FAA/Aviation Industry Minutes of

OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) 2005-01

January 18 (Tuesday, 1 pm-5 pm)/19 (Wednesday, 8:30-noon), 2005

Comfort Suites, Dallas Love Field

Hosted by

Jim Stieve, Manager of Dispatch ASAP and Operations Performance

Southwest Airlines

 

January 18-19, 2005

SWA—Dallas Ft. Worth

April 26-27, 2005

FAA-Washington , DC

July 26-27, 2005

United – Denver, CO

October 18-19, 2005

FAA-Washington , DC TBA

January 24-25, 2006

Delta - Atlanta

 

Chairpersons:      Casey Seabright, NWA, Industry Chair

John Cowan, UAL, Industry Vice Chair

Connie Streeter, FAA Chair

1.  Convene :

Chair

Roll call—

1.  Roster:  Please pass the Roster around and initial in the left margin if all information is complete and correct;  Please make the necessary corrections;  A copy of this meeting’s Roster will be sent in a separate electronic file to all those on the OSWG email list

2.   2005 Meeting Locations.  Review April 2005, July 2005, October 2005, January 2006 meeting locations.

3.  General Information in Regard to Agenda Items: 

a.  Proposed changes to an OpSpec or to the guidance that would constitute "policy changes" to an OpSpec will generally need to be presented to the OSWG and AFS-260 in HBAT format which includes appendices containing the appropriate revision to the guidance for the OpSpec in 8400.10/8300.10 and a sample of the proposed OpSpec revision and/or guidance. 

b.  If you have a proposal, email Connie Streeter and she will provide you with a sample template for the proposal.

4.  Clarification:  ATA is not bringing the OSWG back under its umbrella as one of the committees it sponsors with ATA personnel.

 

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 the same deviation for Part 135 certificate holders and Fractional Owners (91K).  A HBAT was published that removed the engine reliability requirement and added specific LAT/LONGs for the areas where the authorization might be allowed.  The new OpSpec A013 was never rolled because the FAA is re-evaluating the areas to which this deviation would be restricted.

 

FAA Lead =  AFS-220—Joe Keenan

Industry Lead = Chuck Schramek, Delta Air Lines/Jackson Seltzer, Continental Airlines/Jim Stieve, Southwest Airlines/Bill Cook, UPS

Desired Outcome:

a.  FAA proposes that the d eviation will only be authorized over “warm” water (i.e., 15 ° C/59 ° F) areas as defined by U.S. Coast Guard Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 7-91. 

b.  Industry wants a more reasonable answer.

Discussion:  Industry raised the following concerns:

What’s the problem?

We have been operating for years with no problems.

Where is the risk assessment?

Is it safer to endure turbulence or over fly cold water?

How does an air carrier monitor current water temperature to ensure the deviation is authorized?

 

The paragraph statement: “c.  Inflight operations do not exceed 162 nautical miles from a shoreline at any time” leaves prudent weather deviations in question (i.e., is Captains emergency authority required to exceed 162nm during a prudent weather deviation?). The group will request a minor clarifying revision while in Washington.

 

ACTION Delta and Continental agreed to be the lead carriers to meet in Washington with the appropriate FAA personnel to work this out.

 

REPORT:  Chuck Schramek, DALA.

 

Chuck’s Report: After the 10/04 OSWG meeting, Chuck, Capt. Seltzer, and Bill Cook met with Tom Penland and others in DC and agreed to do a performance based analysis. The history of this deviation goes back to the 60’s when the concept was to stay within 30 minutes of the shore if engine inoperative. (This is how 162nm came to be.) The goal is to make this performance based on 30 minutes with an engine out. Chuck drafted a proposed OPSPEC and guidance rewrite and submitted to the FAA. The FAA countered with a proposal utilizing 162 nm for warm water and 100 nm when over cold water.

 

Actions:  Industry is to review and provide comments to Chuck Schramek NLT 2/14.  Chuck plans to meet with Mr. Penland and AFS-200 staff after the OSWG meeting.  When a consensus is reached, Connie will send an electronic copy of the proposal to members and post it on the http://www.opspecs.com/ website.  

 

4.  OpSpec B034, PRNAV/BRNAV:

FAA Lead:   (Rich Gastrich/C. Streeter)

Industry Lead: 

Background :   PRNAV implementation in European airspace is scheduled for November 20, 2004.

