C052 Straight-in Non-Precision, APV, and Category I Precision Approach and Landing Minima—All Airports, found in InFO 16020.

Kel reiterated information found in the InFO. ICAO has recommended that States retitle PBN IAPs from “RNAV” to “RNP”. As a result, several States began to make changes. However, the title “RNAV” will be retained in the U.S. to maintain operational safety and avoid costs related to retitling several thousand PBN IAPs. While the U.S. does not intend to change the titles of PBN IAPs from RNAV to RNP, the FAA has taken measures to address the ICAO changes by inserting a note into OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C052, such that authorization to fly “RNAV (GPS)” IAP should extend to procedures in foreign states titled “RNAV (GNSS) RWY XX” and/or “RNP RWY XX”. Similarly, a note in OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C384, will reflect ICAO changes from “RNAV (RNP) RWY XX” to “RNP RWY XX (AR)”.

Operators flying PBN procedures at locations outside the U.S. should pay particular attention to applicable foreign Aeronautical Information Publications (AIP) to determine eligibility and pertinent operational information. The FAA continues to work with ICAO and other relevant stakeholders to address concerns related to these changes.

[11/16/2016 Bollin] Trent Bigler has transferred to AFS-050 International Operations. Jeff Kerr, AFS-470 is the new FAA lead.

 

201609             Part 129 C063   IFR RNAV 1 Departure Procedures (DP) and

                        Standard Terminal Arrivals (STAR)—U.S. Airports (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date: March 9, 2016             Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Jeff Kerr, AFS-470, 202 267-6389, jeffrey.kerr@faa.gov

                     Harvey Siegel, AEA-215, 718 995-5453, harvey.siegel@faa.gov

Industry Lead: TBD

Issue Statement: Does the FAA need to continue to track software versions of an RNAV System?

Background: In 2007, the FAA amended 14 CFR part 129 OpSpec C063, adding a requirement to capture the software part/version/revision number of the RNAV System eligible for RNAV I DPs and STARs. This was done to ensure the proper configuration of the approved RNAV operating system/documentation and that the equipment being operated in U.S. airspace meets the operational and functional performance criteria for RNAV 1 DPs and STARs.

In 2015 the New York International Field Office (NY IFO) recommended a review of the FAA’s 2007 OpSpec C063 amendment for the following reasons:

·   Commercial and business aircraft manufactured today (B747-8, B777, B787, A330, A380, Gulfstream, Falcon, Global Express, etc.) are delivered from the factory with equipment capable of RNP 1 and 2. Most all aircraft the NY IFO adds to OpSpec C063 are equipped with avionics able to fly RNP 1.0 or less.

·   Certificate holders were upgrading the software versions of approved navigation equipment at a rapid rate. The upgrades, approved by a foreign State of the operator assessed by the FAA as a CAT I country meeting minimum ICAO standards, have been found by the NY IFO to consistently meet the operational and functional performance criteria for RNAV terminal operations.

In 2015/16, AFS-400, AFS-50 HQ, and New York, Los Angeles, Miami, and Dallas IFO subject matter experts examined the issue. LAX, MIA and DFW reported the same operational and functional performance consistencies for foreign States under their jurisdiction.

Both AFS-50 HQ and AFS-400 agreed that a recorded consistency over an eight year period met the FAA’s safety oversight responsibility, gave the FAA sufficient confidence that this consistency will continue, and as such, determined that the requirement to continue documenting the approved software version should be lifted.

Intended Outcome: Amend OpSpec C063.

(continued on next page)

 

201609             Part 129 C063   IFR RNAV 1 Departure Procedures (DP) and

                        Standard Terminal Arrivals (STAR)—U.S. Airports (page 2 of 2)

Notes:

[3/9/2016 Kerr] Jeff updated the International OSWG on the development progress of Draft OpSpec C063.

 

(page 1 of 2) (closed)
201610             C064        Terminal Area IFR Operations in Class G Airspace and at

                      Airports without an Operating Control Tower—

                      Nonscheduled Passenger and All Cargo Operations

          C080   Terminal Area IFR Operations in Class G Airspace and at

                      Airports without an Operating Control Tower for

                      Scheduled Passenger Operations

Initial Agenda Date: July 20, 2016               Date Closed: November 16, 2016

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

Industry Lead: Joe DeVito, jetBlue, 631 664-5041, joseph.devito@jetblue.com

Issue Statement: Combine OpSpec C064 and C080 into new OpSpec C064. Archive OpSpec C080 and decommission the template.

