September 13, 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 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

Meeting Information

Directory

Accommodations

Reference

Attendance

Note the latest revision date; delete previous editions.

Revised October 27, 2017

Domestic Session

Review, revise, and initial sign-in sheet

Introductions

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

General Discussion:

Next meeting: Wednesday, November 15, 2017, TBA (no FAA participation)

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

                     Wednesday, September 19, 2018, Location TBD

·  Industry chair/vice-chair announcements

·  Exemptions

·  Next MMEL IG meeting: Wednesday/Thursday, November 29/30, 2017 at A4A, Washington DC

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

·  Questions and Answers

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

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

·   Operations Approval Portal System (OAPS) project update and the Safety Assurance System

·   Future of Flight Standards

·  Regulatory Consistency Communication Board (RCCB)

·   WebOPSS update

·  Quarterly WebOPSS Paragraph Release

·  Economic Authority and Insurance Management (eAIM) project update

·  Changes to Boeing Aircraft Data Plates

·  Domestic Issues

 

 


 

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)

201301     D097  Aging Aircraft Programs

                 Part 129 D097 Aging Aircraft Programs (published)

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

                  Instrument Approach Procedures Using Substitute Means of Navigation

                  (published & closed)

Domestic Issues in order of discussion

      Current

201602     A196  Air Cargo Operations

      A396  Special Air Cargo Operations

201304      A097, A098, A099 Passenger and Baggage Weight Programs

201315         C070           Airports Authorized for Scheduled Operations

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

201612     A013  Part 121 Operations without Certain Emergency Equipment

201613     B045  Extended Overwater Operations

             Using a Single Long-Range Communications System (SLRCS)

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      

201305         C059  Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

201001     C060         Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations…

201711     C052  Straight-In Non-Precision, APV, and Category I Precision Approach and    Landing Minima—All Airports

201706         C048           Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) Operations

201614     A056  Data Link Communications

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)    

      Any Other Business (AOB)

      Adjourn


 

Joint Domestic/International Issues in order of discussion

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

201301     D097  Aging Aircraft Programs

                 Part 129 D097 Aging Aircraft Programs (published)

      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

 

 


 

International Issues in order of discussion

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

      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


 

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

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

201711     C052  Straight-In Non-Precision, APV, and Category I Precision Approach and    Landing Minima—All Airports DS

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 CL

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


 

          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

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

201301     Part 129 D097          Aging Aircraft Programs AP

 

 

 

 

          Chronological Table of Contents of Closed/Archived Issues

FAA/Industry Domestic Meeting

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

Afternoon Session 1300–1600, Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Industry PreMeeting, Airlines for America (A4A), Washington DC (telcon available, see below)

FAA Pre-Meeting, FAA Headquarters, Washington DC

Morning Session 0900–1200, Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Airlines for America (A4A), Washington DC (click for directions)

Telcon Dial-in: 888 757-2790 / 719 359-9722, Passcode: 8 8 0 7 7 6 #

Adobe Connect: http://airlines.adobeconnect.com/room1/

Afternoon Session 1300–1600, Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Airlines for America (A4A), Washington DC (click for directions)

Telcon Dial-in: 888 757-2790 / 719 359-9722, Passcode: 8 8 0 7 7 6 #

Adobe Connect: javascript:openPage('http://airlines.adobeconnect.com/room1/

 

Next Meeting:   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. (Click here for submission instructions and form.)

Accommodations (effective September 11-15, 2017)

 

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

Daily Washington DC federal government lodging/per diem rate: $231.00 / $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.

Washington Plaza Hotel  800 424-1140 / 202 842-1300

https://www.reservations-page.com/C00519/H11149/be.ashx?pc=AIR

10 Thomas Circle NW, Washington DC, near McPherson Square Metro Station

15% discount off superior guest room rate (not including tax)

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): $209.00/night

 

A4A   

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       Jereome Hecq, Emirates Airline

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

International Industry       Vacant

Vice-Chairman:               

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.)

[9/13/2017 Bollin] Jim Tittinger was not available for briefing. Regarding C059/C060 consolidation, all comments have been adjudicated, finalized, and the draft document updated accordingly. AFS-260 and -410 are working through a design/review of each of the multiple WebOPSS templates based on the final C060 draft. Once the templates and any minor corresponding edits to the document are completed, it will be submitted for approval. Jim anticipates publication by the end of the year.


 

(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.

[9/13/2017 Moates] Adam Giraldes had a scheduling conflict and was not able to attend the meeting. Steve Moates, Acting AFS-200, addressed the issue. AFS-220 continues to review public comments on the ETOPS Advisory Circular and hopes to have it completed by the end of the year. Once the ETOPS AC is published Adam will address incorporating ETOPS alternates into C070. Ellen Birmingham, United Airlines, requested industry input.

Steve gave the OSWG an IOU to convene the ETOPS development team sometime in late October or early November to address outstanding ETOPS guidance and OpSpec issues. [ed: the next day, 9/14/2017, Steve sent an email to the team and authorized travel to Washington. He signed the email: “We need to get this done.\\”]


 

201301                 D097 Aging Aircraft Programs   (page 1 of 2) (published)

            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) (published)

            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.

[4/11/2017 Bollin] Effective April 11, 2017, Notice 8900.416 amends all OpSpec, MSpec, LOA D097 Aging Aircraft Programs, templates and associated FAA guidance for standardization purposes, removing language for use of the “Free Text” area and the provision to list source documents. As a result of these changes, issuance of D097 will signify that the FAA has reviewed the operator/certificate holder/program manager’s policy and that procedures have been incorporated into their maintenance and/or inspection programs for compliance with the Aging Aircraft Program rules. Table 1 of D097 will consist of three columns that list:

• The Aging Aircraft Program rules;

• The manual and section where the policy and procedures are located; and

• The date of the manual and section where the current policy and procedures are located for the applicable Aging Aircraft Program.

