OSWG logo

March 7/8, 2017 Meeting Agenda Archive

(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 Session

Joint Domestic/International Session

International Session

 

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

Selected documents germane...

OSWG Issue Proposal Template

AFS Document Production Flow Chart

Note the latest revision date; 
delete previous editions.
Meeting Information

Directory

Accommodations

Reference

Attendance

Domestic Session

Review, revise, and initial sign-in sheet                                                         Revised April 7, 2017

Introductions

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

Discussion:

·   Next domestic meeting: Tuesday, June 27, 2017, 1300-1600 WebEx (no FAA participation)

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

                                       Wednesday, November 15, 2017 TBD (no FAA participation)

·   Selected Notices, ACs, InFOs, SAFOs, and documents germane...

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

Draft N 8900.SPICAL17 Special Pilot in Command Qualification Airport List Updates

·   B050 Authorized Areas of Enroute Operations, Limitations, and Provisions re-write….

Removal of SFAR 87 Prohibition Against Certain Flights within the
Territory and Airspace of Ethiopia
etc.

 

 

 


 

Domestic Issues in order of discussion

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

201308      A061 Use of Electronic Flight Bag (awaiting publication)

201403      E096                                                                                                           Aircraft Weighing (closed)

      Current

201702      D091  Requirements: Air Carrier Maintenance Providers

201710      Dxxx  Use of Coordinating Agencies for Suppliers Evaluation

              (CASE) in Repair Stations

201708      D105  Air Carrier Emergency Evacuation Systems (EES)

              Maintenance Program Requirements       

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

201613      B045  Extended Overwater Operations

              Using a Single Long-Range Communications System (SLRCS)

201608      C384  Required Navigation Performance Procedures with Authorization Required

201701      B054  Oceanic and Remote Airspace Navigation

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

201611      B036  Oceanic and Remote Continental Navigation

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

201709      C300  14 CFR Part 97 NDB, NDB/DME, VOR and VOR/DME

              Instrument Approach Procedures Using Substitute Means of Navigation

            Any Other Business (AOB)

      D301 Aircraft Network Security Program (ANSP) Authorization:

      Click here for General Discussion Note.

      OAPS Demonstration (optional)


 

Domestic/International Session

Review, revise, and initial sign-in sheet

Introductions:

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

                 International Industry Chair Mike Barfoot / International FAA Chair Danuta Pronczuk

Discussion:

·   Fill out stakeholder survey Deleted

·   Informational Websites:

FAA FSIMS Publications—OSWG website (public)

AFS-260 Website

Chronological Table of Contents of Closed/Archived Issues

Recently Published Rulemaking Documents

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

AFS Draft Documents Open for Comment: Foreign OpSpecs

·   Selected Notices, ACs, InFOs, SAFOs, and documents germane...

Quarterly WebOPSS Paragraph Release Notification

·   Next domestic meeting: Tuesday, June 27, 2017, 1300-1600 WebEx (no FAA participation)

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

                                       Wednesday, November 15, 2017 TBD (no FAA participation)

·   Next joint domestic/international meeting: Tuesday/Wednesday, March 6/7, 2018,

hosted by FAA, Washington DC

·   FAA Academy WebOPSS for Industry course offering…

Request Training for Non AFS/AIR Personnel

·   Operations Approval Portal System (OAPS) project update

·   Changes to Boeing Aircraft Data Plates

·   WebOPSS update

·   Economic Authority and Insurance Management (eAIM) project update

·   WebOPSS template non-standard text… continuing discussion

·   ADS-B and Exemption 12555 Brief (Reference InFO 16003)

·  Precision Runway Monitored (PRM) Approach Brief

Joint Domestic/International Issues in order of discussion

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

201201      EASA Third Country Operators (TCO)  (closed)

201301      D097  Aging Aircraft Programs

                 Part 129 D097 Aging Aircraft Programs (awaiting publication)

      Current

201512      Canadian Private Operator Access to OpSpecs, MSpecs and LOAs

201703      C091  Operational Requirements Airplane Design Group VI (ICAO Group F)

      Part 129 C091 Operational Requirements Airplane Design Group VI (ICAO Group F)

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…

201614      A056  Data Link Communications

201706         C048           Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) Operations

                  Part 129 C048      Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) Operations

      Any Other Business (AOB)

      Adjourn

 

 


 

International Session

Review, revise, and initial sign-in sheet

Introductions:

Remarks:  International Industry Chair Mike Barfoot / International FAA Chair Danuta Pronczuk

Discussion:

·   Fill out stakeholder survey Deleted

·   International Industry Chairman and Vice-Chairman nominations

·   Next joint domestic/international meeting: Tuesday/Wednesday, March 6/7, 2018,

hosted by FAA, Washington DC

·   Pending conferences…

·   14 CFR part 129 rulemaking efforts

·   A447 Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) Notification Information

·   International OSWG Issues…

 


 

International Issues in order of discussion

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

201704          Part 129 A029 Aircraft Interchange Arrangements (closed)

201101          Part 129 A028      Aircraft Wet Lease Agreements (closed)

201607          Part 129 C381      Special Non-14 CFR part 97

                                    Instrument Approach or Departure Procedures (Optional) (closed)

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

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

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

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

      Current

201705          Part 129 A003 Aircraft Authorization for Operations to the United States

201603          Part 129 A001      Issuance and Applicability, and Reports

201707          Part 129 C067      Special Authorizations, Provisions, and Limitations for Certain Airports

201606          Part 129 Navigation Terminology

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

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

      Any Other Business (AOB)

      Part 129 C052 Straight-In Non-precision, APV, and Category I Precision Approach and Landing Minima—All Airports (Required for all Air Carriers Conducting IFR Operations): Click here for General Discussion Note.

      Part 129 A003 Aircraft Authorization: Click here for General Discussion Note.

      Adjourn


 

Chronological Table of Contents of Current Issues (Page 1 of 3)

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) CL

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

201614      A056  Data Link Communications JS

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

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

201701      B054  Oceanic and Remote Airspace Navigation

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

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


 

            Chronological Table of Contents of Current Issues (Page 2 of 3)

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

            IS–International Session Discussion         JS–Joint Session Discussion

201706         C048           Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) Operations JS

201305           C059           Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations… DS

201001         C060           Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations… DS

201315         C070           Airports Authorized for Scheduled Operations DS

201703      C091  Operational Requirements Airplane Design Group VI (ICAO Group F) JS

201709      C300  14 CFR Part 97 NDB, NDB/DME, VOR and VOR/DME

              Instrument Approach Procedures Using Substitute Means of Navigation DS

201608      C384  Required Navigation Performance Procedures with Authorization Required DS

201702      D091  Requirements: Air Carrier Maintenance Providers DS

201301      D097  Aging Aircraft Programs AP

201708      D105  Air Carrier Emergency Evacuation Systems (EES)

              Maintenance Program Requirements DS

201710      Dxxx  Use of Coordinating Agencies for Suppliers Evaluation

              (CASE) in Repair Stations DS

201403      E096  Aircraft Weighing CL


 

            Chronological Table of Contents of Current Issues (Page 3 of 3)

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

            IS–International Session Discussion         JS–Joint Session Discussion

201603      Part 129 A001          Issuance and Applicability, and Reports IS

201705          Part 129 A003 Aircraft Authorization for Operations to the United States IS

201101          Part 129 A028      Aircraft Wet Lease Agreements CL

201704          Part 129 A029 Aircraft Interchange Arrangements CL

201706          Part 129 C048      Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) Operations JS

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

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

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

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

201707          Part 129 C067      Special Authorizations, Provisions, and Limitations for Certain Airports IS

201703      Part 129 C091 Operational Requirements Airplane Design Group VI (ICAO Group F) JS

201607          Part 129 C381      Special Non-14 CFR part 97

                                    Instrument Approach or Departure Procedures (Optional) CL

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

                                Aircrew Authorization Required (AR) CL

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

201301      Part 129 D097          Aging Aircraft Programs AP

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

201302      Part 129 D485          Aging Airplane Inspection and Records Review CL

 

 

            Chronological Table of Contents of Closed/Archived Issues

Domestic/International Meeting

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

Morning Session 0900–1200, Tuesday, March 7, 2017

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

FAA Pre-Meeting, FAA Headquarters, Washington DC

Afternoon Session (Domestic) 1300–1530, Tuesday, March 7, 2017

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

Morning Session (Domestic/International) 0900–1200, Wednesday, March 8, 2017

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

Afternoon Session (International) 1300–1600, Wednesday, March 8, 2017

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

 

OAPS Demonstration 1500-1600, Tuesday, March 7, 2017

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

 

Next Meeting:  Domestic Industry, Tuesday, June 27, 2017

                          1300-1600 WebEx (no FAA participation)

                          Domestic, Wednesday, September 13, 2017

                          Airlines for America (A4A), Washington DC

                                  Domestic, Industry, Wednesday, November 15, 2017

                          TBA (no FAA participation)

                                  Domestic/International, Tuesday/Wednesday, March 6/7, 2018

                          Navy Memorial Heritage Center, Washington DC

 

 

·   Review the OSWG Procedures Guide and

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

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

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

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

Accommodations  (effective March 6-10, 2017)

 

Click here for a list of hotels near the United States Navy Memorial Heritage Center OSWG meeting site. (Standard rates apply, no government or corporate rates have been negotiated.)

Daily Washington DC federal government lodging/per diem rate: $242.00 / $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            Jim Stieve, Southwest Airlines

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

Domestic Industry            Alan Clay, American Airlines

Vice-Chairman:                 817 967-5157, alan.clay@aa.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            Trent Bigler, AFS-52

Vice-Chairman:                 202 267-8844, trent.bigler@faa.gov

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

 

 


 

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.

[3/8/2017 Tittinger] Responding to an inquiry from the floor, Jim provided a link to the AFS-410 Flight Operations Branch Category I/II/III ILS Information website, where restricted U.S. facilities and foreign facilities approved for Category II/III is located. Users can subscribe to an email distribution list for updates to the lists. (Click on the envelope icon in the upper right corner of the webpage.)

201101             Part 129 A028 Aircraft Wet Lease Agreements (page 1 of 3) (closed)

Initial Agenda Date: November 2, 2011                   Date Closed: March 8, 2017

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.

(continued on next page)

201101             Part 129 A028 Aircraft Wet Lease Agreements (page 2 of 3) (closed)       

Notes:

[1/29/2017 Bollin] Effective this date, Notice 8900.398 OpSpecs A028 and A029 for Part 129, Economic Authority and Environmental Assessment Guidance amends FAA Order 8900.1 inspector guidance as follows (reference 8900.1 CHG 505 dated 12/29/2016):

(1)  Charter economic authority may be granted in the form of an exemption, foreign air carrier permit, or foreign aircraft permit/special authorization under 14 CFR part 375.

(2)  Per the DOT, for licensing purposes, alternate airports are considered technical stops.

(3)  Foreign air carriers who do not hold economic authority to serve the United States, and want to file U.S. airports as alternate airports for weather reasons may do so under the provisions of 14 CFR part 375 §375.30.

Part 129 OpSpec A028 has been revised to:

(1)  Add clarity by not using the term “primary operator” so as not to confuse a wet lease agreement with an interchange arrangement. Specifically, operational control and maintenance control does not shift based on who is operating the aircraft in a wet lease. In an interchange arrangement, operational control shifts with the operator who is operating the aircraft.

(2)  Add clarity to which party to the wet lease has operational control and airworthiness responsibility via the addition of boilerplate text. In a wet lease, the lessor always has operational and airworthiness control.

(3)  Delete duplicative language and streamline the OpSpec.

(4)  Amend the OpSpec title to “Aircraft Wet Lease Agreements” so that template text and OpSpec title use the same term.