Background: These two operation specification paragraphs closely mirror each other. However two standards exist when it pertains to scheduled passenger operations versus non-scheduled passenger and cargo operations. There is no safety difference when the public travels on a particular aircraft, whether the tickets are sold by a third-party supplemental agreement or directly by an air carrier for the same aircraft. The FAA permits operations for supplemental carriers in C064 without the need for a specific airport authorization table, such as the one that exists for scheduled operations found in paragraph C080(d). Paragraph (a) in both documents is sufficient to satisfy all safety concerns, and the information listed in C080(d) is provided by other approved means.

The industry has recently witnessed the unintended consequences and endured schedule interruptions of having to maintain the authorized airfield list in C080. The Richmond, VA control tower closed due to a fire a few years ago. Controlled by a continuously manned, 24-hour tower, this airfield was not listed in many air carrier C080 paragraphs. In an unexpected shut down, air carriers could not conduct take off operations until the airport was listed. The same situation occurred when the Austin, TX control tower closed due to flooding. In each case the requirements of paragraph C080(a) would have been satisfied but the table in paragraph (d) prevented take off. Furthermore, scheduled air carriers experiencing diversions into airfields with reduced air traffic control hours and unlisted in their C080, are grounded for hours until the tower is operational, despite their meeting the requirements in paragraph (a).

In addition, C080(d) requires specific aeronautical data normally found on a navigation chart, AFD, or supplied by the certificate holder. Routine data changes create an undue burden for the air carrier and the FAA with no safety benefit. Flight Deck crews do not reference operations specifications for aeronautical data.

(continued on next page)

(page 1 of 2) (closed)
201610             C064        Terminal Area IFR Operations in Class G Airspace and at

                      Airports without an Operating Control Tower—

                      Nonscheduled Passenger and All Cargo Operations

          C080   Terminal Area IFR Operations in Class G Airspace and at

                      Airports without an Operating Control Tower for

                      Scheduled Passenger Operations

Intended Outcome: Combine OpSpec C064 and C080 into new OpSpec C064, including covering all operations pertaining to a specific certificate holder’s A003 authorizations. Archive OpSpec C080 and decommission the template. This will set one standard and be harmonious for all operations, preventing operational interruptions for unscheduled tower closures and diversions, and eliminate an administrative burden for the air carrier and the CHDO.

Notes:

[7/20/2016 Kessaris] Theo submitted a written FAA response for discussion. Theo and Joe will coordinate their efforts and report back to the OSWG.

[11/16/2016 Kessaris] Theo would like to clean up the template language…; just no time to do it. Rather than sitting on the docket for another 4 years (aka: A025), Theo recommended we remove the issue and introduce it at a later, mutual agreeable date.

[11/16/2016 Birmingham] The OSWG elected to close and archive the combined issue; however, OpSpec C080 is a work in progress and questions remain regarding terminal area IFR operations at airports without an operating control tower for scheduled passenger operations. The OSWG directed the chair to open a new issue for a discussion regarding C080.

 

201611       B036        Oceanic and Remote Continental Navigation  (page 1 of 2)

                      Using Multiple Long-Range Navigation Systems (M-LRNS)

Initial Agenda Date: July 20, 2016               Date Closed:

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

Industry Lead: Grant Morris, Southwest Airlines, grant.morris2@wnco.com

                           Jim Sharkey, United Airlines, 872 825-5501, james.sharkey@united.com

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

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

Issue Statement: Revise and reissue the OpSpec/MSpec/LOA B036 templates released in March, 2016; correcting unintended minor errors and further streamlining the paragraph similar to the recent revision to OSWG Issue 201511 B054 Class II Navigation Using Single Long-Range Navigation System (S-LRNS) (awaiting publication).

Background: Released in March 2016, AC 90-105A Approval Guidance for RNP Operations and Barometric Vertical Navigation in the U.S. National Airspace System and in Oceanic and Remote Continental Airspace, accommodated modified navigation specifications authorized in the new B036 paragraph.

Intended Outcome: Clean up glitches and errors in the heading and content of the LOA. Remove certain data fields in Table 1—Authorized Airplane(s), Equipment. Remove the word “Continental” from the title. Remove and replace “Class II” with the new airspace term “Oceanic and Remote, (O&R)”. Streamline OpSpec/MSpec/LOA template and inspector guidance.

