FAA/Aviation Industry Minutes for
OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) 2005-03

July 26th, Tuesday, Industry Meeting 9:30 to 12:00

                            OSWG Meeting 1:00 to 5:00

July 27th, Wednesday, OSWG Meeting 8:30 to Noon

Hosted by: United Air Lines

Meeting Location: UAL Flight Training Center, Room B-200

Captain John Cowan, Manager Flight Operations Manual

United Flight Operations, (303) 780-5037

 

July 26-27, 2005                     OSWG 2005-03

United host @ Denver, CO

October 18-19, 2005                OSWG 2005-04

ATA host @ Hogan and Hartson Conference Room, Downstairs from the lobby, 555 13th St NW, Washington, DC.

January 24-25, 2006                 OSWG 2006-01

AmeriJet host @ Miami

April  25-26, 2006                   OSWG 2006-02

NACA @ Washington, DC

July 25-26 , 2006                       OSWG 2006-03

ComAir Host in Cincinnati

Chairpersons:  Casey Seabright, NWA, Industry Chair

John Cowan, UAL, Industry Vice Chair

Connie Streeter, FAA Chair

1.  Convene :

Chair

Roll call—

1.  Roster:   A copy of this meeting’s Roster will be sent in a separate electronic file to all those on the OSWG email list.  Casey Seabright was not able to make the meeting and sent this message:  ” I apologize again for not being in Denver this week. I just wanted to show let you know why I was unable to make to the meeting). Some of you may know that I was co-coaching a baseball team this summer (14/15 year olds). Well the semi-finals were supposed to be Monday night. We were rained out so we had to play on Tuesday night. We won on Tuesday and played in the Championship on Wednesday.  We battled to an 11-8 victory and ended the season as metro league champs as well as State Champions in our division.  (yes I'm a little proud of the boys)

CONGRATULATIONS!

Rectangular Callout:
 

 

 

 

 



2.   Review & vote on SPEC.  

ACTION:  The group decided to simplify the title of the document and to update the diminished role of ATA. Connie will revise the document.  It is available on Opspecs.com website.  Its name has changed to the “OSWG Procedures Guide”.

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.  Review of the meeting schedules and locations.  AmeriJet representative Ed Cook requested that his carrier host the OSWG 2006-1 meeting, January 24-25, 2006, in Miami.  Delta AirLines graciously gave up the opportunity.

5.  About 30 of us met for dinner at the Rock Bottom Brewery in downtown Denver.

 

2.  Status of Assigned Action Items :                  Chairpersons

§                Reviewed, amended, and adopted agenda

 

3.  OpSpec A052, ADSB

 

FAA Lead :  AFS-260

Industry Lead:   UPS

 

Background OpSpec A052 authorizes Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 121 and 135 air carrier and commercial operators to conduct operations using Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) avionics systems and associated displays.  The Maintenance subparagraph appears to be incorrectly stated for Part 135s and 91Ks.

 

Desired Outcome:

The FAA revised that subparagraph to read:

Maintenance Program.  The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness provided with the design approval (TC, STC, Field Approval) must be incorporated and accomplished  in conjunction with the maintenance or inspection program utilized by the certificate holder for the equipment listed in Table 1 above.

 

DISCUSSION:  It was pointed out the ADSB looks like it is to be more prevalent in the future.

 

Action/Outcome:  Closed.

 

4.  OpSpec A008, Operational Control for part 135 OPS/ A001, Issuance & Applicability, DBAs

 

FAA Lead:  AFS-220—Tom Penland

Industry Lead:  None

 

Background:   The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) currently is investigating whether air carriers are properly maintaining control over their part 135 operations, maintenance, and flight personnel, as required by regulations.   Among other things, the FAA is examining the conduct of operations under other business names (DBAs), the authorization to use specific aircraft in the air carrier’s operations, training, employment, and qualification records for crewmembers, and actual control of required maintenance/inspection programs. 