Part 129 OpSpec A029 has been revised to more clearly differentiate between leases and interchanges. The title is changed to read “Aircraft Interchange Arrangements;” and within the boilerplate text of the template, “interchange agreements” has been removed and replaced with “interchange arrangements.”

A revised Part 129 OpSpec A028 Job Aid will soon be posted.

(continued on next page)

 


 

201101             Part 129 A028 Aircraft Wet Lease Agreements (page 3 of 3) (closed)       

Notes:

[3/8/2017 Pronczuk] Danuta reviewed the published Notice and new templates (mandatory change to OpSpec A028, wet lease and non-mandatory change to OpSpec A029, interchange).  Since the last OSWG meeting, the only change to the A028 template was the replacement of “arrangements” with “agreements” when referring to a wet lease. The FAA also issued a non-mandatory change to A029 which replaced “agreements” with “arrangements” when referencing interchanges. This was necessary to prevent future errors in application. Danuta briefly reviewed the differences between wet leases, dry leases, and interchanges.

[3/8/2017 Pronczuk] With the concurrence of the International OSWG, the issue was closed and archived.


 

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

Initial Agenda Date: April 18, 2012             Date Closed: March 8, 2017

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) (closed)

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) (closed)

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) (closed)

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) (closed)

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) (closed)

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) (closed)

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) (closed)

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.

[3/8//2016 Pronczuk] The intended outcome to update/educate, clarify rulemaking changes, and answer questions relating to EASA third country operators has been met. The OSWG elected to close and archive the issue.

(page 1 of 3)201214          B342 Extended Operations (ETOPS) with Two Engine Airplanes Under part 121

Initial Agenda Date: October 16, 2012                     Date Closed:

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(continued on next page)

(page 2 of 3) 201214          B342 Extended Operations (ETOPS) with Two Engine Airplanes Under part 121

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

[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)


 

(page 3 of 3) 201214          B342 Extended Operations (ETOPS) with Two Engine Airplanes Under part 121

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.

[3/7/2017 Moates] Although AFS-220 is the primary office of responsibility for the ETOPS Bundle, Theo Kessaris, AFS-260, has been the project’s ghost writer for the past few years and will continue in that role until publication. Adam Giraldes, AFS-220, was assigned to oversee publication of the OpSpec paragraphs and assumes the role of FAA lead for this issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

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.

[3/7/2017 Williams] …in the final stages and being packaged for final coordination.

 


 

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

          Part 129 D485 Aging Airplane Inspection and Records Review (closed)

Initial Agenda Date: February 6, 2013                     Date Closed: March 8, 2017

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)

          Part 129 D485 Aging Airplane Inspection and Records Review (closed)

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. The purpose of the Aging Airplane data collection OpSpec was to track initial compliance to the Aging Airplane inspections and records review rules, and furnish reports to Congress. Initial compliance of the oldest airplanes have been completed and Congress no longer requires OpSpec D485 information. The continued requirement to comply with this data collection OpSpec utilizes FAA and industry resources with no added value. OpSpec D485 templates for operators conducting airplane operations under parts 121, 135, 121/135, 129, and § 129.14 have been cancelled. The template will be archived.

[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.

[3/8/2017 Pronczuk] With no discussion, the International OSWG elected to close and archive the issue.


 

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.

[3/7/2017 Moates] Publication is awaiting continued internal decisions. Except for anticipated average bag-weight revisions, no changes to the original document have been made at this time.

 

 

 

 


 

(page 1 of 3) 201305             C059 Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

                Part 129 C059     Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

Initial Agenda Date:  February 6, 2013         Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  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)

(page 2 of 3) 201305             C059 Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

                Part 129 C059     Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(page 3 of 3) 201305             C059 Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

                Part 129 C059     Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

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.

[3/8/2017 Tittinger] No change to date. AFS-410 continues to work through all the comments and reformatting the new C060 and Part 129 C060 templates. Reference OSWG Issue 201001 C060 Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations / Part 129 C060 Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

 

 

 

 


 

201308          A061 Use of Electronic Flight Bag (page 1 of 3) (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 3) (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.

(continued on next page)

201308          A061 Use of Electronic Flight Bag (page 3 of 3) (awaiting publication)

Notes:

[3/7/2017 McLellan] Brian Hint was unavailable. Scott McLellan, AFS-410 briefed the OSWG. FAA Order 8900.1 guidance is tied to, and dependent on AC 120-76D. The Advisory Circular was reviewed by Industry, and due to significant feedback and major revisions, is now going back out to the public for another round of comment by the end of this month (March 2017). Information within the A061 template will be modified due to the evolving nature of EFBs. “Own ship” issues will be resolved. A simpler template for authorization will be incorporated. Revised OpSpec language will support an EFB program rather than an authorization for specific EFB hardware and software. Reference the latest draft 8900.1 Volume 3 Chapter 18 Section 3 OpSpec/MSpec/LOA A061, Electronic Flight Bag Program. Several OSWG members requested the template be revised to provide more flexibility for a reasonable dialogue using non-standard text.

[3/7/2017 McLellan] AC 120-76D will be posted for public comment by April 1. The planned publication date for both the Advisory Circular and OpSpec policy is early summer 2017. The OSWG agreed to continue awaiting publication.


 

201315          C070 Airports Authorized for Scheduled Operations (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: 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 3)

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.

[3/7/2017 Moates] Theo Kessaris was unavailable. Steve Moates, AFS-220, updated the OSWG. After two extensions requested by industry, the FAA is adjudicating the many comments received both internally and externally.

(continued on next page)


 

201315          C070 Airports Authorized for Scheduled Operations (page 3 of 3)

Notes:

[3/7/2017 Moates] Although AFS-220 is the primary office of responsibility for the ETOPS Bundle, Theo Kessaris, AFS-260, has been the project’s ghost writer for the past few years and will continue in that role until publication. Adam Giraldes, AFS-220, was assigned to oversee publication of the OpSpec paragraphs and assumes the role of FAA lead for this issue.

201403          E096 Aircraft Weighing  (page 1 of 2) (closed)

Initial Agenda Date: June 10, 2014              Date Closed: March 7, 2017

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) (closed)

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.

[11/21/2016 Bollin] Notice 8900.392 OpSpec E096 Title Change–From “Weight and Balance Control Procedures” to “Airplane Weighing” or “Aircraft Weighing”, Based on Regulatory Part is published. A non-mandatory change to the OpSpec E096 template and 8900.1 V3 C18 S6 Parts D and E—Maintenance MSpecs/OpSpecs/LODAs CHG 498 guidance are in effect.

[3/8/2017 Stieve] With the concurrence of the Domestic OSWG, the issue was closed and archived.

 


·    

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

Initial Agenda Date: February 5, 2014         Date Closed: March 8, 2017

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.

[6/15/2016  Pronczuk] Part 129 D095 Minimum Equipment List (MEL) Authorization—U.S.- Registered Aircraft is published and found in WebOPSS.

[3/8/2017 Pronczuk] With the concurrence of the International OSWG, the issue was closed and archived.

 

 

 


 

(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.

[3/8/2017 Grusche] Monica updated the status of the eAIM rollout. IT issues continue to hold up posting production software. The FAA is looking to have the system operational by mid-summer, 2017.

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 5) (closed)

Initial Agenda Date: March 18, 2015           Date Closed: March 8, 2017

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 5) (closed)

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 5) (closed)

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 5) (closed)

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 operations outside the United States, the OpSpec C052 and, as applicable, C384 templates will require revision.

[11/16/2016 Bollin] Trent Bigler has transferred to AFS-50 International Operations. Jeff Kerr, AFS-470 is the new FAA lead.

[3/8/2017 Pronczuk] A question from Air New Zealand: We are well aware of the changes proposed by ICAO and have information in our Route Guide for our crew and dispatchers, however when we update Part 129 C052 in the WEBOPSS workspace there is no sign of the new note [reference InFO 16020]. We were expecting something like: Authorization to fly “RNAV (GPS)” IAP should extend to procedures in foreign states titled “RNAV (GNSS) RWY XX” and/or “RNP RWY XX”. Should that happen automatically or does [the PI] or do we add it in?

In a January 31, 2017 email response from Joel Dickerson, AFS-470, replies “Will OpSpecs Part 129 C052/C384 change to reflect the new verbiage?” The answer is yes…, eventually. The document change proposals to make the changes do exist and we anticipate getting a status on them soon. More importantly, the OpSpec templates within WebOPSS, which the carriers/POIs use to generate the Specs/LOAs, are already changed to reflect the new terminology. Any updated LOA or OpSpec process will use the new template and contain the correct verbiage. As to the question on changing the Part 129 C052/C384 verbiage: there is no indication that those specific templates or OpSpecs would need to change, as rightly pointed out, Part 129 operators would not need the new verbiage for United States National Air Space (NAS) approaches, as our terminology is not affected by the PANS-OPS changes which drove the changes in the first place.

(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 5 of 5) (closed)

Notes:

[3/8/2017 Pronczuk] A revision to FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 12 Chapter 2 Section 5 Paragraph 12-214 OpSpec C384 provides for an exception to headquarters concurrence for operators who already have been issued C384 by the FAA:

Subparagraph J. Aircraft Modification. If any aircraft system required for RNP AR is modified (e.g., software or hardware change/revision), the operator must obtain the manufacturer’s updated aircraft qualification and operational documentation confirming continued suitability for RNP AR approach operations. Unless the manufacturer’s documentation indicates the change/revision has no effect on RNP AR operations, AFS 400 and the AFS-50 division manager must provide a revised concurrence memo for the operator’s use of the aircraft with modifications for RNP AR operations. The IFO should coordinate with AFS-470 and AFS-50 HQ to facilitate processing of the operator’s request for operational approval with the changed/revised equipment.

NOTE: Software or hardware changes must be supported by the manufacturer’s updated aircraft qualification and operational documentation.

Subparagraph K. Additional Series of Make and Model Aircraft. The POI/PAI must coordinate additions to existing C384 with AFS-50 HQ, AFS-400, and AIR-131. During this initial consultation, HQ will determine if a full or tailored application is needed or will grant (verbal, followed by written) concurrence (which may be in the form of an email) for the PI to amend the C384 to add the additional series without further documentation.

NOTE: The multiple configurations of existing and new aircraft make it impossible to give a hard and fast rule. There are some situations where the proposed series has identical capabilities to an operators existing fleet and this addition provides flexibility to grant the C384 amendment with minimal delay while providing appropriate levels of review for aircraft with differences.

[3/8/2017 Pronczuk] With the concurrence of the International OSWG, the issue was closed and archived.


 

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.

[3/8/2017 Bollin] Ongoing discussion: No report to the OSWG.

 


 

201602             A196 Air Cargo Operations

          A396 Special Air Cargo Operations (page 1 of 3)

Initial Agenda Date: March 8, 2016             Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Steve Moates, AFS-220, 202 267-4147, stephen.moates@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 3)

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. [ed: no longer posted]

[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.

[1/27/2017 Bollin] N8900.401 Revision of OpSpec/MSpec/LOA A002, Definitions and Abbreviations is published and effective this date.

(continued on next page)


 

201602             A196 Air Cargo Operations (Proposed)

          A396 Special Air Cargo Operations (Proposed) (page 3 of 3)

Notes:

[3/7/2017 Moates] AFS-220/200 is satisfied with the documentation sent to AFS-140 for review and formal FAA coordination prior to publication. Steve reiterated the authorizations to carry cargo:

·   OpSpec A003 says you have approval to carry cargo

·   OpSpec A196 says how to carry cargo

·   OpSpec A396 is required for special cargo

A lively discussion ensued. OSWG members representing cargo operators commented that the definition for Special Cargo doesn't work and requested a dialogue between the FAA and Industry before the templates are published; including the newly published A002. Without a good definition the OpSpec is not correct…; it doesn't address the issue. The commentators requested the FAA work with industry to come up with a compromise definition of Special Cargo. Several Industry OSWG members expressed their opinion that this should include rule-making.

