Meeting Minutes FAA/Aviation Industry

OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) 2004-02

April 27 (Tuesday, 1 pm-5 pm)/28 (Wednesday, 8:30-noon), 2004

Air Transport Association,

Suite 1100 , 1301 Pennsylvania Ave,

NW, Washington, DC

(202-626-4000)

 

Meeting Schedule/Location—NOTE the location changes for October 2004 and January 2005

 

January 20-21, 2004

American Airlines – Dallas

April 27-28, 2004

ATA

1301 Penn Ave– Washington, DC--

July 20-21, 2004

COMAIR – Cincinnati

October 19-20, 2004

Atlanta , GA —Delta

January 18, 19, 2005

Dallas, SWA

 

Chairpersons: Casey Seabright, NWA, Industry Chair

John Cowan, UAL, Industry Vice Chair

Connie Streeter, FAA Chair

 

1. Convene:                                                     Chair

 

§                Roll call

§                Set January 2005 meeting location.  Changed the October meeting location.

§                SPEC revision is available on www.opspecs.com website.  The revision adds

the” standing agenda item” that is OpSpec C050, Special PIC Qual Airports Updated List.

Comair General Office Building located at77 Comair Blvd.,

Erlanger , KY 41018 .  The G.O. as we call it, is basically at the CVG airport.

 

He has secured 40 rooms at the Radisson River Front hotel in Covington, Kentucky, for the nights of July 19th and 20th  ( 859) 491-1200 .  The cost will be $47.00 per night.  Comair will provide transportation to and from the airport/G.O. to the Hotel.

More Details to come.

 

2.  Status of Assigned Action Items:                  Chairpersons

Review, amend, and adopt agenda

 

3.  OpSpec A013, Operations Without Certain Emergency Equipment (deviation)

Background:   A regulatory change to 14 CFR Part 135 and Part 91K now allows for a similar deviation for Part 135 certificate holders. 

FAA Lead =  Alaska CMO/Connie Streeter

Industry Lead = Jim Winkleman, Alaska Airlines (part 121))/ Dave Hewitt, Part 135

Desired Outcome:

a.   It was suggested that we do not change the OpSpec in regard to the policy but consider updating the guidance to suggest that a demo may need to be done if a ditching demo has never been done with the make/model of airplane IAW Section 121.291 that is proposed for the A013 operation. 

b.   Provide similar OpSpec & guidance for the Part 135 certificate holders.

Action/Outcome: 

a .  AFS-260 added the following statement to the Order 8400.10 guidance for A013 but it was rejected by AFS-220 as not a regulatory requirement for the A013 deviation:

“Issuance of OpSpec paragraphs A013 andA005 may not preclude the need for at least an abbreviated ditching demonstration.   Depending upon the circumstances, the CMO may require an abbreviated ditching demonstration before submitting the request to HQ.”

 

b.   Dave Hewitt, Industry Lead:  Design an OpSpec A013 specifically for the Part 135 database to provide the same/similar deviation for 14 CFR Part 135 certificate holders .

 

c.   Jim Winkleman provided a definition of an “abbreviated ditching demo” for passenger-carrying operations and Bill Cook will provide his input for all cargo.  However, now it will not be necessary.

 

4.  OpSpec A028, Wet Leases:

BACKGROUND:  The subject of Wet Leases has been a point of confusion and discussion for many years.  At various times there appears to be a renewed interest in the subject.  Last week it came to the attention of AFS HQ that certain air carriers were not being allowed to wet lease in certain foreign countries because it was not clear as to which carrier had operational control.  As a result, we dug into our archives of unfinished business and found an old draft of A028 and have refined it to satisfy the foreign authorities.

 

FAA Lead —Dave Catey/Connie Streeter

Industry Lead Amerijet & counsel

 

Desired Outcome: 

1—Satisfy both domestic and foreign authorities

2---Clarify which certificate holder has operational control

3—Clarify which certificate holder has responsibility for the aircraft maintenance

 

ActionRevise the existing A028;

Re-roll it in the OPSS as a Mandatory change; --scheduled for May 30—but don’t hold your breath…..