[9/13/2017 Bollin] The domestic issue was closed; however, it will remain on the agenda for international OSWG notification/closure in March 2018.

 

 

 


 

201304          A097, A098, A099 Passenger and Baggage Weight Programs (page 1 of 4)

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

                           Cary Robins, American Aeronautics, 847 459-5801, cary.robins@flyincg.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 months 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 4)

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 4)

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.

[8/21/2017 Robins] Cory Robins, American Aeronautics, submitted a concern regarding A097 Small Cabin Aircraft Passenger and Baggage Weight Program

(1)   Often, passenger, carry-on bag and checked baggage weights entered by the certificate holder in OpSpec A097 Table 1. Selectable Weights―Small Cabin Aircraft (5-29 Seats), do not correctly reflect the appropriate weights required by AC 12027E. With virtual certainty, part 135 air carriers do not use survey-derived average weights.

(2)   The OpSpec A097 paragraph (5) dropdown menu selection: “The certificate holder is authorized a No Carry-On-Baggage Program for its small cabin aircraft as described in Operations Specification A011 and is eligible for a six-pound passenger weight credit from the AC standard average passenger weights for its small cabin aircraft.” creates confusion for operators. For example, operators with a no-carry-on bag program using the 184-pound summer passenger weight found in AC120-27E paragraph 205a believe that they are afforded an additional 6-pound reduction to 178 pounds. (Weights found in AC120-27E paragraph 205a are the adjusted standard average passenger weights found in AC120-27E paragraph 201b; the reduction has already been accounted for.)

(continued on next page)

201304          A097, A098, A099 Passenger and Baggage Weight Programs (page 4 of 4)

Notes:

(3)   Table 1 causes conflict with A097 paragraphs (6) and (7). The paragraphs are identical with the exception that paragraph (6) applies to certificate holders with a carry-on baggage program and paragraph (7) is for certificate holders with a no carry-on baggage program.

For illustration, paraphrasing from paragraph 7: Certificate holders that only use the standard Advisory Circular 120-27 (as revised) average weights and ratios listed in Table 1 and/or Table 2, as applicable, and do not allow carry-on bags onboard the aircraft, must comply with a 50/50 male/female ratio for summer/winter passenger weights; 184/189 pounds respectively.

14 CFR part 135 certificate holders are required to use standard passenger weights found in AC120-27E. If weights entered in OpSpec A097 Table 1 do not match those listed in AC120-27E, a 50/50 male/female compliance ratio is unusable. In addition, paragraphs (6) and (7) state that the certificate holder “must” comply using a 50/50 male/female summer/winter ratio of 190/195 or 184/189 pounds respectively. Since there is no mention of average adult male, adult female or child in paragraphs (6) and (7), they stipulate that there is no allowance of average male, female or child weights. In corporate aircraft, the determination of gender and adolescence is simple compared to operations of high density transport aircraft. This is extremely limiting. Also, by stating the passenger weight that must be used, “AC120-27 (as revised)” would require an update to OpSpecs for every revision to the Advisory Circular.

With the expectation of a release of AC120-27F, it is recommended to revise A097 to be abstract to a point that references the data in the Advisory Circular. As an example, revise OpSpec A097 Table 1 to reflect the layout of AC120-27 Table 1-2 and/or Table 2-2.

[9/13/2017 Moates] Adam Giraldes had a scheduling conflict and was not able to attend the meeting. Steve Moates, Acting AFS-200, addressed the issue. Draft AC 12027F Aircraft Weight and Balance Control closed for comments last month. AFS-220 is in the process of reviewing the comments.

Cory Robins, American Aeronautics, discussed his concerns regarding A097 Small Cabin Aircraft Passenger and Baggage Weight Program. (Reference note 8/21/2017 above.) Cory and Adam Giraldes are in conversation. Steve will take Cory’s submission as an IOU.

 

 


 

(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…

[9/13/2017 Bollin] Jim Tittinger was not available for briefing. Regarding C059/C060 consolidation, all comments have been adjudicated, finalized, and the draft document updated accordingly. AFS-260 and -410 are working through a design/review of each of the multiple WebOPSS templates based on the final C060 draft. Once the templates and any minor corresponding edits to the document are completed, it will be submitted for approval. Jim anticipates publication by the end of the year.

 

 

 

 


 

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.

[9/13/2017 Bollin] Come to find out that the Advisory Circular is a joint Flight Standards/Aircraft Certification (AFS/AIR) document and requires an Associate Administrator, AVS-1, signature. The new advisory circular AC 120-76D, OpSpec A061, and associated 8900.1 guidance should be published by the end of October.


 

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.

[9/13/2017 Moates] Adam Giraldes had a scheduling conflict and was not able to attend the meeting. Steve Moates, Acting AFS-200, addressed the issue. AFS-220 continues to review public comments on the ETOPS Advisory Circular and hopes to have it completed by the end of the year. Once the ETOPS AC is published Adam will address incorporating ETOPS alternates into C070. Ellen Birmingham, United Airlines, requested industry input.

Steve gave the OSWG an IOU to convene the ETOPS development team sometime in late October or early November to address outstanding ETOPS guidance and OpSpec issues. [ed: the next day, 9/14/2017, Steve sent an email to the team and authorized travel to Washington. He signed the email: “We need to get this done.\\”]

 

 


 

(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.

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 (Proposed)

          A396 Special Air Cargo Operations (Proposed) (page 1 of 5)

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 5)

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 5)

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.