Steve replied the definition and premise is not based on weight & balance issues, but securing the cargo to the aircraft. The root cause of the Bagram accident was the lack of following AFM procedures. A396 is designed to address this issue.

Industry also commented on the lack of a time frame required for compliance. One commentator lamented: “The FAA is moving the entire commercial air cargo industry to a new regulatory standard without an end date.”

One last question from the floor: Will the new OpSpecs be included in A004—Summary of Special Authorizations and Limitations? Steve replied that A004 was a new discussion for him. He would look at it. AFS has, and is presently, in the process of finalizing language for A004 that will address both A196 and A396. Although uncertain at this time, Monica Grusche, AFS-260, indicated the FAA may also have to do something in A005 or A002 to support the A004 language.

FAA Chairman Steve Kane, suggested the OSWG compile a list of issues and send him a single page memorandum to facilitate the dialogue.

201603             Part 129 A001 Issuance and Applicability, and Reports (page 1 of 5)

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 5)

Background (continued):

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 the A001 template 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.

(continued on next page)


 

201603             Part 129 A001 Issuance and Applicability, and Reports (page 3 of 5)

Notes:

[8/1/2016 Thoren] Additional Issue: (reference Generic Part 129 A001 Issuance and Applicability, and Reports) During a modification of OpSpec A001 for Uzbekistan Airways, Paul noted a discrepancy in the menu selection for “State of the Operator (Country)”. The drop-down menu is limited to “Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan”:

 

 

The Air Operator Certificate (AOC) State of Operator for Uzbekistan Airways is listed solely as Uzbekistan. Furthermore, the United States Department of State website lists the three States as independent countries.

Monica Grusche, AFS-260, provided some background information: The list of countries in the drop-down menu is taken from ICAO State routing areas based on airport identification codes. The routing area beginning with “UT” includes Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The FAA cannot separate the countries in the ICAO State routing table, as they are linked to the airport codes and would affect all airport listings in a given routing area; i.e., airports in Tajikistan would be listed in Uzbekistan. It would require a template revision to change the “State of the Operator (Country)” drop-down menu selections from another source not tied to the ICAO routings.

Until and if a revised State of Operator drop-down menu selection based on listing individual countries vs. ICAO State routing area data is added to the A001 template, Monica proposed an interim fix approved by AFS-50. The State of the Operator column has been modified to allow free text and requires the Principle Inspector to type in the foreign air carrier’s State shown on its AOC.

(continued on next page)


 

201603             Part 129 A001 Issuance and Applicability, and Reports (page 4 of 5)

Notes:

[12/6/2016 Barfoot] (reference Generic Part 129 A001 Issuance and Applicability, and Reports) A foreign air carrier seeks clarification of required fuel reserves for flight within the continental United States.

OpSpec A001,b.(1) reads: “The holder of these operations specifications will conduct foreign air carrier operations in common carriage in the United States pursuant to the applicable requirements, including provisions of 14 CFR Parts 91 and 129; 49 CFR Part 175; any other applicable regulations and laws of the United States; and Annex 1, Annex 6, Parts I and III, and Annex 8, Part II, Chapters 3 and 4, to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, as applicable. …”

14 CFR part 129 §129.5(b) reads: “Each foreign air carrier conducting operations within the United States must conduct its operations in accordance with the Standards contained in Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing), Annex 6 (Operation of Aircraft), Part I (International Commercial Air Transport—Aeroplanes) or Part III (International Operations—Helicopters), as appropriate, and in Annex 8 (Airworthiness of Aircraft) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation.”

In line with ICAO Annex 6, Paragraph 4.3.6 Fuel Requirements, within continental United States airspace, the certificate holder is required to carry a fuel reserve of 5% / 30minutes. However, in compliance with A001, and noted in their approved Flight Operations Manual, the air carrier is obligated to carry a more restrictive 14 CFR part 91 fuel reserve for 45 minutes. The foreign air carrier is seeking clarification and an amendment to their OpSpec A001 to carry the lesser fuel amount while operating within the Unites States. The certificate holder’s FAA POI has confirmed with the carrier that 14 CFR part 91domestic fuel reserve requirements are not applicable.

Gordy Rother, ASI, AFS-220, FAA Fuel Contingency Subject Matter Expert, submits some background—14 CFR part 91 45-minute normal cruise fuel consumption is about the same as that required to hold for 30 minutes at 1500 AGL (minimum ICAO Annex 6 required fuel contingency). Annex 6 fuel requirements are far more prescriptive for fuel contingencies and the selection of alternate airports…. 14 CFR part 91 remains silent.

(continued on next page)


 

201603             Part 129 A001 Issuance and Applicability, and Reports (page 5 of 5)

Notes:

[3/8/2017 Pronczuk] Reference Notice 8900.xxx Appendix A Sample OpSpec A001…: 14 CFR part 129. The FAA will not add an additional column to Table 1 to capture the Air Operator Certificate expiration date, nor lift the requirement to capture the DOT economic authority expiration date. Danuta briefed the interim and planned long term fix to the State of the Operator (Country) column.

[3/8/2017 Pronczuk] The FAA did not agree with a request to provide additional relief on the number of required non-scheduled ramp inspection notifications once the FAA meets its ramp inspection oversight responsibilities for the year. Jerome Hecq, Emirates Airline, noted challenges with the requirement and lack of clarity on the frequency of necessary updates. A discussion from the floor ensued. Jerome agreed to discuss the unique scenarios that Emirates experienced in the past and expects to experience in the future outside the OSWG. He will work out the details with his responsible PI/IFO.

[3/8/2017 Barfoot] Reference the 12/6/2016 Note on the previous page. Michael closed the part 91 fuel reserve discussion.


 

201605             Part 129 D108   Maintenance Program—Continuous Airworthiness—

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

Initial Agenda Date: March 9, 2016             Date Closed: March 8, 2017

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) (closed)

Notes:

[8/17/2016 Bollin] D108 was used and intended to identify the maintenance program that the FAA has reviewed and approved for any foreign air carrier or foreign person authorized to operate a U.S.-registered aircraft in Special Areas of Operations (SAO) where a Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) is applied. On July 20, 2016, the FAA revised 14 CFR part 91 appendix G, removing the requirement to review and approve RVSM maintenance programs. 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.

[3/8/2017 Pronczuk] With the concurrence of the International OSWG, the issue was closed and archived.


 

201606             Part 129 Navigation Terminology (page 1 of 2)

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.

(continued on next page)


 

201606             Part 129 Navigation Terminology (page 2 of 2)

Notes:

[3/8/2017 Wisniewski] Mark provided the group with an update: The FAA continues to deliberate on a replacement for Class II and Class I navigation terminology. The project has become more complex than originally envisioned. While the term “Class II” has effectively been replaced with “Oceanic and Remote Continental”, the underlying definition and the relationship to ground Navaids remains unresolved. AFS-470 has concluded that the term “Class I” must also be examined, as well as all related enroute OpSpecs. We have been directed to look at streamlining, simplifying and clarifying enroute templates, with a particular focus on how they relate to applicable regulations. Consideration of the unique characteristics of operations in Alaska is also ongoing and will likely have an impact on enroute paragraphs in some form.

201607             Part 129 C381   Special Non-14 CFR part 97 (page 1 of 3) (closed)

                        Instrument Approach or Departure Procedures (Optional)

Initial Agenda Date: March 9, 2016             Date Closed: March 8, 2017

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.

(continued on next page)

201607             Part 129 C381   Special Non-14 CFR part 97 (page 2 of 3) (closed)

                        Instrument Approach or Departure Procedures (Optional)

Notes:

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

[1/27/2017 Bollin] Notice 8900.402 OpSpec C381 Special Instrument and RNAV Visual Flight Procedures is published and effective.

[2/13/2017 Bollin] WebOPSS Part 129 OpSpec C381 Job Aid guidance is posted.

[3/8/2017 Christianson] Kel reviewed the job aid, including how to make requests to be a lead operator. Dave Krueger, POI DFW IFO, asked “Why is something as simple and straight-forward as a visual RNAV approach made into something so complicated. Other RNAV IAPs with more demanding navigation requirements are published as approaches for all qualified/authorized operators to use. Why is the RNAV Visual JFK Rwy 13R/L so different?” Kel responded “There is agreement with ATC that operators flying this approach will comply with the procedure every single time (i.e. altitudes, speeds, etc.). RVFPs are not public procedures available to all operators.

Kel also advised the group that placing a waypoint into an FMS in visual conditions as an aid during a visual approach does not make the approach an RNAV visual (RVFP). It remains flight in VMC. There is a specific process for getting an RVFP authorized.

The floor expressed their dismay at the lack of knowledge at the IFO level regarding RVFP. Kel informed the International OSWG that FAA Order 8900.1 guidance for international field inspectors is new. Danuta added: The new guidance was accompanied by a flow chart, job aid and instructions; all of which are expected to improve knowledge on how to process these requests in the future. Jerome Hecq, Emirates Airline, requested more heads-up-time when amendments need to be processed; remarking that Industry received only two weeks’ notice for the most recent JFK amendment.

(continued on next page)


 

201607             Part 129 C381   Special Non-14 CFR part 97 (page 3 of 3) (closed)

                        Instrument Approach or Departure Procedures (Optional)

Notes:

[3/8/2017 Swigart] Post meeting additional clarification provided by John Swigart, AFS-52: “The 13L and R Special IAP (not to be confused with the RNAV Visual) does not have any public design criteria because it is the only procedure that I know of that has a “DA in a turn”. In other words, the flight crew has a much different sight picture than what they are used to at the decision altitude (aircraft is in a shallow bank). AFS-400 conducted a study on this procedure around 7 years ago and found that the procedure was safe with stipulations; TOGA to LNAV and lighting requirements were the main ones identified. There is no public design criteria for this type of procedure so I expect that it will remain a “Special” for years to come due mainly to heightened training and aircraft equipment requirements. The RNAV Visual for 13L/R was designed as a byproduct of the Special IAP around the same timeframe in order for flight crews to start becoming familiar with the procedure. I have more background if anyone wants to give me a call to discuss [ed: +1 202 267-1025]. RNAV Visuals seem easy enough but a lot of time and energy is spent on each procedure. AFS-400 has shifted more focus on investigating ways to make RNAV (GPS) procedures more efficient, which makes sense.”

[3/8/2017 Pronczuk] With the concurrence of the International OSWG, the issue was closed and archived.

 


 

201608             C384        Required Navigation Performance Procedures with

                      Authorization Required            (FAA Brief) (page 1 of 4)

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 and 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 4)

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).

(continued on next page)

201608             C384        Required Navigation Performance Procedures with

                      Authorization Required            (FAA Brief) (page 3 of 4)

Notes:

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

[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.

(continued on next page)

 


 

201608             C384        Required Navigation Performance Procedures with

                      Authorization Required            (FAA Brief) (page 4 of 4)

Notes:

[3/7/2017 Kerr] In a January 31 email response to Trent Bigler from Joel Dickerson, AFS-470: “Will the OpSpecs C052/C384 change to reflect the new verbiage?” The answer is yes…, eventually. This opened up the OSWG discussion. The document change proposals to make the changes do exist and we anticipate getting a status on them soon. More importantly, the OpSpec templates within WebOPSS, which the carriers/POIs use to generate the Specs/LOAs, are already changed to reflect the new terminology. Any updated LOA or OpSpec process will use the new template and contain the correct verbiage. As to the question on changing the Part 129 C052/C384 verbiage: there is no indication that those specific templates or OpSpecs would need to change, as rightly pointed out, Part 129 operators would not need the new verbiage for U.S. NAS approaches, as our terminology is not affected by the PANS-OPS changes which drove the changes in the first place.