Revise the guidance for A028 in 8400.10.

 

5.  OpSpec B034, PRNAV/BRNAV:

FAA Lead:  (Rich Gastrich/C. Streeter)

Industry Lead:

Background :   Proposal to revise B034 to accommodate PRNAV—Already use it for BRNAV..

 

Desired Outcome :   As AFS-400/200 is in the process of developing guidance into the Order 8400.10, and to provide for the required PRNAV authorization. 

 

Action:  Revise B034—Proposal is planned to be available at April 2004 OSWG meeting.  It is available on the opspecs.com website.

 

6.  OpSpec C059/C359, CAT II Operations

 

OpSpec C059, CAT II Approach Authorization

Background:

a.  Jackson Seltzer (CAL) to provide update/report on questions raised regarding the question of lighting equivalents, i.e. allowing a CAT II using MALSR.  The final draft of updates to 8400.10 for CAT II all weather operations, the revision to paragraph C059, and the new OpSpec C359 available on opspecs.com and will be reviewed and discussed.

b.  An official revision to C059, CAT II, was published with an ambiguity in the airport/runway authorized.

 

Industry Lead = Jackson Seltzer

FAA Lead = AFS-410/AFS-200

 

Desired Outcome:

a.  Determine if MALSR is sufficient for CAT II operations.  Clarify language and/or guidance for 6-6-6 inop. 

b.  Correct discrepancies for CAT II airports. 

 

Action/Outcome:

a.  Action – Jackson Seltzer will provide a status report to the group re: MALSR.

 

"The certificate holder is authorized to conduct Category II (CAT II) instrument approach and landing operations using the procedures and minimums specified in this paragraph and shall conduct no other CAT II operations under this authorization." 

 

b.  The certificate holder is authorized to use the airplanes listed in Table 1 below using the following CAT II straight-in approach and landing minimums provided all the applicable limitations and provisions of this operations specification are met.”

 

**AFS 200 will also look at revising C060 in a similar way.  However, the guidance also needs to change accordingly.

**The 4 RVR system guidance was put into the OpSpec.

c.  Action —Connie Streeter, AFS-260 Lead—Revise OpSpec C059:  CAT II, C059 will be re-rolled by the end of May 2004.

 

OpSpec C359, Special Authorization For Certain Category II Operations at Specifically Approved Facilities

 

Background:  Order 8400.13 was published November 2002.  When OpSpec C059 for CAT II operations was revised, OpSpec C359 was put into place because of the requirements of Order 8400.13 for CAT II operations.  Even though this OpSpec is in the “300” series, for authorization the operator does not have to follow the “nonstandard OpSpec process” for its authorization.s published November 2002.  When OpSpec C059 for CAT II operations was revised, OpSpec C359 was put into place because of the requirements of Order 8400.13 for CAT II operations.  Even though this OpSpec is in the “300” series, for authorization the operator does not have to follow the “nonstandard OpSpec process” for its authorization.r CAT II operations.  Even though this OpSpec is in the “300” series, for authorization the operator does not have to follow the “nonstandard OpSpec process” for its authorization.

 

FAA Lead :  AFS-410/AFS-200

Industry Lead:   Jim Johnson, AA

 

Desired Outcome:  Explanation of how to be able to use C359.

 

Action/Outcome: 8400.13 Checklist for approvals is the required method.

Dick Temple will work with Lyle Wink on the status of these—which approach procedures are now published as Part 97s.

 

*No report at this meeting.  However, AFS-410 has provided AFS-260 with a list of the airports that have been approved at this time.  AFS-260 will put this list into the JobAid for C359.

 

7.  OpSpec C066, Turbojet Airplane Takeoff Operations in Tailwind Conditions Not to Exceed 15 Knots

 

Background:   Chuck Schramek presented (at previous OSWG meeting) the reasons for additional restrictions for 15 kt tailwind takeoff authorizations.  AFM performance penalties are already restrictive.