(continued on next page)

 


 

201602              A196 Air Cargo Operations (Proposed)

          A396 Special Air Cargo Operations (Proposed) (page 4 of 5)

Notes:

[5/26/2017 Moates] Working with folks from the Cargo Focus Team and representatives from Boeing Cargo Systems, Steve amended the proposed definitions for cargo as follows―

Bulk Cargo: Cargo usually transported as individual pieces and loaded into a compartment approved for bulk cargo by the Airplane Flight Manual / Weight and Balance Manual that is approved by the type certificate or supplemental type certificate. These items are generally loaded planeside and loaded directly into the bulk compartment.

Approved Unit Load Device (ULD) Cargo: Cargo loaded into a ULD, as defined by National Aerospace Standard (NAS) 3610, SAE Aerospace Standard (AS) 36100, Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C90, or other approval standards, that is approved for carriage within the airplane as specified in the Airplane Flight Manual / Weight and Balance Manual approved by the type certificate or supplemental type certificate.

Special Cargo: Cargo neither contained in an Approved Unit Load Device (ULD) nor enclosed in a cargo compartment approved for bulk loading is considered special cargo. Bulk and ULD approvals are specified in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) / Weight and Balance Manual (WBM) approved by the type certificate or supplemental type certificate. Special cargo requires special handling and the securing/restraining procedures specified in the AFM/WBM. Special cargo includes cargo restrained using straps to pallets.

[8/18/2017 Stieve] Jim forwarded a note from the Cargo Focus Symposium, recommending a revision to OpSpec A002 Definitions as follows:

Bulk Cargo: See [5/26/2017 Moates] note above. No change.

Approved Unit Load Device (ULD) Cargo: See [5/26/2017 Moates] note above. No change.

Special Cargo: Cargo that requires special handling and securing/restraining procedures within the limitations specified in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) / Weight and Balance Manual (WBM) approved by the type certificate / supplemental type certificate. Special cargo may be enclosed in an approved bulk compartment if the WBM has limitations supporting procedures for securing and restraining the special cargo.

(continued on next page)

 


 

201602              A196 Air Cargo Operations (Proposed)

          A396 Special Air Cargo Operations (Proposed) (page 5 of 5)

Notes:

[9/13/2017 Moates] Steve updated the OSWG and answered questions from the floor.

Federal Express’ Steve Kuhar and Anne Bechtel (former FAA and DOT General Counsel) wanted to know why the agency did not pursue rulemaking. Steve Kuhar further questioned the need to have an OpSpec to carry cargo…; a fundamental to the FedEx business model―Is the FAA legislating against cargo carriers? Steve Moates replied: “No.” In fact, the issuance of the OpSpec allows the FAA to better serve industry. Regarding rulemaking, Steve explained that rulemaking projects are selected from a long list of needs and once placed on the docket, the process is long and laborious. Special Air Cargo Operations did not lend itself to rulemaking, it was not necessary. Steve did agree with Anne: The agency needs to conduct a legal review of the Special Cargo OpSpec. Steve Kuhar added: “…and let the legal review move forward prior to any future discussion.”

George Paul, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) Director of Technical Operations, voiced concerns: Do we really need an OpSpec to direct an air carrier to follow their Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) / Weight and Balance Manual (WBM)? Will a carrier’s authority to operate be listed in the certificate holder’s A004? Is strapping down a wheel chair special cargo? The agency should extend the cancellation date (1/27/2018) of N8900.401 Revision of OpSpec/MSpec/LOA A002, Definitions and Abbreviations and “…conduct a demonstration of special cargo handling by Kalitta Airlines.”

Jim Winkelman, Alaska Airlines, exclaimed: The AFM is the directed source for procedures to transport cargo. The FAA approves the operator’s weight and balance program. If a certificate holder is required to follow the AFM, why do we need an OpSpec? Furthermore, there are contradictions between Federal Regulations, the OpSpecs and the Airplane Flight Manual, adding a level of administrative and decision making to the process. (“Special Cargo” is not defined in the AFM.) We should use a simplified, common sense approach. The more complicated the process, the more complicated managing threat and error.

 

 

 

 

 


 

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.


 

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.

 


 

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).

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

201608              C384         Required Navigation Performance Procedures with

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

Notes:

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

[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.

[9/13/2017 Christianson] Jeff Kerr was unavailable. Kel Christianson informed the audience that  AFS-470 is in the process of updating AC 90-101A Approval Guidance for RNP Procedures with AR (90-101B due 1Q FY 2019). One of the key changes to the AC will be the addition of RNP AR Departure Procedures.

 

 

 

 


 

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.

[9/13/2017 Bollin] Kevin Kelley was unable to attend and sent John the following: “After multiple internal meetings and consultations with specialists, AFS-470 is nearing completion on a draft to submit for internal (DCB) coordination. The new framework will mesh with the domestic (B031/B032, B034/B035) IFR enroute OpSpec framework, consistent with the FAA’s transition to the ICAO terms “oceanic and remote continental” from the old, FAA-only “Class II” term. AFS-470 is grateful for previous coordination with industry on this OpSpec, and will re-engage with the work group once the new framework has full support within AFS.” The OSWG did not engage in discussion.


 

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.

[9/13/2017 Moates] Jackie Clow was unable to make the meeting. Steve Moates, Acting AFS-200, addressed the OSWG. The A013 working group did not have an update. They have been waiting for the US Coast Guard to get back to them regarding where they provide search and rescue in those authorized areas listed. The FAA almost had a new software program that would plot A013 areas, but the money was not available. The group is deciding how to proceed without the Coast Guard input. Jackie recommended we put this issue on the back burner until the next meeting in March, 2018.

 

 


 

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: Joe Devito, jetBlue, 631 664-5041, joseph.devito@jetblue.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.”

[9/13/2017 Devito] Gordy was unavailable. Joe Devito, jetBlue, was assigned as the new Industry Lead and updated the OSWG: jetBlue trials continue.

201614              A056 Data Link Communications (page 1 of 2)

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.