DISCUSSION:   New B034 was missing: (3) An approved area navigation system fix may be substituted for a required en route ground facility when that facility is temporarily out of service, provided the approved navigation system has sufficient accuracy to navigate the aircraft to the degree of accuracy or required navigation performance (RNP) type required for air traffic control over that portion of the flight.” What happened? Possible error…  Connie will verify.

 

Minutes : This deletion was in error and has been replaced as reported below by Connie Streeter.

 

New issue: Why do we specify in (5c) that when using a single area nav system, primary navigation must be predicated on the ground based facilities?  See below:

(5) Except as provided in subparagraph (6), IFR Class I navigation using a single area navigation system shall not be conducted unless Class I navigation with a single system is authorized by this paragraph and all of the following conditions are met:

 

(c) The facilities which define the airway or off-airway routing are used as the primary navigation reference.

 

Industry Lead: Jackson Seltzer, Continental Airlines

 

Desired Outcome :   HBAT 04-10, IFR Operating Requirements for U.S. Operators and Aircraft in European Airspace Designated for Basic Area Navigation (B-RNAV) and Precision Area Navigation (P-RNAV) Operations was published to revise Order 8400.10 guidance and to provide for the required PRNAV authorization by updating the format of the OpSpec.   The OpSpec previously addressed only BRNAV.

 

Action:    “(3) An approved area navigation system fix may be substituted for a required en route ground facility when that facility is temporarily out of service, provided the approved navigation system has sufficient accuracy to navigate the aircraft to the degree of accuracy or required navigation performance (RNP) type required for air traffic control over that portion of the flight.” What happened? This was removed in error.

 

REPORT:   Connie Streeter:  The statement was indeed removed in error.  It was put back into the OpSpec and B034 was re-rolled 12/03/04.

 

5.  OpSpec B050.  Delta question.  B050 - Why do we list Gulf of Mexico and Mexico together? 

Mexico, excluding the Gulf of Mexico

Mexico, including the Gulf of Mexico

 

 

Authorized Areas of En Route Operation

Reference Paragraphs

Note Reference #

Mexico, excluding the Gulf of Mexico

B031, B032

 

Mexico, including the Gulf of Mexico

B031, B032, B036

 

 

ACTION:  Explanation why there are two selections for Mexico.  One authorization indicates that the certificate holder must also be authorized B036 for Class II navigation.

 

Minutes: B050 is complicated so the distinguished Southern Gentleman withdrew the question. 

 

6.  C055 Alternate Airport Weather Requirements:  

 

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.  Connie has taken forward the suggestions and options to review the possibility of an opspec amendment.

 

FAA LEAD:  Dennis Pratte/Dave Burr, AFS-260

Industry LEAD: 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.

 

Discussion:  The FAA is reluctant to entertain this concept due to concerns over an “equivalent level of safety”. Requesting a non-standard paragraph for a specific airport may be an option.

 

Action:  Dave Burr agreed to the following action items:

-                  Readdress the use of “CVFP” approach alternates with his FAA counter parts.

-                Consider the use of facilities with only RNAV approaches as an alternate.

 

Minutes:   Jim will provide Dave Burr with the history and Dave will discuss with Tom Penland. Keep on the agenda for now…  Can GPS approaches be used as an alternate by non WAAS certified airplanes? 

 

Answer: The non-WAAS GPS boxes are not certified for “primary” means…thus, for en route or for approach there still has to be a ground-based NAVAID.  It is a certification issue.

 

7.  OpSpec C359, CAT II Operations- -- 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.  C0359.  

 

Since a regional AWO has raised the issue of certain carriers legality in operating to certain approved runways we have become aware that many carriers have had airport/runways approved (years ago under the original guidance in 8400.10).  POIs and carriers that were in compliance with the past guidance are now being told that airport/runways need to be re-approved.

 

FAA Lead :  AFS-410/AFS-200

Industry Lead:   Jim Johnson, AA

 

Desired Outcome:  Explanation of how to be able to use C359.   We have not received adequate explanation for the runways being taken from them other than they are not listed on a web site.