 

Industry Lead = Chuck Schramek, Delta AirLines

FAA Lead = AFS-400/AFS-200

 

Desired Outcome:   Chuck will provide a copy of his proposal to anyone that contacts him; Connie agreed to pose the question to the FAA’s expert, Don Simpson; FAA There should also be a review the OpSpec paragraphs themselves to see if they are presented for authorization correctly.

 

Action/Outcome: 

If carrier has certification data not to restrict then they should not be restricted as it should be performance-based; Chuck Schramek plans to have results of proposed changes within 60 days.

 

A draft HBAT is in coordination to facilitate the archiving of both C066 and C069.  If any one can predict an unintended consequence that is detrimental to their operations when this occurs, please contact Chuck Schramek to discuss.

 

 

8. OpSpec C078/C079, Lower Than Standard Takeoff Minimums.  Parts 121, 125, and 135

 

1)  Background: At previous meetings, Chu ck Schramek discussed the issue for takeoff and departure operations at Las Vegas and the inherent confusion regarding takeoff minima statements on DP’s and takeoff minima on the airport pages. 

Question also about SLC:   Previously, an issue was raised regarding runway 17/35 at KSLC as not included in their SMGCS Plan so no operations below 1200 RVR were authorized on that runway.  I therefore asked Jepp to change the takeoff minimums at SLC rwy 17/35 to 1200 RVR since the runway infrastructure supports takeoffs down to at least 1200 RVR.  OpSpecs and SMGCS do not agree.  OpSpecs address 1600, 1000, 500 and below 500.  NO SMGCS limits to 1200 or above.  SMGCS cutoffs are below 1200 to 600, then below 600 to 300.  Allowable take off minimums are the maximum of any limits, OpSpecs, SMGCS, etc.

SLC rwy 17/35 included in their SMGCS plan down to 600 RVR.  Once that happens I will ask Jepp to change the SLC rwy 17/35 takeoff minimums to 600 RVR. Norm Lefevre, (425) 227-1737.

 

Industry Lead = Chuck Schramek, Delta AirLines & John Cowan, United

FAA Lead = AFS-400/AFS-200

The following group agreed to get together to resolve the effect of the SMGCS issue:

Tom Schneider, AFS-420

Chuck Schramek, DALA

Kelly Dixon, Skywest

Jeppesen Representative

FAA CSET-Bob Januzzi

Jerry Ostronic, AFS-220

Dick Temple, AFS-410

Jack Wilkes, ALPA

Connie Streeter, AFS-260

 

Desired Outcome:   

a.  Resolution of the 4 RVR requirements:  2 Issues:  1) takeoff mins vs DP’s and 2) RVR requirements and charting

 

b.  How is official notification made to the public that a runway has 4 RVR?

 

Action/Outcome: 

¨      John Cowan met with Jeppesen in February

¨      AFS-410 will come up with appropriate change in the language for the 4 rvr systems

      and provide guidance on these systems other than in the OpSpecs.

¨      This affects other OpSpec paragraphs as well.

¨      AFS should publish a Notice with information if necessary.

 

2)  Desired Outcome:  To finally get the RVR requirements established for 2, 3, & 4 RVR system runways as they relate to the length of the runways .

 

FAA Lead = Dick Temple, AFS-410/Connie Streeter, AFS-260/AFS-220

 

Action/Outcome:  A draft of the proposed changes was made available to the OSWG members prior to the meeting and comments were requested.

 

 

9.  OpSpec C074, Category I ILS, MLS, or GLS Approach

(D. Temple/C. Streeter)

 

Background: discussion of changes to 8400.13

 

Industry Lead: 

FAA Leads:  Dick Temple, AFS410/AFS-260/AFS-220

 

 Desired Outcome:  C074 revised to the changes in 8400.13

 

Action/Outcome:  Draft available; Dick Temple was not able to be at the meeting; will move to July agenda.

 

 

 

 

Day 2

Begin at 8:30am

ATA Headquarters doors/elevators open at approximately 8:15 am.

 

 

 

10.  OpSpec B343, Fuel Reserves in International Operations (nonstandard)/ B043

Background:   OpSpec B043 allows for a deviation to the fuel reserve requirements for international flight operations. 