201614              A056 Data Link Communications (page 2 of 2)

Notes:

[9/13/2017 Patterson] Mark Patterson had a scheduling conflict. Carole Perry, AFS-470 Contractor, presented a PP update brief. The AC is not ready for distribution. Public comment adjudication is complete and all the revisions and supporting documents were sent to AFS-140 to work their magic on the next draft. -470 hopes to publish by the end of September/early October. The A056 templates/Notice and 8900.1 guidance is predicated on the changes being made to the Advisory Circular. The plan is to publish them shortly after the AC is made public.

 


 

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.

[9/13/2017 Bollin] Kevin was unable to attend the meeting and sent John the following: “As part of a larger project where the FAA is shifting away from “Class II” navigation terms, AFS-470 is revising IFR enroute OpSpecs, beginning with B036. B054 will be re-worked as necessary after B036 language is finalized. Regarding jetBlue’s inquiry about issuances without RNP 10, the current FSIMS guidance in 8900.1 V3 C18 S4, under paragraph A “Purpose”, directs an inspector in V3 C18 S2 P3-713 to issue a non-standard B054 if the operator cannot substantiate RNP 10 compliance with a statement in their flight manual.” The OSWG did not engage in discussion.

201702              D091         Requirements: Air Carrier Maintenance Providers (Page 1 of 2)

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.

(continued on next page)


 

201702              D091         Requirements: Air Carrier Maintenance Providers (Page 2 of 2)

Notes:

[9/13/2017 Williams] Bill Williams (no relation), FedEx Express Manager of Regulatory Compliance and the Industry Lead submitted a justification to delete OpSpec D091 and archive the WebOPSS template. Reference Bill’s Gap Analysis and SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis of D091 vs. 14 CFR part 121 §121.368 Contract Maintenance.

§121.368 takes precedence over all else. The following 8900.1 guidance material referenced in the Gap and SWOT analysis support §121.368.

1.  AC 120-106A, dated 1/4/16: Scope and Recommended Content for a Contractual Agreement Between an Air Carrier and a Maintenance Provider

2.  FAA Order 8900.1 V3 C42: Initial and Continual Oversight and Evaluation of Essential Maintenance and other Contract Maintenance Provider Programs and Contractual Agreements

Also reference the Preamble to §121.368, identifying weaknesses in D091―

These changes are needed because contract maintenance has increased to over 70 percent of all air carrier maintenance, and numerous investigations have shown deficiencies in maintenance performed by contract maintenance providers. These rules will help ensure consistency between contract and in-house air carrier maintenance and enhance the oversight capabilities of both the air carriers and the FAA.

A related Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) tasking from the FAA was formed in April 2017 to identify candidate rules for the repeal of D091. The basic criteria is the elimination of rules that:

1) Cause a loss of jobs.

2) Add costs greater than benefit, or

3) are outdated, or

4) are inconsistent.

Safety actions such as ADs are exempted from consideration.

(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 2011-02 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.


 

(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).


 

(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 3)

            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 3)

            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.


 

201706              C048  Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) Operations (page 3 of 3)

            Part 129 C048      Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) Operations

Notes:

[3/8/2017 McLellan] Scott briefed 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 [ed: not included herein].

[4/5//2017 Bollin] Notice 8900.412 providing notification of a revision to optional OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C048/MC048 Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) Operations for certificate holders, program managers, and operators conducting fixed‑wing airplane operations under 14 CFR parts 91K, 121, 125, A125 LODA, 129, and 135, is published. This notice also introduces LOA C048 for operators conducting fixed-wing airplane operations under part 91.

[9/13//2017 McLellan] Scott was available to discuss ancillary issues and answer questions. Operators will have until March 2018 to transition to the New C048 template.


 

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 1of 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 2of 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.

[9/13/2017] Unable to attend the meeting, Tim emailed: “The Notice has been submitted for internal AFS-300 review. Upon approval, it and the D105 template changes will go through the DCB process. As of right now, AFS-330 is proceeding as presented to the OSWG in March: OpSpec D105 will only be required for 121 or 121/135 certificate holders who operate aircraft equipped with Emergency Evacuation Systems (EES) as defined in AC 43-208. If everything goes as planned, the paragraph should be published within 6 months. This is a positive direction in having this OpSpec applicable to those it was originally intended for. If maintenance reliability improves there is a possibility of eliminating the OpSpec in the future.” The OSWG tabled the discussion.

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: September 13, 2017

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.

[9/13/2017 Christianson] AFS-470 agrees with the intended outcome. The C300 Part 121 Template, C300 Part 135 Template, and C300 Part 121/135 Template have been revised to add TACAN to the list of approaches authorized in OpSpec C300.

[9/13/2017 Stieve] The issue is closed.

 

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, 316 941-1287, 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.

[9/13/2017 Perry] Todd attended the meeting via telcon and submitted a draft OpSpec Dxxx template and associated 8900.1 guidance for review. CASE offered to attend the meeting and provide specific industry representation for this issue. The CASE representative was unable to make it; however, Sarah Macleod from the Aeronautical Repair Station Association (ARSA), chimed in and voiced a strong opinion rejecting the OpSpec: “Auditing for Quality Assurance is not required.”

[9/13/2017 Lopez] A4A’s Mark Lopez is looking for an Industry Lead.

 


 

201711 C052  Straight-In Non-Precision, APV, and Category I Precision Approach and Landing Minima—All Airports (FAA brief) (page 1 of 2)

Initial Agenda Date: September 13, 2017    Date Closed:

FAA Lead: John Blair, AFS-410, 202-267-8986, john.blair@faa.gov

Industry Lead: Not Required

Issue Statement: Evaluate and update the PRM authorization, training, and material requirements.