 

Desired Outcome: All Part 135 air carriers conduct operations using appropriate DBAs and maintain proper operational control over their part 135 operations.

As part of this process, AFS requested that selected part 135 air carriers respond, in writing, to a set of questions relating to information on the following:

1.            For each DBA listed on your operations specifications (OpSpecs) or used by you

2.   For each aircraft listed on your OpSpecs or used by you:

3.   For each crewmember used by you in part 135 operation

 

DISCUSSION : No Discussion at this time

 

Action/Outcome:   To be discussed at a future date.

 

5.  OpSpec C053.  Straight-In Category I Approach Procedures Other Than ILS, MLS, or GLS and IFR Landing Minimums—All Airports.

 

Industry Lead:   none

FAA Lead:   Lyle Wink, AFS-400

 

Background:   The FAA and JAA have agreed to harmonize visibility minima for Category C and D aircraft for Category I Precision Approaches and all Nonprecision Approaches.  The JAA is implementing the harmonized minima in NPA OPS-41 rulemaking scheduled to take effect in January 2006.  The FAA has a parallel implementation in progress via a change to FAAO 8260.3B and OpSpecs.  FAAO 8260.3B will incorporate the reduced visibility minima.  The OpSpecs will eliminate the previous minima table and authorize published minima if the instrument approach procedure is developed in accordance with criteria prescribed by FAAO 8260.3B (TERPS) or ICAO Document 8168-OPS(PANS-OPS), Volume II. For operations in JAA or EASA States, appropriate visibility and/or RVR minimums will be established in accordance with criteria prescribed by JAA Requirements or EASA equivalent.  The harmonized visibility minima are based upon the height above threshold elevation (HATh), the glidepath/vertical angle and the length of approach lighting.  Additional changes are due to harmonized use of Continuous Descent Final Approach (CDFA) criteria and procedures to adjust visibility minima for some nonprecision approach procedures.  

 

C053 and C074 are the key OpSpecs, but there are several other OpSpecs (especially A002, C052 & C073) that will have related changes.  C051, C055, C061, C062, C063, C075 and C076 are also affected.   

 

Note: The wording related to OCL in Ops Specs C053 and all other Ops Specs with foreign minima is not correct and should be been modified as follows:

 

(2)  For straight-in landing minimums at foreign airports where an MDA(H) or DA(H) is not specified, the lowest authorized MDA(H) or DA(H) shall be obtained as follows:

 

(a)    When an obstruction clearance limit (OCL) is specified, the authorized MDA(H) or DA(H) is the sum of the OCL and the airport elevation.  For nonprecision approaches, the MDA(H) must provide obstacle clearance in accordance with criteria prescribed by U.S. Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) or ICAO Document 8168-OPS; Procedures for Air Navigation Services-Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS), Volume II.  The MDA(H) may be rounded to the next higher 10-foot increment.

 

Desired Outcome:   Lyle intends to generate comments from industry regarding the strategy and timing for the implementation of the harmonized visibility minima and related harmonization issues.

 

DISCUSSION:  Lyle briefed the group on the FAA’s efforts to work with various International groups to harmonize minimums. The OSWG group welcomed such “simplifying” efforts and looks forward to a successful outcome and would like to be involved in and help with any required OPSPEC modifications.  Lyle provided a draft copy of his proposal: Agenda Item: 3: (Work Program Item 3d) ANC Task No 0008 – (review Annex 6 classification of approach and landing operations using instrument approach procedures, and instrument approach procedure terminology/classification and the attempts at accommodating the present and enabling the future. 

 

ACTION/Outcome:   We anticipate changes to the OpSpecs to be presented at the January 2006 OSWG meeting.  A copy of Lyle’s Draft [work in progress] paper and his power-point presentation are available on the www.opspecs.com website.  Lyle requests that you review his documents and provide him with any feedback.