 

FAA Lead = AFS-220 (Jerry Ostronic)/AFS Dispatch Specialists

Industry Lead = Jim Johnson, AA

 

Desired Outcome:  American Airlines requested further reduction in the fuel reserve requirements from B043 for international flight operations.

 

Action/Outcome: 

A.  Jerry Ostronic and others at FAA HQ prepared the nonstandard OpSpec B343 and it was put into the OPSS.  Any carrier that would want to use it must submit its request in accordance with the nonstandard OpSpec request process.  A jobaid is associated with OpSpec B343 that explains the requirements for the request.

 

B.   Gordy Rother proposed a correction and change to the standard B043; this is in informal coordination.  His proposed revision on the opspecs.com website.

 

 

11. OpSpec C067, [Note the change in the title from:] Special Airport Authorizations, Provisions, and Limitations – to  “Special Authorizations, Provisions, and Limitations for Certain Airports”

BACKGROUND:  Part 139 and Section 121.590 are scheduled to change in June:

1.  14CFR Section 121.590 will add the requirement for 9-30 seat pax-carrying commuters to use Part 139 airports.

2.  14 CFR Section 121.590 will clarify that it does not apply to all cargo operations.

 

FAA Lead:   Connie Streeter, AFS-260

Industry Lead:

 

Desired Outcome:   Correct OpSpec C067

 

Action :   Draft change to C067 and revised guidance are now in coordination and are available on the opspecs.com website for review and discussion.  The title and modifiers are changed in the paragraph and the guidance.

 

 

12. OpSpec C050, Special PIC Qualification Airports—14 CFR Section 121.445 Airport List Review & Recommendation of OSWG to AFS-220:

Background:   Advisory Circular 121.445 was cancelled and replaced with OpSpec C050 and guidance that directs the OSWG members to present additions and deletions to the 14 CFR Section 121.445 Special PIC Qualification Airport List.  The recommendation must include the airport information on the completed Airport Assessment Form found in association with OpSpec C050 and on the www.opspecs.com website.  The OSWG members should review the assessment and make a recommendation to FAA Headquarters, specifically AFS-220.  This recommendation will become a part of the OSWG minutes and presented to AFS-220 within 2 weeks of the quarterly OSWG meeting.  The Airport Assessment Form for each specific airport recommendation will also be forwarded to AFS-220.  AFS-220 will make the final determination in regard to the request and recommendation.  If a change in the Special PIC Qualification Airport List is to be made, the OSWG members will be notified by email, the revised List will be posted on the public website at http://www.opspecs.com and in the OPSS guidance subsystem in association with both OpSpec C050 and C067, and reported at the next quarterly OSWG meeting.

 

Industry Lead:   Casey Seabright, NWA

FAA Lead:   AFS-220/260

 

Desired Outcome A known process for updating the Special PIC Qualification Airport List. A consistent process for updating the Special PIC Qualification Airport List.

Action/Outcome: 

Additional processes that are included in the FAA/Industry SPEC for this process:

1) Should have a minimum of 1 week lead time before the OSWG quarterly meeting

2) OSWG Members can vote at the meeting or they can send their recommendation to Connie Streeter for submittal at the meeting.

3) Notification to certificate holders:

¨      Put a Note on the OPSS Splash Screen for first line of notification

¨      Change the Special PIC airport List in guidance subsystem in association with

      OpSpecs C050 and C067

¨      Change the Special PIC airport List on the http://www.opspecs.com/ website

¨      Send email message to OSWG members

 

No ACTION at this time. No current assessments brought forward to the group.

 

 

13. OpSpecs C059/C060—CAT II/CAT III Lists on AFS-410 Website

Background:   Frustration in regard to the CAT II/III list not being updated in a timely manner—and the requirement for the CAT III domestic airports to be listed in OpSpec C060 before an air carrier can conduct CAT III operations at that runway. Casey Seabright provided background for discussion. 

 

Industry Lead = Casey Seabright, NWA     

FAA Lead = AFS-400/AFS-200

 

Desired Outcome:  Hooper Harris, AFS-400 has requested that the OSWG work with him to overhaul the CAT II/III procedure authorization process.