 

Discussion:  Dick Temple explained that the original list from Order 8400.13 was reviewed and revised and can be found on the AFS-410 website.  Forty have been requested for CAT I.  Order 8400.13 is presently revised again and in coordination.  The OpSpec may have to change as a result.  Bruce Montiguey requested that the subparagraph c be removed for “training and checking” because he felt the real intent was not to train this separately which that statement implies.  s reviewed and revised and can be found on the AFS-410 website.  Forty have been requested for CAT I.  Order 8400.13 is presently revised again and in coordination.  The OpSpec may have to change as a result.  Bruce Montiguey requested that the subparagraph c be removed for “training and checking” because he felt the real intent was not to train this separately which that statement implies.  presently revised again and in coordination.  The OpSpec may have to change as a result.  Bruce Montiguey requested that the subparagraph c be removed for “training and checking” because he felt the real intent was not to train this separately which that statement implies. 

 

Action/Outcome:  8400.13 appendices provide the Checklists for requesting runway approvals.

Dick Temple will work with Lyle Wink on the status of these airports and determine which approach procedures are now published as Part 97s.  If you have any runways that are in question send msg to Dick Temple and he will do a “desk audit” on them. 

 

Bruce and other POIs are also reviewing the necessity of having a separate paragraph at all for this authorization C359.

 

Minutes:   Bruce will work on merging the limited value of C359 into C059 and then allowing for the elimination of C359. He owes Connie the proposal and updated HBAT. Dick Temple provided a brief on some of the changes coming with 8400.13b (e.g., CL no longer required for CAT II).

 

8. OpSpecs 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.

 

Discussion:  Dick Temple explained that the AFS-410 website has now been changed. 

 

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 C060 will be revised accordingly and revised to include the 4 RVR sensor requirement and subparagraph for 14 CFR Section 121.652.

re-rolled as a mandatory change.

C.  Continental requested non-std language to add “SSALSR” to the approach lighting system requirements.  Still being reviewed by the FAA.

 

ACTION:  

1- Revise the 8400.10 guidance to correspond to the revisions to C060 from a few years ago.

Request “equal” equipment (e.g., same HGS model) get credit for flight trials. Trying to get 25 landings with every variant of airframe/equipment is often difficult and provides little value. Change restrictions on website to show the variant.  Casey and Jim Winkleman will travel to Washington to discuss…

 

An OpSpec C060 revision addressing approach lighting and missed approach guidance is in the works. 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Minutes: Industry to review the tables and provide Dick with feedback on how the table could be made more intuitive and user friendly. Be sure to review the guidance in the paragraphs prior to commenting.

 

9. OpSpec C067 HBAT 04-11 was published with the revision to OpSpec C067 and guidance.

 

Industry Lead:  Chuck Schramek, Delta Air Lines

FAA Lead:  Dave Catey, AFS-200/AFS-220

 

BACKGROUND Part 139 and Section 121.590 changed in June 2004:

1.  14CFR Section 121.590 added the requirement for 9-30 seat pax-carrying scheduled operations to use Part 139 airports unless they could provide the same level of safety at an airport that did not have part 139 certification.

2.  14 CFR Section 121.590 does not apply to all cargo operations.

3.   The title and modifiers were changed in the OpSpec.

 

DISCUSSION:  Concerning listing Military airfields in this OPSPEC, Industry interprets 121.590 in the following way:  If it’s not operated by the U.S. Government or Part 139 certified, THEN the airport must be included in the OPSPEC. Hence, there is no need to list Military airfields in the OPSPEC as they are “Government” airport.

 

ACTION/Outcome:  Remove requirement for listing Military airports in C067.

 

MINUTES REPORT:  Connie Streeter—Revised HBAT 04-11 removing the requirement to list domestic U.S. Military Airports;  OpSpec C067 was also revised and re-rolled.

 

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

(D. Temple/C. Streeter)

 

Industry Lead:  Chuck Schramek, Delta Air Lines/Jackson Seltzer, Continental Airlines

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

 

Background:  Order 8400.13 was revised November 2003.  It is now in coordination with new changes.  s revised November 2003.  It is now in coordination with new changes.  Since a regional AWO has raised the issue of certain carriers legality in operating to certain approved runways we have become aware that many carriers have had airport/runways approved (years ago under the original guidance in 8400.10).  POIs and carriers that were in compliance with the past guidance are now being told that airport/runways need to be re-approved.  We have not received adequate explanation for this other than they are not listed on a web site. 