Background: The FAA is involved in replacing the outdated PRM training video with an updated slide presentation. The new format will provide operators with more flexibility for integrating the material into their training syllabus, will be easier to revise, and will reduce the time needed to conduct PRM training, while retaining the core issues inherent in PRM training. The content of the slide presentation has been vetted by a Work Group composed of FAA and airline participants. In concert with this change, the PRM website, the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), the Attention All Users Page (AAUP), and the Instrument Procedures Handbook (IPH) are being updated and streamlined relative to PRM training and operations. As an additional part of this wide ranging update, it is proposed to change the format of C052 to provide PRM as a more generic, selectable, non-mandatory option.

Intended Outcome: The selectable option will simplify the selection of PRM operations, and permit future changes in PRM approach types without the need for revising C052. In addition, proposed changes to 8900.1 guidance will eliminate the duplication of PRM training material in both Volume 3 General Technical Administration and Volume 4 General Equipment Administration, and place it only in the training section of Volume 4, Chapter 2, Section 5. These proposed changes will update the text of the PRM relevant paragraphs to reflect the latest criteria as well as referencing PRM approach types in general instead of the specific types presently found throughout the document.

Notes:

[9/13/2017 Blair] John gave the OSWG a Power Point PRM pilot training update brief and a draft of the notification to all Users Conducting Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) Approaches. Included in this process will be the replacement of the present PRM training video with a newly developed slide presentation, “Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) Pilot Procedures.” In addition, several related documents will be revised, including the AIM, PRM website, the format of the Attention All Users Page (AAUP), and sections of the 8900.1 guidance. All approaches with PRM in the title will be removed from C052 Table 1 and replaced with a single checkbox authorizing PRM approaches if (a) the aircraft is capable of concurrently receiving two communications frequencies and their associated audio, and (b) pilots have completed required training.

201711 C052  Straight-In Non-Precision, APV, and Category I Precision Approach and Landing Minima—All Airports (FAA brief) (page 2 of 2)

Notes:

[9/13/2017 Blair] Following his PRM presentation, John opened up a discussion regarding the language used in C052. AFS-410 has found a lack of historical data regarding the original intent of language used in the template. The wording may still be relevant, or it may be outdated, it is vague, and some interpretations may cause confusion flying approaches using an EFVS. -410 is looking for feedback to help make meaningful changes. Depending on the outcome, the OSWG chairs may elect to create a new C052 issue paper.

 

 


 

September 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.

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

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

Wednesday, September 19, 2018, location TBA

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

·   [Jim Winkelman] inquired about the approval of a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) to an environmental assessment occurring the day before new service is scheduled to start. Steve Kane replied that regional environmental specialists no longer exist and the agency is having difficulty complying with the requirements of various environmental acts. Steve asked Jim to send him an email with specifics. Steve will forward the information to the appropriate policy division for a response.

·  [John Bollin] Several Domestic OSWG members introduced a discussion of D301 Aircraft Network Security Program (ANSP) Authorization, as “any other business” during the March 2017 meeting: D301 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 the FAA clarify the aircraft acquisition process that involves D301 requirements: Is D301 required pre-delivery or post-delivery?

A meeting agenda issue was not created. In a written response, Marcus Labay, AFS-360, answered: The ANSP for an operator of an aircraft with a special condition for electronic security is required pre-delivery. Simply put, D301 must be issued before or at the same time the aircraft is placed on an operator’s D085 Aircraft Listing. This ensures the aircraft is continuously covered by a security program. New aircraft are covered under the manufacturer’s program and a previously owned aircraft would have been covered by the previous operator’s certificate.


·   

September 2017 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·  [Salli Rowe] introduced Brandon Roberts, Manager, Office of Rulemaking Airmen & Airspace Rules Division, (Office: 202-267-9688). Brandon provided the group with a little history, background information, and a Power Point brief of current exemption status. A lively discussion followed. First and foremost, Brandon informed the group that the Federal Docket was not designed to handle the 1000+ exemption requests submitted by users of unmanned aircraft in the last two years…; 120 days may not be long enough for the FAA to review.

An analysis of non-UAS exemptions from June 2016 through May 2017, reveals a total of 567 exemptions of which 477 were completed in 78-days average duration. Sallie gave the OSWG a Power Point update of AFS-200 exemption activity.

Steve Kuhar, Federal Express, asked why routine exemptions for rules with many extensions are not subject to rulemaking. In response, Brandon cited current administration policy to restructure rulemaking (two rules eliminated for every one added). The federal government is working on a streamlined rule making process that meets the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Ellen Birmingham, United Airlines, inquired about extending exemption renewals to 3 years vs. 2 years. Brandon replied “We’re working on it.”

Via telcon from Atlanta, Casey Seabright, Delta Airlines, asked about changing the recycling time to end at the beginning of each month. (A problem for Delta and other certificate holders that are not Airlines for America members.) Casey also lamented the provision to provide the CMO with 15 days processing time for OpSpec approval, and the FAA’s replacement of the phrase “similarly situated” with the requirement to provide a unique situation request to approve an exemption.

Mark Lopez, Airlines for America, inquired about a proposed draft revision to the MMEL Preamble. Items in the Code of Federal Regulations will require an exemption for Policy Letters that have existed for many years.

Jim Winkelman, Alaska Airlines, bemoaned the inability to ascertain where an exemption was in the process, and the difficulty following General Council communication restrictions. He expressed an opinion that non-A4A sponsored exemptions should expire.

When asked about exemptions to Fatigue Risk Management Systems (FRMS), Brandon informed the OSWG that FRMS exemptions are unique due to the proprietary information for each certificate holder.

Responding to a question regarding CMO follow-up with the Office of Rulemaking, Brandon replied they cannot provide information on the status of exemptions.

The FAA repository of exemption documents can be found in the Regulatory and Guidance Library (RGL).