Notes:

[7/20/2016 Kelley] Kevin solicited input from industry. Grant Morris, Jim Sharkey, Andy Newcomer and Steve Kuhar volunteered to form a committee as Industry Leads.

[7/20/2016 Kelley] “Class II” has been replaced with “Oceanic and Remote, (O&R)”. The word “Continental” will be removed from the title. The “Long-Range Navigation Systems (LRNS) Software Part/Ver#” column in Table 1 will be removed.

[7/20/2016 Kelley] As a side note, Kevin informed the OSWG that the B032 En Route Limitations and Provisions requirement for an operator using an area navigation system to reliably fix an aircraft’s position at least once each hour using airway navigation facilities is under review.

[7/20/2016 Kelley] A lively discussion regarding RNP operations in remote and continental airspace culminated with the knowledge that Australia accepts RNP-2.

[8/1/2016 Kelley] Post-meeting note: AFS-400 is withdrawing from the joint A002 Definitions revision project with the AFS-200 “cargo definition” folks. -400 is not ready to change Class II definitions. This will allow AFS-200 to proceed solo without holdup.

201611       B036        Oceanic and Remote Continental Navigation  (page 2 of 2)

                      Using Multiple Long-Range Navigation Systems (M-LRNS)

Notes:

[11/16/2016 Kelley] Highlights from Kevin’s 2-slide Power Point brief:

AFS-470 is proposing to redefine the “kind of operation” (per part 14 CFR part 119) authorized by OpSpec/MSpec/LOA B036 (and B054 using a single Long-Range Navigation System, S-LRNS) in such a way that the “operational service volume” of navaids no longer serves as a descriptor of the operations. Why?

·   The modern air navigation landscape, in which many, if not most, high performance airplanes are equipped with what can be considered LRNS.

·   Anticipated gradual reduction in ground-based navaids.

·   We’ve been challenged to think in terms of modern concepts, such that our operations are no longer defined by legacy ground navigation systems.

·   Just makes sense to consider things differently going forward.

B036 and B054 have always been about a kind of operation that was different from “domestic” IFR en-route…. They have largely been about oceanic/remote flying. The questions going forward are: What is the logical transition point between “domestic” IFR en-route operations and that which resembles oceanic/remote operations, and where should OpSpec B036 or B054 be required? Established/charted oceanic airspace boundaries are certainly an option. But the FAA is proposing something different.

Operators could choose to make things easy for themselves and determine the boundary for procedural airspace, and therefore where crews fly under oceanic-type procedures, to be an oceanic control area boundary, for example.

·   AFS-470 is proposing to remove the hardware/software versions and equipment part numbers from the information required in the “authorized airplanes/equipment” table.

·   AFS-470 is proposing to pare down the “limitations and provisions” to only that considered essential for inclusion in the authorization.

These changes have no impact on part 91 operators. They will continue to receive LOA B036 and B054 solely to authorize oceanic RNP operations. However they should realize a benefit from the new “authorized airplanes/equipment” table, i.e.: no part numbers and software versions required.

While AFS-470 has had many discussions on these proposals, and feel they are “maturing,” the fact remains that they are still proposals. We do not yet have the endorsement of AFS-400 to proceed with the more formal coordination processes required to implement changes to OpSpec/MSpec/LOA B036/B054.

 

201612       A013        Part 121 Operations Without Certain Emergency Equipment

Initial Agenda Date: November 16, 2016     Date Closed:

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

Industry Lead: Jim Stieve, Southwest Airlines, 469 603-0930, jim.stieve@wnco.com

Issue Statement: The term “shoreline” exists in regulations that define Extended Overwater Operations. The term has been broadly applied in a manner that could compromise the intent and risk mitigation that are a part of the basis for A013: Specifically, as defined for various “islands” in the central Caribbean that provide limited or no support for commercial airplanes.

Background: Under a deviation provided in 14 CFR part 121 §121.339(a), A013 authorizes the certificate holder to conduct extended overwater turbojet-powered airplane operations over any offshore area adjoining the 48 contiguous states, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Islands, at or above FL250, not to exceed 30 minutes flying time in still air with one engine inoperative, or beyond a designated distance from the nearest shoreline, whichever is less, without the emergency equipment required by sections 121.339(a)(2), (a)(3) and (a)(4).