 

Action/Outcome: 

A.  The group proposed that as the domestic part 97 CAT II and CAT III approaches are published they do not have to be on the website in order for the cert holder to conduct those operations; AFS-410 is anticipating having NOTAM ability.

For these runways, when the SIAP is published, it is able to be use per the effective date on the chart.  The AFS-410 website is for information purposes only;  AFS-410 may transfer the CAT II/III approvals to the regional AWOs

When AFS-260 changes those OpSpec paragraphs, notification will be;

¨      Emailed to the OSWG and Splash screen notification

¨      Change the paragraphs, C059 & C060

¨      Change the AFS-410 website

¨      Change the JobAid for C059 and C060

 

B.  OpSpec C059 will be revised accordingly and revised to include the 4RVR sensor requirement and re-rolled as a mandatory change.

 

C.  OpSpec C060 will be revised accordingly and revised to include the 4RVR sensor requirement and re-rolled as a mandatory change.

 

 

14. OpSpec A048.  Verification of Personnel for Access to Flightdeck. 

Background:   Originally the FAA published guidance that the electronic databases to be used for the verification of personnel for access to the flightdeck should be authorized in OpSpec A025. 

 

FAA LEAD = Tom Penland/Joe Keenan, AFS-220

Industry Leads = UPS/American Airlines

 

Desired Outcome:   As AFS-200 is in the process of incorporating that guidance into the Order 8400.10, it was decided that it would be better for this authorization to have its own OpSpec paragraph. 

Air Carriers stated that code shares is a problem.

 

Action:  A draft of the new A048 will be available.

1.  When AFS-220 has completed development of the “checklist” and draft guidance, the OpSpec will be rolled into the OPSS.

2.  The guidance, checklist, and OpSpec documents will be put into formal coordination and published in Order 8400.10.

3.  OpSpec A048 was rolled into the live OPSS about a week after the April OSWG meeting.  Official guidance is in coordination for publication in Order 8400.10.

 

 

15. OpSpec A096/97/98/99, Weight and Balance

Background:  Recent accidents caused the FAA to re-evaluate the Wt. & Balance Programs.  There is rulemaking in progress and a revision to the advisory circular.

 

FAA LEAD: Tom Penland/Dennis Pratte, AFS-220

Industry LEADs : ARC

 

Desired Outcome:   A reasonable safety solution and a tracking of the methodology used by the air carriers.

 

ACTION:  A draft of the 4 proposed paragraphs was available at the meeting for review and discussion; the 4 proposed paragraphs are available on the opspecs.com website.

 

 

16. Added Agenda Item:

 

C055 Alternate Airport Weather Requirments:  

Background: Jim Winkleman suggested an amendment to the Opspec to allow carriers consider Charted Visual Flight Procedures (CVFP’s) for determining alternate airport weather requirements to designate an airport for use as an alternate. 

 

FAA LEAD:

Industry LEADs: Jim Winkleman, Alaska Airlines

 

Desired Outcome: The ability to use alternates with CVFP’s for the purposes of dispatching under CFR 121, while under an IFR flight plan.

 

Action: Connie is taking forward the suggestions and options to review the possibity of an opspec amendment.

 

 

17.  Status Report on other Open Action items:

 

- C070 – Airport Listing :  Gordy Rother and Dave Burnham will work to revise guidance to 8400.10 VOL 3, 1185 so as to clarify guidance….to be developed.

 

- C058 Foreign Instrument Procedures :  Is an update available from AFS-400/AFS-200?  NOT YET.

 

- C089/C090/C052 , RNP RNAV Instrument Approaches: Update from the leads: Jim AFS-410, Vinny Chirachello/Rich Gastrich/AFS-200 Industry Lead = Jim Enias, ATA/Jackson Seltzer, Continental; AFS-410 suggestions-- Available on opspecs.com with change bars

********************


 

ISO 9001 Customer Feedback Assessment:

Subject or Paragraph

Positive

Possible Improvements

Customer