September 2017 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·  [Steve Moates] provided the §121.445 Pilot in command airport qualification: Special areas and airports update. When asked about difficulties communicating with ATC in China, Steve lamented that there was no way to identify airports with less than desirable linguistic capabilities.

·  [John Bollin] reviewed Draft Documents Open for Comment and Selected Notices, ACs, InFOs, SAFOs, and documents germane.... a chronological list along with a brief synopsis of public domain FAA documents distributed during the meeting agenda period.

·  [Paul Lepine] gave the OSWG an update on the status of the Operations Approval Portal System (OAPS) project. The system is ready for use! We anticipate a soft rollout, limiting access to those users participating in the trials. If we experience minimal glitches, all part 121 air carriers will be able to access OAPS this winter, followed by part 135 certificate holders next year. Similar to WebOPSS, use of OAPS will be mandatory for FAA employees and voluntary for industry.

·  [Steve Kane] provided the OSWG with an updated view and report on the FAA’s Future of Flight Standards, this time with senior level management positions filled. He followed up the discussion with an overview of the FAA’s Regulatory Consistency Communication Board (RCCB).

·  [Monica Grusche] provided the session with a WebOPSS update and the current status of the Economic Authority and Insurance Management (eAIM) project. Monica also announced that the Quarterly WebOPSS Paragraph Release Notification: a list of additions/revisions to the WebOPSS CHDO Active paragraph inventory for the preceding three months, is an ad hoc publication distributed on an irregular schedule. Contact marina.murphy@faa.gov for quarterly updates. [ed: The April-June 2017 report was briefed. Future editions will be made upon request.]

·  [Ellen Birmingham] Reference Ellen’s November 2016 Discussion Note. It was determined that the change in the aircraft data plate MMS number will not affect applicable OpSpecs. Ellen was OK with the report.

·   [Jim Stieve] announced the retirement of long-time OSWG member and multiple times Industry Chairman Jim “Wink” Winkelman. Thank you Jim!

·   [Jim Stieve] also announced his last meeting as Industry Chairman. The OSWG thanked Jim for his past year of service. Alan Clay, American Airlines, will assume the duties of Industry Chairman for 2018. By unanimous decision, Industry OSWG members elected Jim Sharkey, United Airlines Manager Flight Operations Regulatory Compliance, as the new Vice-Chairman.


 

September 2017 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·  [Nick Petty] Any Other Business: At the end of the meeting, Nick Petty, Executive Jet Management, raised a question regarding the wording in 8900.1 V3 C18 S6 OPSPEC/MSPEC/TSPEC/LOA D095—Minimum Equipment List (MEL) Authorization. Table 1 is not titled in the parts 91K, 121, 125, 125M, or 135 templates. The part 91 LOA and part 142 TSpec template tables are demonstrably different, aircraft specific and titled “Table 1― Aircraft Identification”. [ed: There are no part 142 D095 TSpecs issued.] Is the 8900.1 guidance subject to revision?

·  [John Bollin] Thank you Alan Clay for taking notes and Mark Lopez/A4A for hosting the meeting and providing lunch. [ed: The pulled pork sandwiches were great!]

 

 

·  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.


 

March 2017 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·  [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.

·  [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.


 

March 2017 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·  [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.

·   [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.

March 2017 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·  [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.

·   [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.)


 

March 2017 OSWG Meeting Discussion Notes (continued)

·  [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.

·  [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.


 

Questions and Answers

 

On March 23, 2017, American Airlines asksWe are slowly equipping our B737s with ADS-B OUT in preparation for domestic ADS-B operations in 2020. That said, these aircraft fly domestic and international routes to Canada, the Caribbean, Mexico and South America. Two questions:

1.     If we file the appropriate surveillance code for ADS-B (B1) and send this aircraft outside the United States, do these aircraft need to be included in OpSpec A153? 

2.     In order for us to broadcast ADS-B OUT signals (and file B1) in airspace outside the U.S., does A153 need to be included in the reference paragraphs of our OpSpec B050 for that respective area of operation (i.e. Mexico)?

Answer from Paul Von Hoene, ADS-B Team Lead, AFS-430, 202 267-8916, paul.vonhoene@faa.gov—The short answer is “no” to both questions. The need for OpSpec A153 authorization started in Canada and was required primarily by Air Navigation Service providers in Asia and the Pacific. Due to onerous administrative burdens, these States and a plethora of others including the United States, never did, or no longer necessitate A153 approval, To our knowledge, Mexico has never required an A153 endorsement.

To ensure compliance, a certificate holder should consult ADS-B provisions and procedures in each country’s Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP).

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

(published and posted on public websites as of the last OSWG meeting) (page 1 of 6)

·  Dated September 13, 2017: Safety Assurance System (SAS) External Portal Training.

·  Dated September 12, 2017: Operational Suitability Report (OSR)―Innovative Solutions and Support, Flat Panel Display System with Integrated Dual FMS and Autothrottle.

·  Effective September 8, 2017, Notice 8900.435 provides guidance for principal inspectors and Joint Transition Team (JTT) members in conducting proving tests as a result of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) of certificate holders conducting 14 CFR part 121 operations.

·  Dated September 5, 2017, InFO 17014 contains the addition and subtraction of airports to the Cold Temperature Restricted Airports list, while providing some information on the current charting symbol for cold temperature restricted airports and its use.

·  Dated September 1, 2017: Regulatory Consistency Communication Board Decision: PC-12 Compliance with 14 CFR part 135 §135.163(f) Equipment requirements: Aircraft carrying passengers under instrument flight rules (IFR). Was the FAA reviewing operator-specific procedures to demonstrate compliance with §135.163(f)?

·  Dated August 28, 2017, InFO 17013 serves to inform industry of the NWS’s plan to discontinue production of the FA for the CONUS and transition to the Graphical Forecast for Aviation (GFA).