 

 

 

 


 

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

                     John Swigart, AFS-52, 202 267-1025, john.swigart@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.

[3/8/2017 Swigart] A memo was issued to IFO Principal Inspectors to allow them to deviate from FAA Order 8900.1 inspector guidance and skip populating the software part/version/revision number column. John is hoping to pre coordinate a similar amendment to the Part 91 LOA, process both the revision to the part 129 and 91 templates as one project. Expect more detail prior to the next domestic/international OSWG meeting in 2018.

 


 

201611       B036        Oceanic and Remote Continental Navigation  (page 1 of 3)

                      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 3)

                      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.

(continued on next page)

201611       B036        Oceanic and Remote Continental Navigation  (page 3 of 3)

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

Notes:

[3/7/2017 Wisniewski] Kevin Kelley was unavailable. Mark Wisniewski, AFS-470, briefed the group. AFS-470 had planned to revise the OpSpec, however, with domestic IFR OpSpecs moving away from Class I and Class II definitions, senior level management put a hold on domestic IFR OpSpec revisions (B031/032/034/035/036/054) until a comprehensive review (with no end date in sight) of all performance based navigation paragraphs is completed. A suggestion was made to remove the issue from the agenda. Until further information regarding specific changes to B054 is forthcoming, the issue will remain on the agenda.

 


 

201612       A013        Part 121 Operations without Certain Emergency Equipment

Initial Agenda Date: November 16, 2016     Date Closed:

FAA Lead: Jackie Clow, AFS-220, 480 781-2538, jackie.a.clow@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.

[3/7/2017 Moates] Out for public comment by June 2017.

[3/7/2017 Moates] Jackie Clow, AFS-220, was assigned FAA lead for this issue.

 

 


 

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.

[3/7/2017 Rother] Gordy was unavailable, He provided the OSWG with an update via email (edited for clarity): “You can leave B045 open since we will have a change requiring safety services for SATVOICE provisions for all operators. Pending review of a trial flown by jetBlue, we may have to allow all operators the same provision to operate without an HF under MEL restrictions. I want to be clear that we are not at the point where we will allow operators in the West Atlantic Route System (WATRS) without installing an HF. We won’t have any data until summer or fall of 2017. As far as operating in Central East Pacific airspace (CEP) without an HF, that issue is closed.”


 

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.

[3/8/2017 Patterson] Mark provided an updated AC 90-117/A056 power point presentation.  

201701             B054        Oceanic and Remote Airspace Navigation

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

Initial Agenda Date: March 7, 2017             Date Closed:

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

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

Issue Statement: Any failure down to one LRN system can ground an aircraft with no means to coordinate with ATC and operate with augmented air traffic spacing requirements in order to maintain schedule integrity.

Background: Most carriers utilize the current B054 template for degraded situations operating under MEL provisions with only one long range navigation system. Some aircraft are not certificated to operate under RNP 10 conditions in this degraded situation. In the current template, RNP 10 is optional, which allows an operator to coordinate with ATC for non-RNP 10 operations in order to recover a flight. Those fleets that do not qualify for RNP 10 but can operate using a single long range navigation system under MEL relief, can no longer qualify under the new template due to the mandated RNP 10 requirement for issuance.

Intended Outcome: Revise the template or approve the addition of non-standard text to restore the authorization to use a single long range navigation system under MEL relief.

Notes:

[3/7/2017 Wisniewski] Kevin Kelley was unavailable. Mark Wisniewski, AFS-470, briefed the group. The OSWG lamented: Any failure down to one LRN system can ground an aircraft with no means to coordinate with ATC and operate with augmented air traffic spacing requirements in order to maintain schedule integrity. AFS-470 had planned to revise the OpSpec, however, with domestic IFR OpSpecs moving away from Class I and Class II definitions, senior level management put a hold on domestic IFR OpSpec revisions (B031/032/034/035/036/054) until a comprehensive review (with no end date in sight) of all performance based navigation paragraphs is completed. A suggestion was made to remove the issue from the agenda. Until further information regarding specific changes to B054 is forthcoming, the issue will remain on the agenda.


 

201702             D091        Requirements: Air Carrier Maintenance Providers

Initial Agenda Date: March 8, 2017             Date Closed:

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

Industry Lead: Bill Williams, FedEx Express, xxx xxx-xxxx, wwwilliams1@fedex.com  

Issue Statement: Airlines for America (A4A) proposes sun-setting OpSpec D091 for 14 CFR part 121 air carriers.

Background: Reference OSWG Issue 201515—D091 Requirements: Air Carrier Maintenance Providers (closed). 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.

Intended Outcome: Delete OpSpec D091 and archive the WebOPSS template.

Notes:

[3/7/2017 Williams] Via email, Bill Williams echoed OSWG sentiments from the floor. Why should D091 be retained for part 121 air carriers? All data requirements mandated by the OpSpec are covered in the relatively new 14 CFR part 121 §121.368 Contract Maintenance, Additional rational for sun-setting D091:

·   With 14 CFR §121.368 in place, operators SMS RMP (Risk Management Programs) would not identify sun-setting D091 as a regulatory or safety risk.

·   Sun-setting D091 would help in simplifying and harmonizing FAA/CMO and an operator’s Aviation Safety Partnership.

·   Sun setting D091 would eliminate double work for operators, and lead to improved effectiveness and efficiency for operators and the FAA in contract maintenance program oversight.

[3/7/2017 Williams] This was a late OSWG agenda issue. Mark Williams instructed Industry to formalize their concerns and forward a bullet statement to the Domestic Industry OSWG Chair for submission to the FAA.

 

 


 

(page 1 of 2)201703             C091        Operational Requirements Airplane Design Group VI (ICAO Group F)

            Part 129 C091     Operational Requirements Airplane Design

                        Group VI (ICAO Group F)

Initial Agenda Date: March 8, 2017             Date Closed:

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

                     Tim McClain, AFS-220, 202 267-4112, timothy.mcclain@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Jerome Hecq, Emirates Airline, 971 56 177 6539, jerome.hecq@emirates.com

Issue Statement: OpSpec C091 is required for 14 CFR parts 121 and 129 air carriers operating a large, Airplane Design Group VI (ADG VI/ICAO Group F) airplane into a part 139 approved U.S. airport. The A380 and the B747-8 are the only commercial aircraft in regular airline service that fit into the ADG‑VI/ICAO Group F criteria and are therefore subject to C091 requirements. The FAA expects to certify additional ADG VI/ICAO Group F aircraft in the future.

Background: Reference OSWG Issue 201102—C091 Operational Requirements Airplane Design (closed). All scheduled destination U.S. airports served by part 121 and part 129 operators using ADG VI/ICAO Group F aircraft need to comply with Modifications of Standards (MoS) for the portion of the airfield dedicated to ADG VI/ICAO Group F airplanes. OpSpec C091 must be issued to U.S. certificate holders who conduct takeoff and landing operations using ADG-VI (ICAO Group F) airplanes, within or outside the United States. C091 is also issued to foreign air carriers operating into the United States with ADG-VI (ICAO Group F) airplanes.

The FAA is working with the Boeing Company on the certification of two additional ADG VI (ICAO Group F) aircraft, the B777-8 and B777-9. The wingtips are engineered to make the airplane more compatible with airport infrastructure. Similar to military aircraft designed for ground operations on an aircraft carrier, the outer 12 feet of the wing fold up for taxi clearance. [ed: “The 777X program has received orders and commitments for 320 airplanes from six customers worldwide. Production is set to begin in 2017.”—Boeing]

The WebOPSS Part 129 OpSpec C091 Job Aid was updated March 7, 2017.

Intended Outcome: Revise OpSpec C091 for B777-8 and B777-9 as appropriate.

(continued on next page)

 


 

(page 2 of 2)201703             C091        Operational Requirements Airplane Design Group VI (ICAO Group F)

            Part 129 C091     Operational Requirements Airplane Design

                        Group VI (ICAO Group F)

Notes:

[3/8/2017 Pronczuk] Karen Colony, Boeing Airport Compatibility Engineer, provided the OSWG with a B777-9 and B747-8 Airport Operations brief.

[3/8/2017 Pronczuk] New OSWG Issue 2017-03. Original OSWG Issue 201102 was closed last year. Based on a conversation between IATA and Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA), ACI-NA recommends:

·   Air Carriers, IATA, and the A4A report airports at which ADG VI service is occurring or scheduled within the next 180 days (current scheduled service is easy, future service a bit more involved).

·   ACI-NA, likely in concert with the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), maintain operational contacts at each airport responsible for the airport’s ADG-VI operating plans.

·   Boeing and Airbus verify contact information is consistent with contacts approached during their airport/aircraft compatibility evaluation as appropriate.

·  It would also be good to understand the scope of the POC list that IATA members are seeking (e.g., primaries, alternates, both).

[3/8/2017 Pronczuk] Danuta asked for industry volunteers to provide input to a future amendment to C091 for the B777-9 and B777-8. Jerome Hecq, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Emirates Airline, assumed industry lead.


·   

201704             Part 129 A029 Aircraft Interchange Arrangements (FAA Brief) (page 1 of 3) (closed)

Initial Agenda Date: March 8, 2017             Date Closed: March 8, 2017

FAA Lead:  Darcy Reed, AFS-52, 202 267-0114, darcy.d.reed@faa.gov

                     JJ Jelinski, AFS-54, 954 641-6701, james.r.jelinski@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Not Applicable

Issue Statement: When discussing leases and interchanges, the terms “agreements” and “arrangements” are often interchanged without sufficient differentiation; leading to the erroneous application of definition and corresponding required OpSpec authorizations and actions. Reference 8900.1 guidance: V12 C2 S3 OpSpec A028 Aircraft Wet Lease Arrangements vs. V12 C2 S3 OpSpec A029 Aircraft Interchange Agreements.

Background: The terms “agreements” and “arrangements” are used interchangeably by the FAA when discussing leases and interchanges; i.e.: approving an “interchange arrangement” vs. a “dry lease agreement”. The incorrect authorization of a dry or wet lease “arrangement” vs. the issuance of an aircraft interchange “agreement” has resulted in several approval errors (i.e. placing an interchange aircraft under two separate maintenance programs). After many meetings and discussions with the parties involved, it was determined that the root cause of the incorrect authorizations was the lack of knowledge of definition and the improper use of the terms “agreements” and “arrangements”.

Reference 8900.1 V12 C2 S9 P12-349 General: The leasing of large transport category aircraft between a U.S. and foreign air carrier or between two foreign air carriers is widely used. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) defines an aircraft lease as a contract by which one person grants the right of exclusive possession and use of a certain aircraft to another person for a specified period or a defined number of flights. Lease agreements can be characterized as a dry lease, an interchange agreement, or a wet lease.

There are differences. Reference 8900.1 V3 C13 S1 P3-398A.4) Interchange Agreement: Any agreement between operators (U.S. and foreign) in which the operational control of an aircraft is transferred for short periods of time from one operator to another. With this type agreement, the latter operator assumes responsibility for the operational control of the aircraft at the time of transfer.

More specifically, reference 8900.1 V12 C2 S9 P12-351 Interchange Agreement: An interchange agreement permits two air carriers to connect two or more points on a route using the same aircraft but each operator’s crewmembers. For example: operator “a” (the primary operator) operates an aircraft from point “x” to point “y” (the interchange point). At point “y,” operator “b” (the interchange operator) assumes operational control of the same aircraft to fly from point “y” to point “z” with operator “b’s” own crew.