 

6.  OpSpec C074, Category I ILS, MLS, or GLS Approaches

 

Industry Lead:  TBD

FAA Lead:  Lyle Wink, AFS-400

 

Background:  The FAA and JAA have agreed to harmonize visibility minima for Category C and D aircraft for Category I Precision Approaches and all Nonprecision Approaches.  The JAA is implementing the harmonized minima in NPA OPS-41 rulemaking scheduled to take effect in January 2006.  The FAA has a parallel implementation in progress via a change to FAAO 8260.3B and OpSpecs.  FAAO 8260.3B will incorporate the reduced visibility minima.  The OpSpecs will eliminate the previous minima table and authorize published minima if the instrument approach procedure is developed in accordance with criteria prescribed by FAAO 8260.3B (TERPS) or ICAO Document 8168-OPS(PANS-OPS), Volume II. For operations in JAA or EASA States, appropriate visibility and/or RVR minimums will be established in accordance with criteria prescribed by JAA Requirements or EASA equivalent.  The harmonized visibility minima are based upon the height above threshold elevation (HATh), the glidepath/vertical angle and the length of approach lighting.  RVR values for the lowest HATh values have been truncated to limit the lowest RVR values to 1800 feet (550m).  The elimination of the minima table allows OpSpec C074 to be recombined with C053.  A combined OpSpec has been drafted to show how this could be done.

 

Desired Outcome:  Lyle intends to generate comments from industry regarding the strategy and timing for the implementation of the harmonized visibility minima and related harmonization issues.   A decision to recombine OpSpec C074 with OpSpec C053 or retain the current individual OpSpecs.

 

DISCUSSION:  Lyle briefed the group on the FAA’s efforts to work with various International groups to harmonize minimums. The OSWG group welcomed such “simplifying” efforts and looks forward to a successful outcome and would like to be involved in and help with any required OPSPEC modifications.  Lyle provided a draft copy of his proposal: Agenda Item: 3: (Work Program Item 3d) ANC Task No 0008 – (review Annex 6 classification of approach and landing operations using instrument approach procedures, and instrument approach procedure terminology/classification and the attempts at accommodating the present and enabling the future. 

 

ACTION/Outcome:   We anticipate changes to the OpSpecs to be presented at the January 2006 OSWG meeting.  A copy of Lyle’s Draft [work in progress] paper and his power-point presentation are available on the opspecs.com website.

 

7.  OpSpec C078/C079, Lower Than Std Takeoff:   

 

FAA LEAD:  Dick Temple, AFS-410

Industry LEAD : John Cowan, United Airlines

 

Background: . Concerning the 1000 RVR response letter from Mr. John W. McGraw dated 14 March 2005 to Casey Seabright (attached); quite frankly we feel as though we were given the "brush-off"  and are requesting your help in answering a few questions and providing us with copies of a few documents:

 

he letter states:

"The Director, Flight Standards Service (AFS-1) letter sent to Jeppesen in June 2001 was not to create new guidance but to clarify the information contained in Handbook Bulletin Air Transportation (HBAT) 99.,17, dated 10/26/99, and Advisory Circular 97-1A, Runway Visual Range (RVR), dated 9/28/77"

 

Desired Outcome Would you please provide us with the specific references (paragraph numbers) from these (or any other) documents that restrict takeoff operations (not CAT II landing operations) to 1000 RVR on runways longer than 8000' with only two RVR sensors. We can't find any such guidance to "clarify" and consider the AFS 1 Letter to Jeppesen to be "new guidance".

 

DISCUSSION:     John Cowan, UALA, briefed the group on the failed attempts to locate several of the specific guidance references used by the FAA to support their controversial position. Other than a comment to contact Mr. Calvin Miles for a copy of Order 6990.3, John’s specific email requests for detailed page and paragraph references went unanswered. (As it turns out, the author of the FAA letter did not have copies of all the documents he sighted.) Unfortunately, Mr. Miles was also unable to locate a copy of  Order 6990.3 and FAA-STD-008 which appears to be a by-product of the order. The best Mr. Miles could do was to give us an idea of what the order covers, RVR sensor installation on runways (distances and geometries) and when pressed for specifics, he doubted we would be able to find specific existing (no interpretation required) “smoking gun” guidance dealing with our issue in the order (assuming we could ever locate it).