·  Dated August 25, 2017: B747-8 MMEL Revision 7.

·  Dated August 25, 2017: AFS Future of Flight Standards Reorganization Responsibility Quick Reference Sheet―Use this Quick Reference Sheet to determine the office to contact with your policy issue or question.

·  Effective August 24, 2017, Notice 8900.434 provides guidance to FAA safety inspectors on program policies and procedures related to Specialty Aircraft Examiners (SAE), which are created as a new Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE) type. SAEs include Vintage Aircraft Examiners (VAE), experimental aircraft examiners (EAE), Vintage Flight Engineer Examiners (VFEE), Limited Aircraft Examiners (LAE), Sport Pilot Examiners (SPE), and Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Examiners (SFIE). Additional designees may be added to the SAE type if future needs require examiners who do not fit into the traditional DPE types.

·  Dated August 23, 2017: Columbia Helicopters CH-47D MMEL Original.

·  Published August 22, 2017: Final Rule―Incorporation by Reference of ICAO Annex 2; Removal of Outdated North Atlantic Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications.

·  Dated August 21, 2017: Bombardier BD-500 MMEL Original.

·  Dated August 18, 2017, SAFO 17010 provides some best practices for accomplishing an approach and landing on the correct airport surface.

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

(published and posted on public websites as of the last OSWG meeting) (page 2 of 6)

·  Dated August 18, 2017, InFO 17012 serves to remind Directors of Operations and Chief Pilots of 14 CFR part 121 and part 135 air carriers/operators certified under part 119 of the regulatory requirement to provide adequate numbers of flight instructors and check pilots/check flight engineers to conduct required flight training and checks.

·  Effective August 15, 2017, Notice 8900.432 provides guidance to POIs with oversight responsibilities for 14 CFR part 119 certificate holders conducting part 121 and/or part 135 operations on regulatory requirements for flight instructors and check pilots/check Flight Engineers.

·  Dated August 15, 2017: Airbus A-330 MMEL Revision 17a.

·  Dated August 15, 2017: SAAB 2000 MMEL Revision 2.

·  Dated August 15, 2017: Safety Assurance System (SAS) External Portal Information Guide.

·  Dated August 14, 2017: Safety Assurance System (SAS) External Portal Training.

·  Effective August 11, 2017, Notice 8900.431 provides inspectors with information on holdover times (HOT) and recommendations on various other ground deicing/anti-icing issues.

·  Dated August 11, 2017: Pilatus Aircraft PC-12/47E MMEL Revision 2b.

·  Dated August 10, 2017: B787 MMEL Revision 14.

·  Effective August 9, 2017, Notice 8900.429 provides inspectors with information to assist FAA-certificated repair stations (CRS) that also hold EASA Part-145 approval. This notice is intended to address recent concerns that have been raised by the FAA CRS and ASIs regarding the changes contained in the Maintenance Annex Guidance (MAG) Change 6.

·  Published August 7, Proposed Rule: Use of ADS-B Out in Support of RVSM Operations, would eliminate the requirement for operators to apply for an RVSM authorization when their aircraft meet current altitude-keeping performance requirements for operations in RVSM airspace and are equipped with qualified ADS-B Out systems. Comments close September 5, 2017.

·  Dated August 7, 2017, AC 43-215 describes procedures for calibrating an aircraft magnetic compass to minimize the effect of aircraft-induced magnetic fields. These procedures are often referred to as “swinging the compass” or a “compass swing.” This AC is not mandatory and does not constitute a regulation. These means are not the only means to perform aircraft compass calibration.


 

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

(published and posted on public websites as of the last OSWG meeting) (page 3 of 6)

·  Effective August 4, 2017, Notice 8900.428 provides guidance and information to ASIs responsible for oversight of 14 CFR part 135 certificate holders that operate Pilatus PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 aircraft, serial numbers 101-888 (legacy Pilatus), under IFR passenger-carrying operations.

·  Dated August 4, 2017: G650 (Part 125) MMEL Original.

·  Dated August 3, 2017: Embraer ERJ-170/175/190/195 MMEL Revision 15.

·  Dated August 1, 2017, InFO 17011 provides §135.163(f) electrical power compliance information to certificate holders requesting authorization to, or operating the Pilatus PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 airplanes, serial numbers 101-888 (legacy Pilatus), in part 135 IFR passenger-carrying operations.

·  Dated July 28, 2017: Embraer EMB-545/550 MMEL Revision 2.

·  Dated July 26, 2017, InFO 17010 serves to inform industry about the Future of Flights Standards (FFS) Initiative which is a reorganization project that will affect policy, guidance and documents.

·  Dated July 25, 2017, InFO 17009 replaces cancelled InFO 15003 and serves to inform operators of turbine-powered aircraft about the importance of establishing a point during landing where a go-around or rejected landing procedure will not be initiated and the only option will be bringing the aircraft to a stop.

·  Dated July 21, 2017: Lockheed L-382J MMEL Revision 1.

·  Dated July 17, 2017, InFO 17008 alerts air carriers to safety concerns involving PEDs when transported in checked baggage.

·  Dated July 7, 2017: Pilatus Aircraft PC-12 MMEL Revision 2c.

·  Dated July 5, 2017: B737 Flight Standardization Board (FSB) Report Revision 14.

·  Dated June 29, 2017: B727-100/200 MMEL Revision 49a.

·  Published June 28, 2017: Final Rule―Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems.

·  Effective June 21, 2017, Notice 8900.426 supplements all policy, guidance, and documents impacted by the structural and organizational changes for the Future of Flight Standards (FFS) transformation where references to certain organizational entities are no longer valid.

·  Dated June 15, 2017, InFO 17007 provides guidance on FAA-Approved MMEL relief allowed by regulation and associated operator MEL for aircraft navigation databases.