201704             Part 129 A029 Aircraft Interchange Arrangements (FAA Brief) (page 2 of 3) (closed)

Background (continued): …and reference 8900.1 V3 C13 S3 Dry Lease Agreements P3-441 General: …Operational control of any dry leased aircraft rests with the operator lessee. In most dry lease agreements, the lessor is a bank, a leasing company, or a holding company which has neither the operational expertise and infrastructure nor the desire to assume responsibility and liability for controlling daily operations of the leased aircraft. The air carrier or operator leasing the aircraft applies for an amendment of its operations specifications to list the leased aircraft. If an aircraft is dry leased from another operator, the lease agreement must be explicit concerning the maintenance program and Minimum Equipment List to be followed during the term of the dry lease.

Intended Outcome: Issue a non-mandatory change to Part 129 OpSpec A029. Replace the title “Aircraft Interchange Agreements” with the term “Aircraft Interchange Arrangements”. [ed: mirrors the title of OpSpec A029 Aircraft Interchange Arrangements issued to domestic air carriers/operators]

Notes:

[2/29/2017 Bollin] Effective January 29, 2016, Notice 8900.398 OpSpecs A028 and A029 for Part 129, Economic Authority and Environmental Assessment Guidance amends FAA Order 8900.1 inspector guidance as follows (reference 8900.1 CHG 505 dated 12/29/2016):

(1)  Charter economic authority may be granted in the form of an exemption, foreign air carrier permit, or foreign aircraft permit/special authorization under 14 CFR part 375.

(2)  Per the DOT, for licensing purposes, alternate airports are considered technical stops.

(3)  Foreign air carriers who do not hold economic authority to serve the United States, and want to file U.S. airports as alternate airports for weather reasons may do so under the provisions of 14 CFR part 375 §375.30.

(continued on next page)

201704             Part 129 A029 Aircraft Interchange Arrangements (FAA Brief) (page 3 of 3) (closed)

Notes:

Part 129 OpSpec A028 has been revised to:

(1)  Add clarity by not using the term “primary operator” so as not to confuse a wet lease agreement with an interchange arrangement. Specifically, operational control and maintenance control does not shift based on who is operating the aircraft in a wet lease. In an interchange arrangement, operational control shifts with the operator who is operating the aircraft.

(2)  Add clarity to which party to the wet lease has operational control and airworthiness responsibility via the addition of boilerplate text. In a wet lease, the lessor always has operational and airworthiness control.

(3)  Delete duplicative language and streamline the OpSpec.

(4)  Amend the OpSpec title to “Aircraft Wet Lease Agreements” so that template text and OpSpec title use the same term.

Part 129 OpSpec A029 has been revised to more clearly differentiate between leases and interchanges. The title is changed to read “Aircraft Interchange Arrangements;” and within the boilerplate text of the template, “interchange agreements” has been removed and replaced with “interchange arrangements.”

[3/8/2017 Pronczuk] Danuta reviewed the published Notice and new templates (mandatory change to OpSpec A028, wet lease and non-mandatory change to OpSpec A029, interchange).  Since the last OSWG meeting, the only change to the A028 template was the replacement of “arrangements” with “agreements” when referring to a wet lease. The FAA also issued a non-mandatory change to A029 which replaced “agreements” with “arrangements” when referencing interchanges. This was necessary to prevent future errors in application. Danuta briefly reviewed the differences between wet leases, dry leases, and interchanges.

[3/8/2017 Pronczuk] With the concurrence of the International OSWG, the issue was closed and archived.

 


 

(page 1 of 3)201705             Part 129 A003 Aircraft Authorization for Operations to the United States

Initial Agenda Date: March 8, 2017             Date Closed:

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

Industry Lead: TBA

Issue Statement: The Part 129 A003 template requires revision

(1)  to reflect expanded U.S. data link communication implementation from the ground phase Controller-Pilot Data Link Communication—Departure Clearance (CPDLC-DCL) service, to the en-route phase.

(2)  to capture a dry lease expiration date.

(3)  to add selectable limitations related to flying cargo, some of which is special cargo.

Background:

(1)  Reference Draft AC 90-XX Data Link Communications and the AC 90-XX Data Link Communications brief given by Mark Patterson, AFS-470, to the November 2016 OSWG (see OSWG Issue 201614 A056 Data Link Communications). CPDLC-DCL is now operational at 55 U.S. airports. In 2019, enhanced data link communications will be employed throughout United States en-route airspace. The Part 129 A003 template has not been updated since the CPDLC-DCL trials ended, restricting foreign air carriers using the system.

(2)  Dry leased aircraft are not listed in the lessees OpSpec A003. Inspector guidance requires dry leased aircraft to be removed from the lessors A003 and listed in the lessees A003. There is a potential lack of transparency of which aircraft are dry leased.

(3)  Foreign air carriers are flying cargo, some of which is special cargo, without any selectable limitations related to those operations. Reference OSWG Issue 201602 A196 Air Cargo Operations/A396 Special Air Cargo Operations.

(continued on next page)


 

(page 2 of 3)201705             Part 129 A003 Aircraft Authorization for Operations to the United States

Intended Outcome:

(1)  Update Part 129 A003 authorizing foreign air carriers to use CPDLC-DCL service anywhere in the United States National Airspace System (NAS). Due to the initial international implementation of performance-based communication and surveillance in March 2018, this revision and associated guidance needs to be published ASAP to give operators at least a year to prepare.

(2)  Add an additional column to Table 1—Authorized Aircraft, Configuration, Conditions and Certain Operations, to identify dry leased aircraft: Reference Part 129 OpSpec A003 Dry Lease Column Proposal.

(3)  Add text selectable choices for cargo operations (one of which would include special cargo operations).

Notes:

[3/8/2017 Patterson] Mark Patterson, AFS-470, reviewed draft edits to the part 129 A003 template instructions. Once available, VDL Mode 2 and push-to-load enroute data communications will be required in U.S. airspace. If not equipped with VDL Mode 2, the operator must use an alternate means of compliance with their Communication Service Provider (CSP). For details on alternate means of compliance see soon to be published FAA Advisory Circular 90-117 [Data Link Communications] and the already published DCNS Alternative Media Description Document. The template still needs a few more tweaks. Reference Mark’s updated Data Comm brief (OSWG Issue 201614—A056 Data Link Communications).

(continued on next page)


 

(page 3 of 3)201705             Part 129 A003 Aircraft Authorization for Operations to the United States

Notes:

[3/8/2017 Pronczuk] Danuta briefed dry lease issues and the two options available in A003 (Reference A003 template HQ Control Date 5/19/2015). During the discussion, Jerome Hecq, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Emirates Airline, and Dave Krueger, Principal Operations Inspector, DFW IFO, commented that a majority of aircraft are dry leased from a leasing company. Michael Barfoot, International OSWG Chair, Air Canada, concurred. Danuta clarified that the intent is to capture data for only those aircraft wherein the operator is the lessee of aircraft it flies to the U.S. when obtained from another operator (not a leasing company). Jerome requested adding clarity. 

A quick tally indicated Industry’s preference for choice 2 for capturing this new data; specifically, the addition of a new table which would auto load aircraft registration of dry leased aircraft from WebOPSS Maintain Operator Data > Aircraft. Jerome proposed adding a check box for a dry lease when editing aircraft information rather than adding “dry lease” as one more choice under authorizations that would then have to be moved to the right if the aircraft was dry leased. Monica advised that Jerome’s proposal would require a programming change, take a very long time, and was a more complicated change to process. Jerome agreed to proceed with the less complex proposal. If “dry lease” was not selected for any of the operator’s aircraft, the system would auto load “N/A” in the aircraft registration column of the new Table 1b. The Expiration Date would be a manual entry that would only be required if there was a registration in that row. The template is expected to be available for industry comment in the next few weeks.

[3/8/2017 Williams] Patricia Williams, AFS-340 Branch Manager, provided a Cargo Focus Team gap analysis brief on cargo and special cargo. Danuta confirmed at this time that the FAA (AFS-300 together with AFS-50) will not require another OpSpec for part 129, amend the existing A003, or add a special cargo definition to A002. Instead the FAA:

·   will increase part 129 surveillance with emphasis on cargo and special cargo, and

·   draft and send a letter to each Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) with details on the FAA’s gap analysis. Each State of the Operator and State of Registry will be informed of the issues and the appropriate action required to ensure safe operations. The letter will include an FAA point of contact if further details are requested by the State CAA.

 


 

201706             C048                                                                           Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) Operations (page 1 of 2)

            Part 129 C048     Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) Operations

Initial Agenda Date: March 8, 2017             Date Closed:

FAA Lead:  Scott McLellan, AFS-410, 202-267-4363, christopher.mclellan@faa.gov

                     Trent Bigler, AFS-52, 202 267-8844, trent.bigler@faa.gov

Industry Lead: TBA

Issue Statement: A new rule 81 FR 90126: Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems—Final Rule, will become effective March 13, 2017. A revision to OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C048 and Part 129 OpSpec C048 is required. An optional LOA is available for part 91 operators wishing to conduct EFVS operations to 100 feet above the touchdown zone when operating outside of the United States.

Background: The FAA created regulations in 2004, part 91 §91.175(l)/(m), which permitted persons to use an EFVS in lieu of natural vision to descend an aircraft below DA/DH or MDA down to 100 feet above the TDZE. These regulations, however, did not provide operators with the ability to fully utilize the benefits of EFVS technology (e.g.: Category II/III operations). The FAA believes it can better leverage EFVS capabilities by issuing performance-based requirements for current and future enhanced flight vision systems, which should increase access, efficiency, and throughput at many airports when low visibility is a factor.

Final rule amendments to 14 CFR parts 91, 121, 125, and 135, allow an operator to dispatch/flight release using EFVS-equipped aircraft when the reported or forecast visibility at the destination airport is below prescribed minimums, and allow a pilot to initiate or continue an approach using EFVS-equipped aircraft when the airport visibility is below prescribed minimums. The new rule establishes part 61 pilot training and recent flight experience requirements for operators wishing to conduct EFVS operations. The rule amends numerous parts 23, 25, 27 and 29 airworthiness requirements for vision systems, eliminating the need to issue special conditions for certain installations.

(continued on next page)


 

201706             C048                                                                           Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) Operations (page 2 of 2)

            Part 129 C048     Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) Operations

Background (continued): A transition period from March 13, 2017, to March 13, 2018, will allow for a smooth evolution between the rules and the applicable authorizations.

·   During the conversion, the current EFVS rule, §91.175(l)/(m), and the new EFVS rule, §91.176, will coexist. In addition C048, EFVS Operations Authorization, and an amended version of C048 will coexist. After March 13, 2018, §91.175(l)/(m) will be removed from

   part 91.

·   Operators issued C048 prior to March 13, 2017 will be allowed to continue operations specified in that version of the authorization until March 13, 2018. To continue EFVS operations beyond March 13, 2018 operators will need to apply for the amended version of C048.

·   Operators holding C048 issued prior to March 13, 2017, seeking to apply for the additional operations and provisions in new part 91 §91.176 will need to apply for the amended version of C048.

·   Operators seeking initial authorization for EFVS operations after March 13, 2017 will need to apply for the amended C048 authorization. 

Reference Advisory Circulars: AC 90-106A Operations Approval of Enhanced Vision System, Synthetic Vision System, Combined Vision System, and Enhanced Flight Vision System Equipment, for operations [ed: publication pending], and AC 20-167A Airworthiness Approval of Enhanced Vision System, Synthetic Vision System, Combined Vision System, and Enhanced Flight Vision System Equipment, for equipment certification.

Intended Outcome: (1) Amend OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C048 and Part 129 OpSpec C048 as required. (2) Notify the public of the effects the recently published EFVS rule will have on current EFVS operational authorizations. (3) Ensure a smooth transition period, and (4) promote the future use of EFVS technology in the NAS by increasing awareness of additional operations and provisions available under the new rule/authorization.