Intended Outcome: Revise OpSpec A013 to clarify the definition of “nearest shoreline”. The FAA intends to research and examine the rationale behind the present construction of the language in A013 in order to ascertain the intent behind the concepts it contains. From that the FAA will endeavor to construct language that permits the full use of A013 within definitions that are not open to interpretation and misapplication.

Notes:

[11/16/2016 Moates] Steve reiterated the issue’s intended outcome: The FAA desires to revise the definition of “nearest shoreline” in the OpSpec and Order 8900.1 guidance. Assigning a sandbar in the middle of the Caribbean will not suffice for a shoreline.

 

201613       B045        Extended Overwater Operations

                      Using a Single Long-Range Communications System (SLRCS)

Initial Agenda Date: November 16, 2016     Date Closed:

FAA Lead: Gordy Rother, AFS-220, 612 253-4409, gordon.rother@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Alain Terzakis, ABX Air, 937 366-2464, alain.terzakis@abxair.com

Issue Statement: Allow relief between the continental United States and the islands of Hawaii with aircraft not equipped with a Satellite Voice (SATVOICE) communication system network access switch.

Background: In accordance with 14 CFR part 121 121.351(c) and the limitations and provisions of Operations Specification B045, a certificate holder is authorized to defer the operation of one HF radio system as long as a SATVOICE communication system is available. OpSpec B045 paragraph d.(4)(b)(ii) allows aircraft that do not meet the requirements of the network access switch to add the appropriate SATVOICE communication system code in the Air Traffic Service (ATS) flight plan and to provide the aircraft-specific phone number to the Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP).

Intended Outcome: Expand the areas of en route operations listed in OpSpec B045 paragraph b. and defined in paragraph d.(3), specifically between the continental United States and Hawaii.

Notes:

[11/16/2016 Rother] Gordy informed the OSWG that regulatory relief flying aircraft not equipped with a Satellite Voice (SATVOICE) communication system network access switch between the continental United States and the islands of Hawaii is not warranted at this time. A revision to PL-106 R5 High Frequency (HF) Communications, issued in June 2014, is out for comment regarding the replacement SATVOICE with CPDLC (Controller–Pilot Data Link Communications). As a side note, the FAA is looking at revising OpSpec B045 in the North Atlantic using a single HF radio.

 

201614             A056 Data Link Communications

Initial Agenda Date: November 16, 2016     Date Closed:

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

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

Issue Statement: On March 28, 2018, additional flight plan codes will be required on the ATC strip to indicate that an aircraft is eligible for 23NM separation in Oceanic airspace. If a domestic Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC)-authorized certificate holder does not foresee operating in Required Communications Performance / Required Separations Performance (RCP/RSP) Oceanic airspace, their OpSpec A056 is not required to be updated. However, if the air carrier/operator wants ATC to provide CPDLC-based, 23NM separation in Oceanic airspace, changes to the operator’s A056 will be required for authority to file the RCP/RSP Codes in the ATC Flight Plan. An air carrier/operator’s eligibility will be based on their datalink performance history.

Background: At both the recent New York Oceanic Working Group (NY OWG) meeting, and the Nav Canada North Atlantic Ops Forum, the FAA stated that changes are coming down the pike for OpSpec A056 as a result of the new RCP/RSP provisions. Along with an RNP requirement, RCP/RSP will be prescribed for certain services, e.g.: Reduced Lateral Separation Minimum (RLatSM).

FAA data communications guidance will need to be revised: A new Performance-Based Communication and Surveillance (PBCS) Advisory Circular written, OpSpec/MSpec/LOA templates created, and 8900.1 inspector guidance and job aids developed. Advisory Circular 120-70C Operational Authorization Process for Use of Data Link Communication System will be cancelled. ICAO will need to issue a new ICAO GOLD Document, and a new PBCS Manual, to support RCP/RSP before the end of the year.

Intended Outcome: Industry will need to remain cognizant of forthcoming changes to PCP/PSP policy.

Notes:

[11/16/2016 Patterson] Reference AC 90-XX Data Link Communications Brief. Mark Patterson introduced Draft AC 90-XX Data Link Communications to the AFS Document Control Board (DCB). The Advisory Circular will supersede AC 120-70C and will be followed soon by a new OpSpec A056 template and 8900.1 guidance. Due to the initial international implementation of performance-based communication and surveillance in March 2018, this guidance needs to be published ASAP to give operators at least a year to prepare. Pending a combined approval/30-day public comment period, the document should be out available in early Spring 2017.