 

D iscussion:   Once any runway has been officially charted by the FAA, it will not be required to have it listed in the OpSpec paragraph.

 

Desired Outcome: 

C074 and corresponding guidance in Order 8400.10 (ISO 9001 process #200-012) revised to reflect the changes in Order 8400.13 revision followed for proposed revisions

 

Action/Outcome:   Review C074 and corresponding guidance in Order 8400.10 (ISO 9001 process #200-012) need to be revised to reflect the changes in Order 8400.13 revision.

 

[Success] :  Eventually official Part 97 charts will reflect the fact that the runway is approved for this operation—when that occurs, that runway will no longer need to be listed in the OpSpec itself.

 

However, The carriers are requesting Hooper Harris, Manager, AFS-410, to provide a thorough detailed explanation why this is happening.

Minutes:  The FAA needs to provide updated Guidance for this OpSpec.

 

 

Day 2

Begin at 8:30am

 

 

 

11.  Customer Survey Connie Streeter asked each meeting participant to fill out an OSWG Customer Survey.  This is a new requirement for FAA personnel.  Results of previous survey are at the end of this agenda.

 

12.  OpSpec B043 Fuel Reserves in International Operations:

FAA Lead: Gordy Rother / Jerry Ostronic

Industry Lead(s):  Jim Johnson, American Airlines

 

DISCUSSION:  [Industry perspective] Whereas B043 currently states “where the aircraft position cannot reliably fixed at least once each hour” , the proposed change says “outside the service volume”.   It appears the net effect would require additional contingency fuel to compensate for the hour outbound and inbound while the plane is outside the service volume; no more credit for the hour outside on each end of the route.  This class 1 navigation definition is a shift from the guidance in B032 to what is provided in A002.  So once again, the FAA’s inability to agree among themselves on what constitutes Class 1 navigation has come back to haunt Industry and those attempting to provide FAA oversight. This capriciousness has led to this immense confusion and continues to do so. It is time to streamline the two class 1 definitions into a single one and end the confusion. 

 

Moreover, when the FAA was asked where the problem was with the existing B043 guidance (i.e., “where the aircraft position cannot reliably fixed at least once each hour”), no answer could be provided. Evidently, there were no safety, risk analysis or financial impact studies accomplished. 

 

Further (added by the FAA), 14 CFR Section 121.389 gives a very old twist to the “once each hour” fix and refers back to Section 121.355 where the explicit equipment for 121.389 is given, Doppler and INS.  In retrospect, when Section 121.351 was codified a few years ago, this regulation should have been changed. 

 

ACTION:   Expect B043 to be updated with a correction to the requirement for an alternate during supplemental operations, while the FAA continues to debate the definition of “class 1 navigation”.

 

Minutes: Gordy explained that using the current NAV aid trigger is flawed, not consistently applied and is concerned over the quality of wind data used by the different operators. For now, only paragraph “b” dealing with supplemental carries will be revised (Gordy to provide.) The rest of the debate is still open and Jim Johnson will work with the FAA on their concerns. Industry did seem open to the concept of beefing up the OPSPEC by clarifying the quality of wind data used.

 

B343: Jim Johnson handed out proposed changes to B343. One of the proposals is to allow a combination of both the 5% and Redispatch deviations. The FAA was receptive to some of the proposed requests and will review them as appropriate. 

 

13.  C058 Foreign Instrument Procedures :  Tom Schneider is proposing that the POIs have specific training in this area.  This document was coordinated through the FAA PARC group. 

 

ACTION:  Casey Seabright sent his letter to AFS-420 and received an unsatisfactory reply.  Connie Streeter sent AFS-420 a counter-proposal for handling Foreign Terminal Instrument Procedures. 