Notes:

[3/8/2017 McLellan] Scott will brief the new rule, 81 FR 90126: Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems—Final Rule, effective March 13, 2017. A revision to OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C048 and Part 129 OpSpec C048 is required. An optional LOA is available for part 91 operators EFVS operations to 100 feet above the touchdown zone when operating outside of wishing to conduct the United States. Reference Scott’s Enhanced Flight Vision System brief.


 

201707             Part 129 C067   Special Authorizations, Provisions, and

                                        Limitations for Certain Airports (page 1 of 3)

Initial Agenda Date: March 8, 2017             Date Closed:

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

                     JJ Jelinski, AFS-54, 954 641-6701, james.r.jelinski@faa.gov

Industry Lead: TBA

Issue Statement: Many scheduled and non-scheduled foreign air carrier/operators routinely only operate into U.S. regular certified airports. Why expend the effort to issue this OpSpec to foreign air carrier/operators authorized to operate exclusively into regular certificated airports, listing those airports and their airplanes in Table 1, only to mark the special provisions/limitations as N/A? Reference the Part 129 OpSpec C067 template.

Background: Excerpts from OSWG Issue 201204—Part 129 C067 Special Authorizations, Provisions, and Limitations for Certain Airports, closed in March, 2015:

[2/5/2014 Pronczuk] Gordy, Scott and Danuta updated the OSWG on the status of change, background, intent, and differences between the domestic and international templates. As an example, for U.S. air carriers operating in Alaska, C067 serves to identify airports with special provisions and limitations where for 3 months out of the year it is dark. (Several facilities use flare pots and runway reflectorization systems.) For foreign air carriers the OpSpec is more than about Alaska. It is first about operating to an airport that is appropriate for the type of operation and aircraft. Furthermore the OpSpec specifies the special provisions and limitations associated with airports surrounded by mountainous terrain, large aircraft (A380 and B747-8) operations to group V airports, operations at airports not certificated under part 139, airports with unpaved runways, etc.

[2/5/2014 Pronczuk] Question—How would an air carrier know to list an airport. Gordy advised that there is a directory of special qualification airports in FSIMS and a link to it will be added to the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP). Danuta added that for the purpose of this OpSpec, the AIP is not an exclusive list of airports that would need to be recorded in the new C067. Airports that have flare pots, runway reflectorization systems, an unpaved runway, or a large aircraft Modifications of Standards (MoS) for an A380/B747-8 would also need to be added. Existing FAA guidance is very old. A new job aid and revised inspector guidance was drafted and undergoing review. Danuta added that the foreign air carrier is responsible for knowing and reviewing the content of their authorizations and preflight planning.

(continued on next page)


 

201707          Part 129 C067   Special Authorizations, Provisions, and

                                        Limitations for Certain Airports (page 2 of 3)

Background (continued):

[2/5/2014 Pronczuk] A statement regarding non-scheduled operations was raised from the floor: “Most non-scheduled flights are last minute, therefore non-scheduled operators should not be required to list airports with special provisions/limitations.” Danuta responded that all foreign air carriers are responsible for preflight planning, the nature of the type of operation (non-scheduled) does not mean that a foreign air carrier can land at an airport without proper planning, and being knowledgeable on what they are authorized in their OpSpecs. She added that foreign air carriers must comply with all OpSpecs. The FAA is aware that cross-referencing between OpSpecs makes it more challenging to understand all of the limitations and requirements and as such the FAA continues to combine OpSpecs. Brian Miles, Emirates, advised that San Francisco (SFO) would be an example where you need to complete special training if you will be conducting closely spaced parallel approaches using Precision Runway Monitor (PRM). Scott advised that when the A380 comes into Atlanta everyone clears out. Bottom line some airports require additional planning, and for safety reasons, closer scrutiny.

Intended Outcome:

(1)  Make Part 129 C067 an optional selection in Part 129 A004—Summary of Special Authorizations and Limitations; issued only if an air carrier/operator is authorized “special airport operations”, or

(2)  If Part 129 C067a. “Foreign air carriers, prior to operation into any U.S. airport, must ensure that the airport is appropriate for the type of operation and aircraft.” is not covered by an ICAO Annex 6 standard, then incorporate the information required in C067 to Part 129 A001—Issuance and Applicability, and Reports.

(continued on next page)


 

201707          Part 129 C067   Special Authorizations, Provisions, and

                                        Limitations for Certain Airports (page 3 of 3)

Notes:

[3/8/2017 Pronczuk] Upon review the FAA determined that there was duplication between the requirement in the C067 template and the Part 129 OpSpec A001 template paragraph A001b.(3) “The foreign air carrier may conduct  Drop Down List  ˅  operations within the United States using regular terminal and alternate airports that the carrier has determined to be operationally suitable.” Although the wording in C067 and A001 is not identical, the meaning behind the requirement is clear. For an estimated 75% of Part 129 operators, OpSpec C067 is not needed (duplicates a requirement covered by A001). The remaining requirements in C067 were still relevant for approximately 25% of foreign air carriers. Dave Krueger, POI DFW IFO, felt there was an ICAO standard that required operators to conduct operations into suitable airports for the type of operation and took the IOU to do the research.

When asked about turning Part 129 C067 into an optional selection in Part 129 A004, Monica Grusche, AFS-260, replied that the FAA could not just add the OpSpec to A004. As an alternative, the FAA could make a non-mandatory revision to OpSpec C067 and make the template optional. The International OSWG was in favor of this change.

201708 D105 Air Carrier Emergency Evacuation Systems (EES)

                             Maintenance Program Requirements (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date: March 7, 2017             Date Closed:

FAA Lead: Tim Weaver, AFS-330, 586 291 8186, timothy.w.weaver@faa.gov

Industry Lead: TBA

Issue Statement: The definition of Emergency Evacuation Systems (EES) in AC 43-208 Maintenance of Emergency Evacuation Systems for Aircraft Operating Under Part 121, and FAA Order 8900.1 V3 C45 S1 Air Carrier Emergency Evacuation Systems (EES) Scheduled Maintenance Requirements does not include escape hatches, escape ropes, or any other type of lowering mechanism. OpSpec D105 should only apply to 14 CFR part 121 certificate holders who operate transport category aircraft equipped with EES as defined. Also, there is no place to document which aircraft are equipped with EES in the current D105 OpSpec for certificate holders who have a split fleet (some aircraft with EES and others not).

Background: Reference the October 2002 Handbook Bulletin for Airworthiness (HBAW) 02-04 paragraph 3 Definitions, AC 43-208 paragraph 1 Purpose, FAA Order 8900.1 V3 C45 S1, and NTSB Safety Recommendation A-99-103. Quoting from the AC and 8900.1 inspector guidance, “EES includes components of all aircraft slide-equipped exits affecting the emergency egress function (e.g., slides, slide/rafts, exit doors, exit door or hatch mechanisms, exit door or hatch opening assist mechanisms, tail cone release mechanisms, arm/disarm mechanisms, slide activation mechanisms, electronic slide monitoring systems, and slide-to-airframe attachments)”. 

AFS-300 performed an in depth review of historical draft Advisory Circulars, FAA guidance, emergency evacuation task force documentation, AFS-300 correspondence, FAA Safety Recommendation files, and legal interpretations, and did not find any language contrary to what is defined by AC 43-208.

The OpSpec is currently mandatory for all certificate holders. However, with the review of the definition available, this OpSpec should only be required for certificate holders who operate aircraft equipped with EES as defined above.

Intended Outcome: Revise OpSpec D105 with a mandatory update that will make the paragraph applicable only to certificate holders that operate aircraft that are equipped with EES as defined by AC 43-208. The OpSpec should also include a table to document the aircraft by make, model, and series that are equipped with EES.

(continued on next page)


 

201708 D105 Air Carrier Emergency Evacuation Systems (EES)

                             Maintenance Program Requirements (page 2 of 2)

Notes:

[3/7/2017 Weaver] From the floor, the OSWG noted that FAA Service Difficulty Reports (SDR) indicate continued inadvertent slide deployment problems. This OpSpec pertains to an operators maintenance program…: Where is the regulatory requirement? Tim replied: The regulatory requirement for a Part 121 air carrier to have a maintenance program for emergency equipment (which includes EES) is located in 14 CFR part 121 §121.369(b). The plan is to remove the OpSpec D105 requirement for Part 121 air carriers that have aircraft without exits equipped with slides meeting the definition of an EES found in the Advisory Circular and 8900.1 guidance. The FAA monitors SDR reporting and other related surveillance on EES to determine future actions that may be needed based on risk. Part 121 Certificate Holders operating aircraft equipped with EES, per OpSpec D105 paragraph (h), should monitor maintenance performed on their defined EES, track and evaluate any failures, and provide for a timely corrective action of the root cause of the failure. D105 will remain in place for Part 121 air carriers who operate aircraft equipped with EES.

201709 C300 14 CFR Part 97 NDB, NDB/DME, VOR and VOR/DME

                             Instrument Approach Procedures Using Substitute Means of Navigation

Initial Agenda Date: March 7, 2017             Date Closed:

FAA Lead: TBD

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

Issue Statement: United Parcel Service (UPS) is requesting that TACAN be added as an additional approach that can be substituted by aircraft Area Navigation (RNAV) equipment following the same procedures, provisions, and limitations as other approaches listed in OpSpec C300.

Background: As a Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) carrier and United States Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) charter airline, UPS is a routine user of U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) airports, using select DOD airfields as either destination or ETOPS adequate alternates for scheduled service. Occasionally, an ILS or other non-precision approach is inoperative (i.e. runway construction, system maintenance) at a military airfield, leaving a TACAN or visual approach as the only available option to safely land an aircraft.

UPS believes the methodology and procedures stated in the current OpSpec C300 to authorize VOR, VOR/DME, NDB and NDB/DME approaches, applies equally to TACAN approaches (14 CFR Part 97 TERPS or MIPS). In paragraph C300 sub-paragraph c, Limitations and Provisions, the underlined statement applies to this request:

“This operations specification applies when the underlying Navigational Aid (NAVAID) (NDB, VOR, or DME) is out-of-service and/or compatible aircraft avionics are either not installed (automatic direction finder (ADF) or DME) or not operational (VOR, ADF, or DME).”

Intended Outcome: Add TACAN to the list of approaches authorized in OpSpec C300. Using an RNAV approach derived from a TACAN procedure when no other IAP’s are available will enhance aviation safety. Other certificate holders of C300 who are CRAF carriers, TRANSCOM charter airlines, and/or use U.S. military airfields as destination/ETOPS adequate alternates will benefit from this change.

Notes:

[3/7/2017 Newcomer] Submitted as the last minute, the FAA did not have sufficient time to address the issue. The Domestic Chair elected to hold the discussion open until the next meeting.

 

201710 Dxxx Use of Coordinating Agencies for Suppliers Evaluation

                             (CASE) in Repair Stations (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date: March 7, 2017             Date Closed:

FAA Lead: Todd Perry, AFS-330, 407 902-3545, richard.t.perry@faa.gov

Industry Lead: TBD

Issue Statement: Large repair stations now have many of the same vendors in common, are auditing to the same standards, and may be able to benefit from the use of an allocated vendor auditing program like CASE provides.

Background: The use of CASE allocated audits by 14 CFR part 121 and part 135 certificate holders has been in place for several decades, and has been largely successful. As general background, CASE is a non-profit organization made up of parts 121, 135 and 145 certificate holder members that voluntarily agree to common inspection standards, and that qualifies auditors to those standards.

Annually, CASE Air Carrier members meet and compare all vendors they plan to use in the coming year. When two CASE members find a vendor in common, the vendor’s name is added to the common auditing pool. The pool is then divided equally between all members, with the outcome being that each vendor is inspected once by a CASE auditor and those results are provided to all CASE members for risk-based decision making.