 

November 2016 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes

·   [Ellen Birmingham] Ellen confirmed future OSWG meeting dates and locations.

Tuesday/Wednesday, March 7/8, 2017, hosted by FAA, Washington DC

Wednesday, June 28, 2017, hosted by United Airlines, Chicago, IL (limited FAA participation)

Wednesday, September 13, 2017, hosted by A4A, Washington DC

Wednesday, November 15, 2017 hosted by jetBlue, Orlando, FL (limited FAA participation)

Due to federal government travel funding restrictions, FAA Subject Matter Expert (SME) participation will be limited for OSWG meetings held outside the Washington DC metro area.

·   [John Bollin] John introduced the Chronological Table of Contents of Closed/Archived Issues, a historical synopsis of issues closed in previous agendas.

·   [John Bollin] John reviewed documents open for public comment and pilot in command airport qualification, special areas and airports. Except for a noted typo for Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic (MDSD), there were no changes to the 2015 list of special areas and airports. The OSWG discussed the option to post requests to add/delete PIC airport qualification: Special Areas and Airports, on a public forum (A4A offered their website) so that operators are not duplicating efforts to get these approvals. The FAA site should still house the approved list of §121.445 special qualification areas and airports.

·   [Ellen Birmingham] Ellen had questions for Steve Moates regarding changes to Boeing Aircraft data plates (reference .pdf). For consistency with existing practice on the B787, B737 MAX, and B777X, Boeing will be changing the aircraft data plate on the door 1L upper door sill to show only the minor model number. When asked about the impact on the aircraft make/model/series listings in applicable OpSpecs, Steve pointed out that most of the effected OpSpecs are Part B and C for which AFS-400 has primary responsibility. The OSWG directed the chairs to create a new issue paper for the next meeting.

·   [Monica Grusche] Monica provided a WebOPSS and Economic Authority and Insurance Management (eAIM) project update: Except for process and infrastructure issues, there’s not much going on in WebOPSS. FAA Information Technology has instituted new processes that are holding up system changes, e.g.: eAIM. The eAIM prototype software will be ready for January/February, 2017 testing.

·   [Paul Lepine] Paul provided an update for the transition to the Operations Approval Portal System (OAPS). Switching to a more compatible computer server resulted in a rollout delay. Coupled with a desire to conduct further industry testing of the interface, the FAA will launch OAPS in late January, 2017. Until then, new and pending applications will continue to be monitored using the AFS-400 Sharepoint tracking system.

November 2016 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·   [Theo Kessaris] Industry initiated a brief discussion regarding OSWG Issue 200916 A025 Electronic Record Keeping Systems (closed and archived in the July 2016 meeting agenda). FAA Notice N8900.368 OpSpec/MSpec/TSpec/LOA A025, Electronic Signatures, Electronic Recordkeeping Systems, and Electronic Manual Systems, requires Principal Inspectors to verify that certificate holder’s existing electronic applications and systems meet the FAA’s new standards, as outlined in the notice. Industry requested an additional six months to allow more time for certificate holders with complex existing electronic applications and systems, to meet the new standards. Theo agreed to extend the compliance date for the Notice another six months to June 22, 2017 (the Notice cancellation date). This will be accomplished by publishing a new notice that cancels and supersedes N8900.368. The expiration date of the previous revision of A025 has already been extended in WebOPSS from December 22, 2016 to June 22, 2017.

·   [Theo Kessaris] Theo again reiterated that all nonstandard templates and nonstandard text (previously referred to as “Text 99”) require approval from the appropriate HQ policy division. Reference March 2016 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes.

·   [Mark Williams] Mandated in an NTSB recommendation to alert certificate holders of maintenance requirements for air carrier Emergency Evacuation Systems (EES) and ensure proper maintenance is accomplished for those systems, Mark Williams, AFS-330, notified the OSWG of a change to OpSpec D105 Air Carrier Maintenance Program Requirements. Mark will introduce an issue paper in the upcoming March 2017 meeting agenda.

·   [Ellen Birmingham] This was Ellen’s last meeting as Industry Chairwoman. The OSWG says “Thank You” for your past year of service. Jim Stieve, Southwest Airlines, will assume the duties of Industry Chairman for 2017. By unanimous decision, the OSWG elected Alan Clay, Director Flight Operations Support, American Airlines, as the new Vice-Chairman.