 

Our through review of all available documents sighted by the FAA to support their “clarification” of the 1000’ T/O RVR guidance has yielded nothing to support their position. Attempts to have them provide such specifics have also failed. What appears to have happened is what we have suspected all along. A few well meaning FAA individuals disagreed with the results of the harmonization efforts published in HBAT 99-17 and OPSPEC C078 and used these FAA letters to attempt to force their opinions on Jeppesen and therefore the Industry in a round about manner. Now that we have forced the issue they are caught in the uncomfortable position of having over stated their position, are unable to produce clear examples of guidance and are hoping we will yield to their tactics. During this meeting the Industry members of the OSWG made it clear that they do not wish to yield.

 

Action/Outcome :   John will work with Connie Streeter to establish a dialog with the new AFS 410 Division Manager (Mr. Leslie Smith) and the Air Transportation Division, AFS-220, in order to brief them on our concerns and request his assistance in gaining an acceptable resolution. 

 

****************************************Second Issue for C078/C079************************

Background:   Jim Kerr, OKC academy writes:   I conduct a four hour block of instruction (142 training center interfaces with 135/121) at the academy in OKC for the POI recurrent course. When I conduct the class, I ask if any of the POIs approve, in opss, their operators to use lower than standard takeoff minimums. Almost without exception they all raise their hands.  I follow that with a question. "Do any of you know what SMGCS (surface movement guidance control system) is?" of the fifteen inspectors in the last class, one raised his hand. We have an advisory circular (ac 120-57a) that gives guidance regarding SMGCS. AC 120-57a states that whenever the operator is authorized lower than 1800 RVR takeoff minima (opss c075), the operator should have training regarding SMGCS.

 

Desired Outcome :  (Jim Kerr, OKC academy) I am suggesting that the c078 opss paragraph be modified to include a reference to SMGCS training when approving less than 1800 RVR takeoffs. The FAA is very concerned about runway incursions. Allowing an operator lower than standard takeoff minimums without requiring SMGCS training may be inviting disaster. Under reduced visibility taxi operations, an operator could easily taxi onto an active runway. I believe SMGCS training should be mandatory or at the very least tied to opss if lower than standard takeoff minimums are authorized.

 

 

DISCUSSION:    Deemed not appropriate for the OPSPEC as adequate POI guidance is located in 8400.10, Vol 4, Paragraph 1777-1783.  Additionally, should a 121 carrier elect to contract training from a part 142 organization, the carrier and it’s POI are responsible to ensure the training meets all 121 requirements.

 

A ction/Outcome : The group felt that AC 120-57A and 8400.10 guidance to conduct such training is sufficient and no change to the OPSPEC is necessary.  Some are wanting a separate module for SMGCS; 8400.10 guidance on SMGCS is found in Volume 4, Chapter 9, paragraph 1777.  The POI and operator are responsible for the training contents and not the part 142 training center.

CLOSED.

 

8.  OpSpec C359, Special Authorization for Certain Category II Operations at Specifically Approved Facilities

 

FAA Lead : AFS-410/AFS-200

Industry Lead: Jim Johnson, AA

 

Background:   Order 8400.13 was published November 2002. It was revised to Order 8400.13B on February 15, 2005.  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. It was revised to Order 8400.13B February 15, 2005.  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.  C359?  

 

Desired Outcome: 

1.  Need to revise the present C359 to match the revisions to 8400.13B.  And, Bruce Montigney 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. 

 

2.  Order 8400.13 appendices provide the Checklists for requesting runway approvals.  If you have any runways that are in question send msg to Dick Temple and he will do a “desk audit” on them.  Dick Temple will work with Lyle Wink on the status of these airports and determine which approach procedures are now published as Part 97s.