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

(published and posted on public websites as of the last OSWG meeting) (page 4 of 6)

·  Dated June 9, 2017, AC 20-164A identifies an acceptable means, but not the only means, for designing and demonstrating aircraft tolerance to potential electromagnetic interference from portable electronic devices (PEDs).

·  Dated June 8, 2017: Gulfstream Aerospace G-450 MMEL (14 CFR part 125) Original.

·  Effective June 1, 2017, Notice 8900.424 announces revised policy associated with MMEL Policy Letter (PL) 98, Navigation Databases.

·   Effective May 31, 2017, Notice 8900.423 announces revisions to AC 133-1, Rotorcraft External-Load Operations; FAA Order 8900.1 guidance/policy; and 14 CFR part 133 LOA templates in WebOPSS to align with current regulations and policy. These revisions also address Class B human external cargo (HEC) operations to include portable safety devices (PSD).

·  Dated May 31, 2017, AC 133-1B provides background information, describes rotorcraft external-load operations, and describes an acceptable means, but not the only means, to apply for and obtain authorization to conduct rotorcraft external-load operations under 14 CFR part 133.

·   Dated May 30, 2017, SAFO 17009 cancels SAFO 16010 and advises the general aviation community of changes to the evaluation standards for the slow flight task and certain stall tasks in the Private Pilot – Airplane ACS (FAA-S-ACS-6A) and the Commercial Pilot – Airplane ACS (FAA-S-ACS-7), which will be effective June 12, 2017.

·  Dated May 30, 2017: Major Repair and Alteration Data Approval Job Aid Revision 5.4.

·  Dated May 25, 2017: Airbus Helicopters AS-350 MMEL Revision 6b.

·  Dated May 24, 2017: Airbus Helicopters EC-130 MMEL Revision 5.

·  Effective May 15, 2017, Notice 8900.422 advises POIs of changes to the Special Pilot-In-Command (PIC) Qualification Airport List.

·  Dated May 12, 2017: B767 MMEL Revision 38.

·  Dated May 12, 2017: Foreign Air Carrier OpSpec C384 Job Aid/Instructions Revision 20.

·  Dated May 4, 2017, SAFO 17007 encourages the development of training and line-operations policies which will ensure that proficiency in manual flight operations is developed and maintained for air carrier pilots.

·   Effective April 26, 2017, Notice 8900.418 clarifies the exemption 12555 process and informs inspectors of the procedures for processing an operator’s notification of compliance with Exemption 12555.

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

(published and posted on public websites as of the last OSWG meeting) (page 5 of 6)

·  Dated April 13, 2017: B777 Flight Standardization Board (FSB) Report Revision 8.

·  Dated April 13, 2017: B787 Flight Standardization Board (FSB) Report Revision 4. Dated April 11, 2017, AC 120-72A provides descriptions of references and training materials to ensure that the reader can assemble a Maintenance Human Factors (MxHF) training program matched to the applicable needs of their specific organization.

·   Effective April 11, 2017, Notice 8900.416 amends all OpSpec, MSpec, LOA D097 Aging Aircraft Programs, templates and associated FAA guidance.

·   Dated April 10, 2017, InFO 17006 provides information to operators, pilots and aircraft dispatchers, regarding the use of the Localized Aviation Model-Output-Statistics (MOS) Program (LAMP) weather product.

·  Effective April 7, 2017, Notice 8900.415 requires POIs to conduct a focused review to identify and correct part 121 qualification programs that allow the logging of flight time towards the Operating Experience (OE) or consolidation requirements during augmented flightcrew operations when the flightcrew member is not seated at the controls (or Flight Engineer (FE) station) and performing the pilot or FE duties, as applicable.

·  Effective April 5, 2017, Notice 8900.412 provides notification of a revision to optional OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C048/MC048 Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) Operations for certificate holders, program managers, and operators conducting fixed‑wing airplane operations under 14 CFR parts 91K, 121, 125, A125 LODA, 129, and 135. This notice also introduces LOA C048 for operators conducting fixed-wing airplane operations under part 91.

·  Dated April 5, 2017: Airbus A330 MMEL Revision 17.

·  Effective April 3, 2017, Notice 8900.411 provides guidance for aviation safety inspectors assigned to air agencies conducting operations under 14 CFR part 145 Repair Stations. This notice amends the standard language in the templates for Operations Specifications (OpSpecs) A003, Ratings and Limitations; and A025, Electronic/Digital Recordkeeping System, Electronic/Digital Signature, and Electronic Media.

·  Effective March 31, 2017, Notice 8900.410 clarifies the differences between overhaul processes and the inspections that make up required inspection programs under 14 CFR part 91

·  Dated March 27, 2017: Major Repair and Alteration Data Approval Job Aid Revision 5.3.

·  Dated March 23, 2017, InFO 17005 notifies external stakeholders about the deployment of the FAA Aircraft Certification Service (AIR) and Flight Standards Service (AFS) Regulatory Consistency Communication Board RCCB.

·  Dated March 10, 2017: Textron Aviation Model 300 MMEL Revision 9A.

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

(published and posted on public websites as of the last OSWG meeting) (page 6 of 6)

·  Dated March 9, 2017: B737-8 MAX MMEL Original.

·  Dated March 9, 2017, SAFO 17004 serves to warn operators that strapping cargo to a pallet to restrain cargo must be done in accordance with configurations explicitly permitted by the design approval holder’s FAA-approved Weight and Balance Manual (WBM) or WBM supplement.

·  Dated March 9, 2017, SAFO 17003 serves to warn 14 CFR part 121 Air Carriers of safety concerns and operational compliance issues regarding Weight and Balance Programs (WBP).

·  Dated March 8, 2017: Airbus Helicopters EC-135 MMEL Revision 6.

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