·   [John Bollin] Thank you Brian Koester and the NBAA for hosting the meeting. A special thank you to Jim Stieve for taking copious notes over the last year.

July 2016 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes

·   [Ellen Birmingham] Ellen confirmed future OSWG meeting dates and locations:

Wednesday, November 16, 2016, hosted by NBAA, Washington DC

Tuesday/Wednesday, March 7/8, 2017, hosted by FAA, Washington DC

Wednesday, June 28, 2017, hosted by United Airlines, Chicago, IL

Wednesday, September 13, 2017, hosted by A4A, Washington DC

Wednesday, November 15, 2017 hosted by jetBlue, Orlando, FL

·   [John Bollin] John announced the end of surveys! The FAA requirement to canvass the OSWG after each meeting has been deleted.

·   [Ellen Birmingham] §121.445 Pilot in command airport qualification: Special areas and airports update: OSWG co-chair Jim Stieve remarked that the website is out of date. There are several missing entries (special airports). Steve Moates replied: AFS-220 will update. [ed: The website has been updated; effective date May 2015.]

·   [Monica Grusche] Monica provided an update of the Economic Authority and Insurance Management (eAIM) project. An online submittal program is forthcoming. Monica expects to request industry testing this fall and is looking for participation from part 135 commuter/air taxi certificate holders.

·   [Paul Lepine] Paul gave an update and beta demonstration of the Operations Approval Portal System (OAPS). Industry tested the system for two weeks in June and the response was positive overall. The FAA expects to release OAPS in late fall. Part 121 air carriers will be the first to use the tracking system. Until then, new and pending applications will continue to be monitored using the AFS-400 Sharepoint tracking system.

·   [Monica Grusche] Responding to inquiries regarding Internet Explorer release 11 software interface issues, Monica briefed the OSWG on the soon-to-be-released WebOPSS fix for IE-11. Testing continues for WebOPSS compatibility using Apple Safari and other internet browsers.

·   [Les Smith] The Flight Standards Air Transportation Division Manager, AFS-200, joined the OSWG in the afternoon and addressed issues besieging MMEL Policy Letter 098, Navigation Databases. A lively discussion followed. Les explained that there is no reason to make a maintenance log entry and ground an aircraft with a nav database out of date…. The policy letter will be revised to address an “inoperative” database vs. an out-of-date database. An InFO will be released on how to deal with this change. Les informed the group of his pending retirement at the end of the month. The OSWG thanked Les and wished him well.

 

July 2016 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·   [Ellen Birmingham] Read Ellen’s White Paper. Monica Gusche responded: This is not a WebOPSS issue…; not even an AFS-260 issue. An “Expiration Date” feature is built into WebOPSS that is designed to, and does address the problem of giving certificate holders a grace period to come up to speed with changes.

The real problem lies with other policy divisions declining to follow OPSS Template and Guidance Development processes (AFS-002-206), and publishing guidance for template revisions without coordinating with -260. Too often, policy architects will publish guidance for a significant change and call it non-mandatory. By definition, non-mandatory revisions are minor in nature and there is no urgency to update the corresponding document. By policy, grace periods to non-mandatory revisions do not apply.

The AFS-260 Template Development Team does not see OpSpec/MSpec/TSpec/LOA changes in formal coordination. If a policy division does not coordinate the final template and guidance revisions with AFS-260, -260 would not be aware of the absence of an expiration date and would not be in a position to correct the error before publication.

·   [Mark Williams] Mark gave the OSWG a well-received PowerPoint presentation on current and proposed AFS-300 authorizing document projects, mostly affecting Part 145 and Part 147 OpSpecs.

·   [Mark Patterson] Mark provided the OSWG with an AFS-400 update [ed: PP presentation not included herein] and a heads-up for the introduction of NAT plans to implement Performance-Based Communication and Surveillance (PBCS). Along with an RNP requirement, RCP/RSP will be prescribed for certain services (e.g. RLatSM). FAA data comm material will need to be revised, a new AC 90-[PBCS] written, OpSpec/MSpec/LOA templates created, and 8900.1 inspector guidance and job aids developed. Advisory Circular 120-70C Operational Authorization Process for Use of Data Link Communication System will be cancelled. OSWG Issue 2016xx A056 Data Link Communications will be placed on the November 2016 meeting agenda.