 

DISCUSSION:   Since Bruce was not at the meeting, there was no further discussion on this subject.

 

Action/Outcome:   Bruce and other POIs will review the necessity of having a separate paragraph at all for this authorization C359.

 

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.

 

9.  OpSpec A031, Contract Training Centers

 

Industry Lead = None

FAA Lead = AFS-210, Hop Potter/Dan Jenkins

 

Background:   Jim Kerr (OKC academy) has some suggestions regarding FAA OpSpecs.  He writes:  There is confusion among the POI  work force regarding the audit interval required in OpSpec paragraph A031.  The audit verbiage is tied to the curriculum.  Operators are adding/changing curriculums on a somewhat regular basis. This in turn makes the anniversary date for audit difficult to determine.

 

Desired Outcome:  I (Jim Kerr, OKC academy) would like to suggest that the audit language be tied to the original date the POI authorized the use of outsourced training at training centers.  Justification is that the audit date would remain fixed and there would be less confusion for the POIs and operators when an audit would be required.

 

DISCUSSION:  Because it was pointed out that all certificate holders are responsible for conducting a biennial audit on their out-sourced training, some of the industry participants recommended that a n audit must be completed within the calendar year in which it is due.

 

Action/Outcome:  Chuck will send in his proposed words.

 

10.  OpSpec B036, Class II Navigation

 

Industry Lead:   None

FAA Lead:   Bob Tegeder, AFS-400

 

Background:  RNP Concept   RNP was defined by the RGCSP in the ICAO Manual on Required Navigation Performance (ICAO Doc. 9613) and by the ICAO All Weather Operations Panel as reported in the Report of the Special Communications/Operations Divisional Meeting (1995) (ICAO Doc. 9650).

 

RNP (as defined by ICAO Doc. 9613): A statement of the navigation performance accuracy necessary for operation within a defined airspace.

 

RNP (as defined by ICAO Doc. 9650): A statement of the navigation performance accuracy, integrity, continuity and availability necessary for operations within a defined airspace.  Same as:  Total System Performance (TSP).

 

DISCUSSION:  Bob provided an excellent brief and update on RNP and harmonization efforts and the progress of the RNP Study Group at ICAO and the future implementation of 30 / 30 separation in the Pacific.  New RNP Concept

 

Within the concept of Performance Based Navigation there are two distinct categories of navigation application.  In the en route, terminal and approach phase of flight, the concept may be applied as follows:

 

RNAV  -   without containment integrity/continuity

RNP     -  with containment integrity/continuity and obstacle assessment predicated on linear criteria.

 

For approaches, ICAO should not envisage the promulgation of RNAV applications (as in the above definition).  All of the current and future aircraft systems may be considered as being RNP and the instrument procedures should be linked to this concept.  This has the benefit of streamlining approach procedure production, maintenance, and as a consequence, approach design criteria will shift from system-specific criteria to performance based RNP criteria.

It is envisaged that where (system specific) RNAV procedures currently exist e.g., VOR/DME, DME/DME RNAV, these will remain available until such time as they become obsolete.

 

The basic principles behind the RNP criteria are that the obstacle clearance area limits are set to 2xRNP, and with a fix tolerance area equal to 1xRNP at a transition fix when transitioning from a larger RNP to a smaller RNP.  A critical related requirement is that the aircraft navigation systems must have the capability for monitoring and alerting that is consistent with the target level of safety for the operation, and suitable for safe termination and extraction for the procedure.

 

As the new concept will allow operations with and without containment continuity and integrity, it will be necessary to clearly distinguish between these operations. It was therefore determined that the operations requiring containment should be designated “RNP” and that applications without a containment requirement, should be designated “RNAV.” In developing this terminology consideration was given to the need for maintaining existing operations, aircraft flight manuals, and crew procedures and therefore minimizing change and costs. For these reasons, an exception is made for the already established operations that do not require containment (RNP-10 and RNP-4) that will maintain their designation. It is anticipated that the operations without containment will eventually phase out due to the fact that all new commercial aircraft are equipped for operations with containment, enabling all operations to be designated RNP in the future.