 

Revision to Order 8260.31 is still not acceptable to industry:  Connie Streeter presented the following recommendation to handle what used to be the Appendices of that Order but it was rejected by Tom Schneider:

Four years ago we (the OpSpec Working Group-OSWG) asked AFS-420 to update the APPENDICES of Order 8260.31 and not the Order itself.  Four years later, we still have no updated guidance for OpSpec C058, Foreign Instrument Terminal Procedures, which derives its guidance from the APPENDICES of Order 8260.31

 

AFS-420 has proposed unacceptible changes to Order 8260.31 but has never offered any updates to the Appendices since then nor since the inception of the Order which was during the Cold War.....so, of course, there are no Russian procedures on it...no one was allowed to fly there.  China is now on the map--wasn't then; places in the Middle/Far East that the operators did not fly to before were not evaluated, etc.

 

When Order 8260.31 was originally written, only our Part 121 air carriers conducted operations to the various places outside of the USA.  Now we have operators conducting operations all over the globe under Part 135, under Part 91K (Fractional Owners), and Part 125. Information in regard to those foreign instrument terminal procedures that do not meet the TERPS, JAA, or PANS-OPS criteria needs to be made available for the benefit of all these operators.  The burden should not and must not be put on the Part 121 air carriers to provide the information.  With today's technology, expertise, and collaboration with the DOD, the FAA should be able to provide an acceptible methodology to have this information available.

 

We propose the following process for keeping this information up to date something like we have for the Special PIC Qualification Airport-121.445 process.  In brief:

 

1.  AFS-420 would provide to the OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) & AFS-260 an initial draft revision to the Appendices.

2.  The OSWG would be able to negotiate with AFS-420 to finalize the the initial list.

3.  AFS-260 would maintain the list on the website [opspecs.com] and in the OPSS guidance subsystem in association with OpSpec C058.

4.  AFS-420 would devise a checklist that both the FAA or an Operator [not just the part 121 big 10 carriers] could use to evaluate a foreign terminal instrument procedure in order to submit a Proposal that it be removed or added to the appendices.  (We have a nice checklist for the 121.445 process; this checklist would be available in the OPSS guidance subsystem in association with OpSpec C058).

5.  The checklist would be used for presenting the Proposal for removal or addition and would be presented to the OSWG group who would provide a consolidated recommendation of concurrence or non-concurrence;

6.  The OSWG recommendation and the checklist/proposal would be forwarded to AFS-420 for final evaluation and decision.

7.  AFS-420 would give its final decision to AFS-260 (with explanation, if necessary)in a timely manner.

8.  If a change would be in order:

A.  AFS-260 would send out a Notice announcing the change, if applicable. 

B.  AFS-260 would post the revision to the list on the [opspecs.com] website and within the OPSS guidance subsystem (C058).

9.  If no change, the decision would be presented at the following quarterly OSWG meeting.

Casey Seabright plans to meet with Don Pate, Branch Manager of AFS-420 in Oklahoma City to see if .

 

14.  [Standing agenda item]  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 b website

¨      Send email message to OSWG members

¨      Discussion of each individual assessment

¨      Recommendation for AFS-200

DISCUSSION:  Chuck Schramek, Delta Air Lines proposes a removal of the two Russian airports from the Special PIC Qualification Airport List:

Minutes:  Expect to soon see the removal of UUDD and ULLI from the special PIC Qual list.  

 

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

15.  Miscellaneous Information:

1.  FAA Directory.  Starting July 7, 2004, the public will have access to an on-line organization and employee phone directory.  Anyone interested in locating an FAA organization or employee can search by location or employee name by going to the FAA home page under “About FAA” or http://directory.faa.gov .  Point of Contact:  Patricia Carter, APF-100, at patricia.carter@faa.gov or 202-267-9946.

2.  Subject:  Tailored ATC procedures: 

BACKGROUND:  Special (or tailored) procedures that are not included in C081 (e.g., SNA Back Bay 2 Departure).

 

DISCUSSION:   It was pointed out that many of us have special or tailored arrival, approach and departure procedures. Although there are times when such measures are warranted (e.g., Eagle, CO), there are many concerns with this practice. Such as:

-                  Is the procedure being periodically reviewed?

-                  Who is responsible for the procedure?

-                  If a Departure or Approach procedure, is it listed in C081?

Industry Lead(s) : Jim Johnson with John Cowan

FAA Lead:   AFS-410/420

 

ACTION:  The goal is to have the FAA take as many of these procedures “public” as possible. Connie Streeter will contact AFS-410/420 to request that the subject be brought up at one of the regular Procedures meetings so the proper process can be determined & followed.  