·   [John Bollin] Thank you NBAA for hosting the meeting and to Jim Stieve for taking copious notes.

 

March 2016 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes

·   [Ellen Birmingham] The OSWG thanked the NBAA for hosting the upcoming July and November 2016 domestic meetings in Washington DC.

·   [Steve Kane] Steve announced the January 2016 retirement of Coby Johnson, AFS-410 Branch Manager and active contributor to the OSWG.

·   [Ellen Birmingham] §121.445 Pilot in command airport qualification: Special areas and airports update: No added information.

·   [John Bollin] AFS-260 continues to encourage all Flight Standards divisions to use the various FAA informational websites (specifically AVS Documents Open for Comment). John gave the Joint OSWG an overview of several sites and posted documents.

·   [Theo Kessaris] Referring to excerpts from FAA guidance, Theo reiterated that all nonstandard templates and nonstandard text (previously referred to as “Text 99”) require approval from the appropriate HQ policy division. Procedures for obtaining HQ approval to issue a nonstandard template or nonstandard text are contained in FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 18, Section 2, Paragraphs 3-712/713. ASIs with primary oversight responsibility, and who have responsibility for issuing OpSpecs/MSpecs/LOA/TSpecs, must follow the procedures before issuing any nonstandard template or nonstandard text. All OpSpec/MSpec/LOA/TSpec templates are developed and controlled by HQ. The nonstandard text box of any template is also controlled by HQ. Therefore, all ASIs are required to obtain HQ approval before authorizing and/or entering any text into that box. HQ will not approve any nonstandard text that effectively changes the intent, the format, or the structure of a particular template. Additionally, because all nonstandard OpSpec/MSpec/LOA/TSpec text requires prior approval from the appropriate HQ policy division, ASIs should use it carefully. For all nonstandard text issued after April 01, 2013, HQ approval information must be added as part of the nonstandard text. For example: Approved by AFS 300, on 04/01/13. Furthermore, if HQ revises a standard OpSpec/MSpec/LOA/TSpec template in which nonstandard text had previously been issued, no ASI may reissue the nonstandard text from the previous template without obtaining prior approval from the appropriate HQ policy division.

·   [Steve Kane] Steve provided an update on the continuing development of the new AFS-260 programs eAIM and OAPS. Due to IT funding issues, both systems have experienced setbacks. The aircraft liability insurance module, eAIM, will be the first to go public by mid-2017.

 

March 2016 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·   [Monica Grusche] Monica provided a WebOPSS update: Testing is underway on the next revision of WebOPSS, v1.3. The major change in this release is to make WebOPSS compatible with Internet Explorer 11. It is also being tested against Chrome, Firefox, and Safari. Expect significant user interface changes since increasing WebOPSS compatibility requires replacing all of the grids throughout the application with an updated version of these components, example below.

As with every WebOPSS revision, other improvements will be made also, including adding interactive messaging functionality to the WebOPSS Home page, allowing AFS-260 to customize messages to the WebOPSS community. Because of the comprehensive changes in this revision, testing and implementation will take several months.

·   [Chris Hope] Chris provided a PP brief related to C061 CAT I autoland: The ILS performance classification is harmonized with ICAO Annex 10. The FAA has copied it exactly into our orders. It has come up a couple of times recently with operators and C061. Chris doesn’t think it is widely understood by most line pilots. In short, the FAA currently does not specify an ILS performance classification in C061 to conduct an autoland as long as the weather meets CAT I minimums or greater. The main reason for C061 is to allow operators to meet their 30-day maintenance requirement to maintain their autoland authorization. Chris is not sure why it isn’t included in part 129 but he does not recommend adding it. I don’t think it is necessary.”

Notes: The annotation “III/E/4” means CAT III from ICAO Annex 10. “E” defines the ILS performance. The “4” defines the level of integrity. AFD is starting to publish ILS classifications. This does not apply to SA CAT I. They require an HGS.

 

March 2016 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·   [Mark Williams] Mark is a Flight Standards Compliance Philosophy team member. He gave the OSWG a brief on the new compliance policy and provided a number of references:

FAA Order 8000.373 Federal Aviation Administration Compliance Philosophy establishes the framework for the Compliance Philosophy and reinforces the discretion that public law and agency policy already provide for FAA program offices to take the most appropriate action to resolve safety issues in the NAS.