 

The new concept allows for an expansion of the designation for 3D and 4D capabilities. The study group considered that the designation should not be reviewed until an operational requirement for such an operation was established. See table for an overview of the designation of the new concept as it graphically depicts the new ICAO RNP concept.

 

Operations without Containment integrity/continuity

Operations with Containment integrity/continuity

RNP-10

 

RNAV-5

 

 

RNP-4

 

 

RNAV-2

Future Operations:

RNAV-1

RNP-1

 

RNP-0.3

 

Desired Outcome :   Harmonization of US RNAV Type B and P-RNAV

 

The JAA published airworthiness and operational approval for Precision Area Navigation (P-RNAV) on 1 November 2000 through TGL-10.  The Federal Aviation Administration published guidance on U.S. Terminal and En Route Area Navigation (RNAV) Operations on 7 January 2005 through AC 90-100.  SN8 consolidated the requirements of the two RNAV standards into a single harmonized standard for RNAV operations with 1 NM or 2 NM accuracy.  

 

The key concept of the harmonized standard is that it is the combination of the two existing regional standards.  In this way, operators who have obtained approval for both P-RNAV and US RNAV automatically satisfy the criteria for the ICAO standard.  Similarly, new approvals that are granted against the ICAO standard automatically satisfy the criteria for P-RNAV and US RNAV, obviating the need for multiple approvals.  This strategy was only possible due to the fact that the P-RNAV and US RNAV standards were already largely the same. 

 

By combining both standards, the ICAO standard ensures that a consistent level of safety is compatible with different operational environments. It also provides more options to States in implementing RNAV procedures through the allowance for two different accuracies (1 NM and 2 NM) and three options for navigation infrastructure criteria (GNSS, DME/DME, and DME/DME/IRU). Promulgation of the ICAO standard aims to avoid further proliferation of other standards.  

 

ACTION/OUTCOME:  Two significant issues:

**The first is the approval process: some States require a statement of requisite capability in the Aircraft Flight Manual in order to grant operational approval, while other States grant the operational approval based on manufacturer-supplier (but not formally approved) data.  It was recognized that the approval process depends on the national regulations and methods of oversight.

**The second issue concerned the naming convention for the new standards.  

Considering that only RNP-10 was now not in line with the proposed concept of keeping all the RNAV terms under operations without containment, and RNP designations on the other side, one last effort was undertaken in trying to justify a change of RNP-10 to RNAV-10.  In the end, it was considered unwarranted to recommend this change for the following reasons:

 

1.  It is believed that RNP-10 will not be promulgated beyond current applications, therefore little would be served by changing the designation to RNAV-10; and

 

2.  As the navigation capability improves, operators will be apt to requesting more demanding standards that in turn yield greater benefits, e.g. RNP-4, RNAV-5, etc.

 

Therefore, rather then pursuing the change of RNP-10 to RNAV-10, it was agreed to explain the status of RNP-10 in the revised Doc 9613 RNP Manual, to the effect that RNP-10 is being ‘grand-fathered’ under its current designation even though it is an RNAV operation without containment, and that any future implementations of RNP-10 would not be recommended. 

 

IMPLEMENTATION OF 30NM SEPARATION STANDARD

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) plans to implement 30nm lateral / 30nm longitudinal separation (30/30) throughout oceanic airspace where the US provides air traffic services (ATS), beginning with operational trials in portions of Oakland’s oceanic airspace, then expanding throughout the US-controlled Pacific.

 

To implement 30/30 in US controlled oceanic airspace, a task force has been formed and a task list, similar to that used for implementation of reduced vertical separation minimum (RVSM) has been developed.  Steps on the task list include completion of a required navigation performance (RNP)-4 operational approval process, completion of an appropriate safety assessment, and notification to ICAO of the outcome of the safety analysis for application in a specific airspace. 