 

3.

Subject:

China CCAR-129 operations specifications and certification for foreign air carriers

Dear All,

Here is a short summary of various emails I have received concerning China's CCAR-129 operations specifications and certification for foreign air carriers.  The attached files are currently the unofficial English version of CCAR 129 that is also found on CAAC’s website at http://www.caac.gov.cn/fbs_file/1921_e.doc.  I’ve been told that the CAAC Flight Standards Dept has forwarded this English version to the CAAC Policy and Regulations Dept for publishing, who will need to sign off on this document before it is official.  The CCAR-129 Chinese language version has already been published in CAAC Journal dated 13 December 2004.

 

I am also attaching a China Daily article that gives a summary on what to expect.  The CAAC Flight Standards Point of Contact on CCAR 129 is Mr. ZHANG Hang Ting - email: zhanght@caac.cn.net or zhht@mail.castc.org.cn, telephone: +86-10-6409-2459, fax: +86-10-6409-1459.  Our IATA Point of Contact in Beijing is LI Wenxin, Assistant Director, Safety, Operations & Infrastructure for North Asia at LIWX@iata.org.

 

Brgds,

David C. Behrens

Director; Safety, Operations & Infrastructure

IATA Asia and Pacific

Tel: (65) 6239-7161

Fax: (65) 6536-6267

 

Minutes: The current FAA practice of requiring other Countries to use FAA OPSPECS is starting to cause a back lash. These Countries are now starting to require U.S. Carriers to apply for and comply with foreign OPSPECS (e.g., China). If not dealt with soon, this issue could spiral out of control and greatly over burden the U.S. carriers. Hence, industry members (especially those with IATA ties) need to lobby the FAA for a 129 rule change to allow Countries with “equivalent” OSPSECS to be accepted by the FAA.

 

DALA, CALA and FEDEX are the Industry leads.  They plan to contact Peter Lay of IATA in Montreal.

4. OSWG October 2004 Survey Results

1. In your opinion how would you rate the following?

 

 

 

Low

 

Average

 

High

No Comment

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

 

(In Percent)

OSWG Agenda

 

0

0

4

29

66

0

 

OSWG Quarterly Meetings

 

0

0

4

20

75

0

 

OSWG Minutes

 

0

0

0

37

62

0

 

Industry Subworking Groups

 

0

0

8

29

41

16

 

OSWG Meeting Locations

 

0

0

8

20

62

4

 

OpSpec-OPSS Website

 

0

12

16

29

29

12

 

OSWG SPEC

 

0

4

4

41

25

20

 

Miscellaneous information included in agenda/minutes

 

0

4

4

20

54

16

 

Total: 24 responses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. What is your overall satisfaction with the OSWG and AFS PROCESS for assessing and designating

Special PIC Qualification Airports?

 

 

%

Count

 

 

 

 

 

 

Satisfied

50

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

Somewhat Satisfied

46

11

 

 

 

 

 

 

Somewhat Dissatisfied

4

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very Dissatisfied

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total: 24 responses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Please rate the overall satisfaction of the following:

 

 

 

Low

 

Average

 

High

No Comment

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

 

(In Percent)

A013, Emergency Equipment

 

8

8

16

33

20

12

 

A028, Wet Lease

 

0

0

0

29

20

50

 

B034, PRNAV/BRNAV

 

0

4

8

45

20

20

 

B036, RNP Routes in Class II

 

4

0

8

41

16

29

 

C055, Alternate Airports

 

0

4

16

41

20

16

 

C059, CAT II

 

0

4

20

29

29

16

 

C359, CAT II special

 

0

4

33

20

25

16

 

C060, CAT III

 

0

4

16

29

29

20

 

C067, Special Authorizations for Certain Airports

 

4

4

12

45

20

12

 

C074, CAT I

 

0

4

8

41

33

12

 

C070, Airport Listing

 

4

0

8

41

29

16

 

C078/C079, Lower Than Std. Take Off

 

0

4

16

50

16

12

 

Weight/Balance Paragraphs

 

0

0

20

37

20

20

 

Nonstandard paragraph requests

 

4

0

16

29

25

25

 

Other:_____________________

 

0

0

0

0

0

100

 

Total: 24 Responses