FAA Order 8900.1 V14 C1 S1 Flight Standards Service Compliance Philosophy provides the basis for and outlines the Flight Standards Service (AFS) Compliance Philosophy. This section introduces the use of AFS Compliance Action to address, when appropriate, safety concerns and actual or apparent deviations from regulations or standards discovered during inspections or surveillance.

FAA Order 8900.1 V14 C1 S2 Flight Standards Service Compliance Action Decision Procedure provides the structure to guide AFS personnel through AFS compliance policy implementation. It outlines the process to identify the root cause(s) that led to deviations from rules, standards, or procedures, resolve them, and return the individual or entity to full compliance.

FAA Notice 8900.343 Flight Standards Service Compliance Policy clarifies the current AFS Compliance Policy contained in FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 14.

FAA Order 8900.1 V15 C6 S1 FAASTeam Program Manager/Regional FAASTeam Point of Contact Duties and Roles to Facilitate Remedial Training describes the training options to be considered by the FPM/Regional FAASTeam Point of Contact (RFPOC) by providing an appropriate Remedial Training (RT) course syllabus, training agreement, and to oversee the training until it has been completed once an RT referral has been made by the investigating ASI through the Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) Manager.

FAA Notice 8900.331 Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP), Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program (VDRP) and the New Compliance Philosophy supplements current policy relating to the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) and the Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program (VDRP). This notice effects changes to policy contained within FAA Order 8900.1. These changes primarily address the change in Compliance Philosophy calling for the removal of Administrative Action as a required outcome for accepted voluntary disclosures under the VDRP, and eliminate Administrative Action and the Enforcement Decision Process (EDP) tool from application to accepted reports within ASAP, and from the current edition of FAA Order 2150.3.

FAA Order 2150.3 (with emphasis on Chapter 5) FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program provides general guidance and information on compliance actions, administrative actions, and legal enforcement actions.

March 2016 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

FAA Administrator Huerta’s Speech, Flight Safety Foundation Media Breakfast, October 6, 2015—Another First in Our Safety Evolution

FAA Safety Briefing Magazine, Jan/Feb 2016 Edition—Compliance Philosophy focuses on the FAA’s new Compliance Philosophy and what it’s foundational concepts mean to the general aviation community.

·   [Danuta Pronczuk] Danuta introduced Trent Bigler (another familiar face to OSWG members) as the new International FAA Vice-Chairman. Bryant Welch, long-time AFS-410 analyst and former FAA Vice-Chairman retired. We wish him well.

·   [Michael Barfoot] On behalf of International Industry, Michael thanked the OSWG and the FAA for the excellent communication between the responsible IFO PIs and the foreign air carriers. Michael and Jerome are requesting that the FAA revisit all existing OpSpecs requirements (reference Michael’s white paper presented to the international OSWG). Michael took IOU to work with the international stakeholders and provide more specific detail on what the International Industry feels is most burdensome. He will report back prior to the March 2017 International OSWG meeting. With an understanding of competing FAA work priorities, the International Industry would like to see a quicker turnaround time for OpSpec amendment requests.

Danuta thanked Michael for his comments, confirmed that issuance of OpSpecs is only one responsibility, and that oversight of existing operations (e.g. investigation of pilot deviations) takes priority over new requests. Danuta confirmed that the FAA is looking at streamlining its processes and periodically reviewing existing OpSpec requirements. She took an IOU to be on the lookout for the new proposals. Jerome recommended that it would be great if within WebOPSS there was the ability to communicate when a new template was ready for digital signature instead of PIs and operators having to communicate via e-mail.

·   [Danuta Pronczuk] Regarding Part 129 rulemaking projects, Danuta reported that recent FAA realignment/reorganization activities have been occupying a majority of the agency’s time and effort. The International Programs and Policy Division hopes to restart on-going projects and have more to communicate at the March 2017 OSWG meeting.

·   [John Bollin] Email marina.murphy@faa.gov to request to be added to the Quarterly OpSpec Changes email distribution list.

·   [John Bollin] Thank you Jim Stieve for taking notes.


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 Flight Standards Service 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 [ed: login required].

November 2015 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·   [Jim Winkelman] §121.445 Pilot in command airport qualification: Special areas and airports update: No added information.

·   [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 [ed: login required]. 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 [ed: login required]. 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 [ed: login required]. 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) [ed: hyperlinked document removed] 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 AVS 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 Map

Page 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