 

Implementation will begin with operational trials in the Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) oceanic sector 3 which spans that airspace roughly between California and Australia/New Zealand (see attachment).  Though the following Pacific Organized Track System (PACOTS) tracks in sector 3 are no longer routinely published, they are available on request.

 

   Routes                                Track Designators

California to Australia/New Zealand                                     W & X

Australia/New Zealand to California                              20 & 21

 

Application of 30/30 in other oceanic airspace is beyond the scope of the initial operational trials and will not be authorized until further safety assessments are completed.  The 30/30 Task Force will continue to work on expanding the implementation of reduced horizontal separation in other airspace as appropriate.

 

 

 

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 C063.  RNAV Approach and Departures (Type A and Type B).

 

Industry Lead:   none

FAA Lead:   Jerry Ostronic/Bob Davis, AFS-220, Vincent Chirasello, AFS-410, & Mark Steinbecker, AFS-410/AIR-130, Bruce DeCleene

 

Background Current and new terminal procedures will be charted as either RNAV “Type A” or “Type B” SIDs and STARs in the summer of 2005 to for use throughout the NAS with specified navigational accuracy requirements and terminology of AC 90-100.  In addition, aircraft suffixes denoting equipment capability and identified in the Aeronautical Information Manual will be concurrently revised to allow air traffic automation to better identify RNAV-capable aircraft.

 

The original [existing] C063 was used to authorize the “rho theta” RNAV approaches and departures when they were considered new technology.  Now C063 is no longer applicable and OpSpec C052 provides for the rho Theta RNAV authorization.  We are proposing to revise OpSpec C063 to accommodate the authorization of these NEW RNAV SIDs & STARS. 

 

See AC 90-100. Additionally, the need for a new RNP approach OPSPEC was discussed. Alaska, Horizon and Continental will work with Connie and AFS-410 to develop the draft document.  First draft document is on the opspecs.com website.

 

DISCUSSION:  A/A proposed that the title should read RNAV “Arrivals” and Departures.  The question was raised as to whether or not we could combine C063 and B034.  However, that might not be practical at the present time since #1, C063 is for Part 97 IAPs only and not European; #2 the equipment required is not always exactly the same for both authorizations, & #3, B034 is for European airspace PRNAV/BRNAV.

 

Desired Outcome:

 

Outcome:  TBD.  When the FAA has a reasonable draft HBAT and revised OpSpec, it will be posted on the http://www.opspecs.com/ website for review and comment.

 

 

13.   New OpSpec C084 14 CFR PART 97 RNP instrument approach procedures with SAAAR .

 

Industry Lead:   Alaska Airlines, Horizon, Continental

FAA Lead:   AFS-410, Vincent Chirasello & AFS-220, Bob Davis

 

Background The concept of required navigation performance (RNP) is a significant enhancement to navigable airspace design, use, and management.  RNP was developed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Special Committee on Future Air Navigation Systems (FANS) and is an integral part of the communication, navigation, surveillance, and air traffic management (CNS/ATM) plan envisioned by the Special Committee.

 

The RNP SAAAR instrument approach procedures are developed under the criteria of AC 90-Public SAAAR and are approved for use without requiring the proponent to prove criteria sufficiency for use in the development of special (non-14 CFR Part 97) instrument approach procedures based on RNP using RNAV avionics systems.  The RNP levels address obstacle protection associated with RNP accuracy values. These apply to certificate holders and program managers conducting airplane operations under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) parts 121, 135, 91K, and 125.

 

DISCUSSION:   The FAA is pushing hard to have the HBAT and AC completed by 9/1/05 to allow the first such flight on this date (maybe too tight of a timeline).

 

Industry is concerned over the onerous technical and equipment requirements being insisted on by FAA staffs. Hence, it could very well end up that these procedures will be highly underutilized (currently only a single carrier will be able to fly these approaches).