As the aviation industry has both consolidated and standardized, it has been noticed by members of the CASE Repair Station section that larger repair station certificate holders have many of the same vendors in common and are auditing to the same standards to meet the requirements of part 145. This is partly an outgrowth of the more specific requirements of the part 145 “rewrite” and also from SMS efforts.

While it is recognized that a majority of smaller repair stations will not find value in this process, it is reasonably expected that larger repair stations may be able to reduce costs while maintaining or increasing quality utilizing a process similar to the part 121/135 air carrier/operator model described above.

Additionally, CASE procedures do not and will not allow for the use of “mail-in” auditing, so the use of an allocated audit system may become a method to increase quality and value. It would increase the number of “in-person” audits at the second and third tier while not requiring each repair station to audit every provider.

(continued on next page)


 

201710 Dxxx Use of Coordinating Agencies for Suppliers Evaluation

                             (CASE) in Repair Stations (page 2 of 2)

Background (continued): The specific regulations considered here are:

·   14 CFR part 145 §145.201(a)(2) Privileges and limitations of certificate, in that it is proposed that a certificate holder be allowed to use the CASE allocated audit system to arrange for uncertificated persons to “…perform maintenance, preventative maintenance, or alterations … follow[ing] a quality control system equivalent to the system followed by the repair station.”

·   14 CFR part 145 §145.205 Maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations performed for certificate holders under parts 121, 125, and 135…, in that it is proposed that a part 145 certificate holder be allowed to use the CASE allocated audit system with their own vendors while performing work on behalf of a part 121/135 air carrier/operator.

·   And most extensively, that CASE allocated audits are allowed as a method for meeting 14 CFR part 145 §145.211 Quality control system, as a method to maintain the airworthiness of articles under each certificate holder’s control.

Related to this change, there will be required revisions to Order 8900.1 Volume 3, Chapter 49, Section 1, and the CASE Policy and Procedures Manual, to support the issuance of this new OpSpec paragraph.

Intended Outcome: Develop a new OpSpec paragraph available for 14 CFR part 145 certificate holders (see attached draft) similar to the previously agreed to language for D090 used by part 121/135 certificate holders.

Notes:

[3/7/2017 Bollin] Todd Perry was unavailable for comment. The issue is held open until the next meeting.


 

March 2017 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes

·   [John Bollin] OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes dated October 2014 and earlier have been removed and archived in the November 2016 meeting agenda.

·   [Jim Stieve] confirmed future OSWG meeting dates and locations.

Tuesday, June 27, 2017, 1300-1600 Domestic Industry WebEx (no FAA participation)

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

Wednesday, November 15, 2017, Domestic Industry TBA (no FAA participation)

Tuesday/Wednesday, March 6/7, 2018, hosted by the FAA, Washington DC

Due to federal government travel funding restrictions, there will be no FAA participation for OSWG meetings held outside the Washington DC metro area.

·   [John Bollin] reviewed Draft Documents Open for Comment, took a look at several public websites of interest to the OSWG, and introduced a new section to the agenda: Selected Notices, ACs, InFOs, SAFOs, and documents germane.... is a chronological list along with a brief synopsis of public domain FAA documents distributed during the meeting agenda period. (Credit goes to Steve Kane, FAA OSWG Chairman, for the idea.) John also announced a new posting: The Quarterly WebOPSS Paragraph Release Notification: a list of additions/revisions to the WebOPSS CHDO Active paragraph inventory for the preceding three months.

·   [John Bollin] provided information regarding FAA Academy WebOPSS for Industry course offerings. Training has to be requested in advance. If there is enough interest, a class will be scheduled. As of today, there are no scheduled offerings. Fees range from $250.27 for U.S.  non-FAA enrollees, and $269.20 for international enrollees. AFS-260 is looking into a more efficient registration process.

·   [Mike Filippell] provided the §121.445 Pilot in command airport qualification: Special areas and airports update. Draft N 8900.SPICAL17 Special Pilot in Command Qualification Airport List Updates will be published soon. Expect to see the removal of E.T. Joshua Airport (TVSV) in St. Vincent and the Grenadines (airport closed as of February 14, 2017). Argyle International Airport (TVSA), also in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, does not pose particularly challenging or unique geography and will not be added to the PIC Special Qualifications list. The Santa Domingo, Dominican Republic (Las Americas) airport Distinctive Characteristics note will be amended to read: “No RADAR environment, Prohibited Area surrounding San Isidro Air Base approximately 3KM Northwest of MDSN.”

Of equal importance, Mike informed the OSWG of changes to the PIC Special Airports distribution system. In the future, Special Qualification airports will not be attached to a Notice. Instead, the list will be posted in the FAA Flight Management Information System (FSIMS); eliminating the connection to a Notice that expires annually.


 

March 2017 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·   [Steve Moates] SFAR 87 Prohibition Against Certain Flights within the Territory and Airspace of Ethiopia, has been removed. Expect further Special FAR removals as AFS-220 proceeds to revise OpSpec B050 Authorized Areas of Enroute Operations, Limitations, and Provisions.

·   [Paul Lepine] gave the OSWG an update on the status of the Operations Approval Portal System (OAPS) project. Once the technical issues are resolved, the system will be ready for production. Paul delivered a live demonstration to the International OSWG.

·   [Monica Grusche] provided the joint session with a WebOPSS update and the current status of the Economic Authority and Insurance Management (eAIM) project.

·   [Steve Kane] provided the OSWG with a updated view and report on the FAA’s Future of Flight Standards.

·   [Steve Kuhar] Federal Express, opened up a lively discussion regarding template construction. Reference FedEx OpSpec A061 Use of Electronic Flight Bag: A problem occurs when extensive text is needed in a very narrow width column. The A061 Table 1 column “Restrictions and Limitation” is disproportionately narrow to convey very specific information. FedEx and the CMO have used the non-standard text box as an alternative to trying to insert numerous words into a very narrow column. By doing so, FedEx finds itself contrary to 8900.1 guidance requiring headquarters approval to issue non-standard text. FedEx contends that the text in this particular example does not meet the intent in 8900 guidance to require HQ concurrence.

In an email, Theo Kessaris, AFS-260, observed that the level of detail in the authorization has outgrown the table. Unless HQ (AFS-400) approval is required to control text entry, an operator doesn’t necessarily have to enter information via non-standard text. A simple solution would be a change to the way the data is currently entered and captured—Instead of having a column in a table to capture the restrictions and limitations, the FAA could simply add a ‘text box’, which is essentially a text field that allows free text, similar to that found in the template for A008 and the previous version of A025.

A text box could be built into the template itself under a standard subparagraph. AFS-400 could title the standard subparagraph the same as the current table column—“Restrictions and limitations”. A standard text box under a standard subparagraph that allows the PI and the operator to enter the desired information would eliminate the necessity for non-standard text.

With AFS-260 technical assistance, this is an AFS-400 policy decision. Until then, non-standard text requires headquarters approval.


 

March 2017 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·   [Jim Kenney] AFS-430, briefed the OSWG on the status of ADS-B-OUT. (Reference Jim’s PP Brief.) With the knowledge that specific aircraft equipment performance requirements in applicable airspace after January 1, 2020 won’t be met, Airlines for America (A4A) petitioned the FAA for an exemption from the Navigation Accuracy Category for position and Navigation Integrity Category requirements of the rule (the NIC and NAC).

In August 2015, the Administrator issued a time-limited grant of exemption from the rule (§91.227(c)(1)(i) and (iii)). Exemption 12555, effective from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2024, permits operations during periods when the Global Positioning System (GPS) position provided to the installed ADS-B Out equipment does not achieve the required position accuracy or integrity performance, provided certain conditions and limitations are met.

Although the Petitioner was A4A, the exemption is available to any qualifying aircraft operator. Reference InFO 16003. Air Carrier/Operators desiring relief need to summit an equipage plan no later than August 1, 2018.

·   [John Blair] AFS-410 is adding a couple of non-precision approaches without vertical guidance: LOC PRM and RNAV (GPS) PRM. Reference Table 1—Authorized Instrument Approach Procedures.

·   [Steve Kane] emphasized using the chain-of-command to submit OSWG issues and questions: Members need to forward requests and recommendations through their respective Industry Chairperson. (Using, if applicable, the standard OSWG Issue Proposal Template linked here and found toward the end of each agenda.) The industry chair will forward the question/proposal to the FAA chair who will, in turn, solicit a response from the respective FAA division and/or subject matter expert.

·   [Ellen Birmingham] Reference Ellen’s November 2016 Discussion Note. 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 reiterated that most of the effected OpSpecs are Part B and C for which AFS-400 has primary responsibility. Jim Stieve will take the IOU to solicit, collate and forward remarks from Industry to Steve Kane.

·   [Michael Barfoot] advised the International OSWG that he will be stepping down as International Industry Chairman. Jerome Hecq, International Industry Vice-Chairman was voted in as the next International Industry Chair. Anyone interested as serving as the next International Industry Vice-Chair was asked to advise Jerome. An e-mail will be sent to all industry members soliciting volunteers.


 

March 2017 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·   [Michael Barfoot] Michael and Jerome proposed the next joint international OSWG session meet on Wednesday, March 7, 2018. With the concurrence of the domestic chairs, the 2018 joint domestic/international OSWG meeting will be held Tuesday/Wednesday, March 6/7, 2018.

·   [Danuta Pronczuk] There were no pending conference announcements. No major rulemaking projects were started since the March 2016 joint domestic/international OSWG meeting.

·   [John Bollin] briefed revisions to A447 Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) Notification Information. (Reference the Archived November 2016 OSWG Meeting Agenda.)

·   [John Bollin] Several Domestic OSWG members introduced the following “any other business”: D301 Aircraft Network Security Program (ANSP) Authorization, is issued to operators who use aircraft with special conditions for electronic information security that requires operator action under 14 CFR parts 121 (includes combined 121/135), 125 (including part 125 Letter of Deviation Authority (A125 LODA) holders), and 129 (only operators with U.S.-registered aircraft). This OpSpec contains the conditions that must be met for a certificate holder to operate their aircraft and lists the reference documents that contain the details of the operator’s program. Industry requested to clarify the aircraft acquisition process that involves D301 requirements: Is D301 required pre-delivery or post-delivery? The OSWG will format and submit an agenda item at the next meeting.


 

March 2017 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·   [Danuta Pronczuk] Unable to make the meeting, Harry Kernahan, POI LAX IFO, introduced the following “any other business” to the International OSWG:

SA CAT I ILS is authorized through Part 129 C052 by checking paragraph c(2) (selectable text). FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 12 Chapter 2 Section 5 Paragraph 12-214 OpSpec C052 H2) directs that the airplane and equipment be listed in Table 2 of OpSpec C059 OpSpec C059—Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations (Optional).

OpSpec C052 paragraph c(2) lists eight requirements (a through h). Requirement (a) reads: “Only airplanes approved for CAT II operations are eligible for these operations. Those airplanes and equipment must be listed in Table 2 of Operations Specification C059.” Harry brings attention to the fact that Table 2 is for CAT II RVR minimums and there is no place for an airplane listing. Harry questions FAA headquarters: “Should the correct reference be Table 1, CAT II Approach and Landing Minimums, which has airplane M/M/S and Equipment entry points?” Harry would also change the word “these” (underlined above) and insert “SA CAT I ILS” in its place, and recommended using the title SA CAT I ILS.

Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-50, together with Jim Tittinger, AFS-400, reviewed the issue introduced by Harry for headquarter review. Both AFS-50 and AFS-400 concurred that Harry was correct that there was a typo in the table reference. Although true today (only SA CAT I ILS are available), future revisions to C052 would potentially include SA CAT I GLS. CAT I GLS is available at Newark, NJ and Houston, TX. (Ground Based Augmentation Systems (GBAS) are similar to ILS.) Using the more generic title SA CAT I made the non-mandatory change more timeless.

With AFS-260’s assistance, a non-mandatory OpSpec was processed. (Reference the revised Part 129 C052 template.) The non-mandatory change included minor corrections in grammar, subparagraph c.(2)(a) was revised to read: “SA CAT I ILS operations” instead of “these operations”, and the table reference was changed to Table 1 vs. Table 2.


 

March 2017 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·   [Danuta Pronczuk] Post International OSWG meeting—Danuta added the following “any other business”:

Reference Part 129 A003 Aircraft Authorization: When requesting aircraft to be added to a certificate holder’s operations to the United States, the FAA reminds foreign air carrier/operators to ensure OST Form 6411, Foreign Air Carrier Certificate of Insurance, has been filed. (Click to download the Adobe .pdf fillable form), The form includes filing instructions.

Note: Boiler plate foreign air carrier U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) economic authority conditions include: “Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage contained in 14 CFR part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be filed with that office);”

Part 129 OpSpec A001 requires compliance with DOT economic authority. 14 CFR part 129 §129.5 Operations Specifications requires compliance with OpSpecs issued to each foreign air carrier/operator.

·   [John Bollin] Thank you Alan Clay for taking copious notes.

 

 

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 the §121.445 Pilot in command airport qualification: Special areas and airports on the Airlines for America (A4A) website vs. the FAA public site.

November 2016 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·   [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.

·   [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.


 

November 2016 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·   [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.

July 2016 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·   [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.

·   [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.

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 Jeppesen 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 C12 S18 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.


 

Selected Notices, ACs, InFOs, SAFOs, and Documents Germane

(published and posted on public websites as of the last OSWG meeting) (page 1 of 4)

·   Dated February 28, 2017, InFO 17004 provides clarification on the repair and/or alteration of seat belt assemblies.

·   Dated February 28, 2017: Boeing MD-10 MMEL Revision 4.

·   Effective February 28, 2017, Notice 8900.408 supplements current policy relating to ASAP and VDRP. The changes primarily address the impact and application of the 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 Compliance and Enforcement Program.

·   Effective February 23, 2017, Notice 8900.407 provides guidance to AFS personnel on helicopter PIC/SIC flight training, testing, and checking (all training categories) in helicopter FTDs (Levels 4, 5, 6, and 7) and FFSs (Levels B, C, and D).

·   Effective February 23, 2017, Notice 8900.406 provides guidance to inspectors tasked with ensuring that air carriers comply with the requirements of §121.353 requiring flag, supplemental, and certain domestic operations to carry emergency equipment when conducting operations over uninhabited terrain where search and rescue may be delayed due to environmental conditions.

·   Effective February 15, 2017, Notice 8900.405 announces requirements for issuing OpSpec A160, LODA for Part 135 Rotorcraft Operations Without a Radio Altimeter, and revises the templates for affected part 135 operations. This notice describes the inspectors role in granting deviation authority to a part 135 certificate holder.

·   Effective February 14, 2017, Notice 8900.404 announces the publication of AFS formal responses to questions regarding the flight time, duty, and rest requirements of parts 117, 121, and 135. These responses are now available via a link under the “Publications” tab in FSIMS.

·   Dated February 14, 2017: Embraer EMB-120 MMEL Revision 10.

·   Dated February 14, 2017: Lockheed L-382 (C-130) MMEL Revision 19d.

·   Dated February 13, 2017: B737 MMEL Revision 59.

·   Dated February 8, 2017: Federal Register Volume 82 Number 25—Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems, delays the effective date, with exceptions, to March 21, 2017.


 

Selected Notices, ACs, InFOs, SAFOs, and Documents Germane

(published and posted on public websites as of the last OSWG meeting) (page 1 of 4)

·   Dated February 8, 2017, Bombardier Flight Standardization Board (FSB) Report. This is the original BD-500-1A10 (CS100 and DB-500-1A11 (CS300) FSB report. These aircraft are a new type design.

·   Dated February 7, 2017, InFO 17002 Altimetry System Error Reports (ASE-R) provides background information and notice of expected participation in the ASE-R process by operators with Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) authority.

·   Dated January 31, 2017: A350-900 MMEL Revision 1.

·   Dated January 29, 2017, SAFO 17001 serves to alert all pilots and flightcrew operating near the boundaries of Class B airspace to the risk of excursions out of and incursions into Class B airspace. This SAFO also serves to emphasize the importance of a pilot’s and flightcrew’s role in maintaining proper aircraft separation.

·   Effective January 27, 2017, Notice 8900.402 Part 129 OpSpec C381 Special Instrument and RNAV Visual Flight Procedures adds Area Navigation (RNAV) and Visual Flight Procedures (RVFP); amended Table 1, Authorized Airports, Procedures, and Aircraft; and added a subparagraph on additional authorizations that may be required. Reference OSWG Issue 201607 Part 129 C381.

·   Effective January 27, 2017, Notice 8900.401 Revision of OpSpec/MSpec/LOA A002, Definitions and Abbreviations, adds definitions relating to air cargo in support of an air cargo safety initiative. Reference OSWG Issue 201602.

·   Dated January 23, 2017: Dassault Aviation Falcon 900 MMEL Revision 8.

·   Dated January 18, 2017, InFO 17001 Updated Standards for Electronic Signatures, Recordkeeping Systems and Electronic Manual Systems, cancels InFO 16010, dated 7/19/16 and provides information on updates to AC 120-78, along with the associated OpSpecs and 8900.1 guidance policy. The FAA has extended the transition period to June 22, 2017.

·   Dated January 18, 2017: B747-400 MMEL Revision 31.

·   Dated January 10, 2017, AC 120-71B Standard Operating Procedures and Pilot Monitoring Duties for Flight Deck Crewmembers, provides guidance for the design, development, implementation, evaluation, and updating of standard operating procedures (SOP), and for pilot monitoring (PM) duties.

·   Dated January 9, 2017: Federal Register Volume 82 Number 5—Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems, editorial corrections.

·   Dated January 6, 2017: Bombardier Challenger MMEL Revision 10a.

Selected Notices, ACs, InFOs, SAFOs, and Documents Germane

(published and posted on public websites as of the last OSWG meeting) (page 2 of 4)

·   Effective January 4, 2017, Notice 8900.399 Enhanced Pilot Training and Qualification, provides policy, information, and direction regarding the enhanced pilot training and qualification requirements in 14 CFR part 121.

·   Effective December 29, 2016, Notice 8900.398 OpSpecs A028 and A029 for Part 129, Economic Authority and Environmental Assessment Guidance, provides revised guidance for inspectors with oversight responsibility for operators conducting operations under part 129. Reference OSWG Issue 201101 Part 129 A028 and OSWG Issue 201704 Part 129 A029.

·   Dated December 28, 2016, Gulfstream Flight Standardization Board (FSB) Report, Revision 5, documents evaluation of, and training/checking/currency requirements for the PlaneView II avionics software upgrade for the G650 and G650ER.

·   Dated December 20, 2016: Embraer MMEL Revision 14.

·   Dated December 19, 2016, InFO 16023 updates the “Cold Temperature Restricted Airport” procedure and airports list located in Notice to Airmen Publication (NTAP) Graphic Notices. In addition, it provides operators with information related to cold temperature altitude restrictions. It contains the additions and subtractions of airports to the Cold Temperature Restricted Airports list located in the NTAP. Finally, this InFO discusses the two methods for correcting published altitudes at the restricted temperatures.

·   Dated December 19, 2016, Bombardier Flight Standardization Board (FSB) Report Revision 6, identifies Regulatory Training Requirements which are not applicable to the CRJ 100/200/440/700/701/702/705/900.

·   Effective December 19, 2016, Notice 8900.396 Progressive Checking for Pilot in Command Proficiency Checks Under §61.58, provides information, guidance, and direction to inspectors with oversight responsibility of Pilot Proficiency Examiners (PPE) and Training Center Evaluators (TCE) on the use of optional “progressive checking” during a pilot proficiency check conducted under 14 CFR part 61 §61.58.

·   Effective December 19, 2016, Notice 8900.395 Progressive Extension of Due Date for Required Action by Notice N8900.368, OpSpec/MSpec/TSpec/LOA A025, Electronic Signatures, Electronic Recordkeeping Systems, and Electronic Manual Systems, replaces N8900.368 and extends the due date for the required action from December 22, 2016 to June 22, 2017.

·   Dated December 16, 2016: Dassault Aviation Falcon 2000 MMEL Revision 9.

·   Dated December 13, 2016: Federal Register Volume 81 Number 239—Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems, final rule.

Selected Notices, ACs, InFOs, SAFOs, and Documents Germane

(published and posted on public websites as of the last OSWG meeting) (page 3 of 4)

·   Dated December 13, 2016, InFO 16022 cancels InFO 10008 and advises operators of the potential for inadvertently changing existing, correct selections in avionics and other systems equipped with concentrically-centered controls (knobs).

·   Effective December 13, 2016, Notice 8900.394 Deployment of the Pilot Records Database, requires principal or assigned inspectors to validate vital information for 14 CFR part 119 certificate holders and fractional ownerships in order to make the Pilot Records Database (PRD) available for use in December 2016/January 2017. Additionally, this notice provides information on eligibility requirements for individuals to access the PRD.

·   Effective December 9, 2016, Notice 8900.393 OpSpec C079, IFR Lower-than-Standard Takeoff Minima Airplane Operations—All Airports (for 14 CFR Part 135), revised OpSpecs C057, IFR Takeoff Minimums, Part 135 Operations—All Airports, and C078/C079, IFR Lower-Than-Standard Takeoff Minima Airplane Operations—All Airports, to clarify that single-engine passenger-carrying operations are not authorized to utilize OpSpec C079.

·   Dated December 6, 2016, AC 20-167A Airworthiness Approval of Enhanced Vision System, Synthetic Vision System, Combined Vision System, and Enhanced Flight Vision System Equipment, provides one acceptable means for complying with 14 CFR part 23, 25, 27, or 29 airworthiness regulations when installing a SVS, EVS, CVS, or EFVS in an airplane or rotorcraft.

·   Dated December 5, 2016, InFO 16021 serves to heighten awareness of the Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment (TALPA) initiative’s activation date and to highlight forthcoming amendments to the AIM and AIP.

·   Dated December 2, 2016, AC 120-115 Maintainer Fatigue Risk Management, describes the basic concepts of human fatigue and how it relates to safety for aviation maintenance organizations and individual maintainers and identifies methods for integrating FRM within a Safety Management System (SMS) (if applicable). Note: This AC is informational and is not mandatory. It does not constitute a regulation.

·   Dated November 23, 2016, Gulfstream Flight Standardization Board (FSB) Report, Revision 11, Removed slow engine response time as a “Special Flight Characteristic”, which formerly required checking/testing. Changed it to a “special emphasis item” for GV and GV-SP only, and required it during initial training. Changed the non-HUD approach “Proficiency Check” requirement to “Testing and Checking”. Added a sentence to clarify that the GV does not require an EEC. Changed “should” to “must” for no flap approach and landing. Clarified language and updated verbiage in several appendices. Applicable to GIV-X (G350/G450), GV and GV-SP (G500/G550) airplanes.


 

Selected Notices, ACs, InFOs, SAFOs, and Documents Germane

(published and posted on public websites as of the last OSWG meeting) (page 4 of 4)

·   Dated November 15, 2016, SAFO 16016 emphasizes the importance of utilizing checklists and specifically performing helicopter stabilized hover checks before departure.

·   Dated November 14, 2016, AC 00-45H Aviation Weather Services, explains U.S. aviation weather products and services. It provides details when necessary for interpretation and to aid usage, and where to find more weather information and explanatory details.


 

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