 

Desired Outcome:   TBD

 

14.  C055 Alternate Airport Weather Requirements:  

 

FAA LEAD:  Bob Davis, AFS-220

Industry LEAD : Jim Winkleman, Alaska Airlines

 

Background : Jim Winkleman, Alaska Airlines:   Prior to 1989, alternate airport weather minimums for air carriers were in fact standard 600-2 & 800-2.  However, with the advent of standardize operations specification, the table we now have in Operations Specification C055 was established.  Air carriers could no longer use the minimums published “For Filing As Alternate”, but must derive the alternate minimums from the values in the table.  §121.625 Alternate airport weather minimums.

 

No person may list an airport as an alternate airport in the dispatch or flight release unless the appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combination thereof, indicate that the weather conditions will be at or above the alternate weather minimums specified in the certificate holder's operations specifications for that airport when the flight arrives.

 

DISCUSSION:   Jim Winkleman, Alaska Airlines:  No where can I find the authorization to use an airport without an instrument approach.  While 14 CFR 91 allows the selection of a VFR airport [§91.169 (c)(2)], only Part 135 carriers may use these “standard minimums”.  Part 121 & 125 carriers must use the operations specification.  (See §135.221 and §125.369)

 

Desired Outcome I would like to add to C055, with a Charted Visual Flight Path available, the airport may be listed as an alternate if the ceiling is forecasted to be 500 feet above the CVFP minimums, and the visibility is forecast to be 1 mile greater than the published CVFP minimums.

I would like to suggest the following additions to the table:

 

Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums

[sm = statute mile]

Approach Facility Configuration


Ceiling


Visibility

For airports with at least one operational navigational facility providing a straight-in nonprecision approach procedure, or a straight-in precision approach procedure, or, when applicable, a circling maneuver from an instrument approach procedure.

 

A ceiling derived by adding
400 ft. to the authorized
Category I HAT or, when applicable, the authorized HAA

A visibility derived by adding
1 sm to the authorized Category I landing minimum.

For airports with at least two operational navigational facilities, each providing a straight-in nonprecision approach procedure or a straight-in precision approach procedure to different, suitable runways.  (However, when an airport is designated as an ER-OPS En Route Alternate Airport in these operations specifications, the approach procedures used must be to separate, suitable runways).

 

A ceiling derived by adding
200 ft. to the higher Category I HAT of the two approaches used.

A visibility derived by adding
½ sm to the higher authorized Category I landing minimum of the two approaches used

For airports with a published Charted Visual Flight Procedure.

 

A ceiling derived by adding 500 ft. to the weather minimums established for the CVFP.

 

A visibility derived by adding 1 sm to the weather minimums established for the CVFP.

 

·                The rapid decommissioning of NDB facilities has made the request for “VFR Alternates” even more important to consider and attempt to resolve. Jim will continue these efforts.

 

·                The group was asked to consider deleting the following paragraph to prevent the OPSPEC from penalizing 121 carriers with higher Alt minimums than are required for others. There was some Industry opposition to this suggestion which seemed to gain little support.

 

b.   Special limitations and provisions.

 

(1)  In no case shall the certificate holder use an alternate airport weather minimum other than any applicable minimum derived from this table. 

 

A ction/Outcome:  Jim Winkelman of Alaska Airlines will work with Bob Davis at AFS-220.

 

15.   OpSpecs C060—Part 97 CAT II/CAT III Restrictions

 

Industry Lead:   none

FAA Lead:   AFS-410/AFS-220

 

Background For several years the OSWG members requested the removal of the requirement for listing the Part 97 CAT III runways in the OpSpec. 

 

Desired Outcome:   Suggestion sent in by Bill Cook, UPS:

g.   Authorized CAT III Runways

 

(1)    The certificate holder is authorized to conduct Part 97 CAT III instrument approach procedures at runways approved for such operations.  CAT III operations into Restricted U. S. Facilities are authorized with the approval of AFS-400 as provided in AC 120-28D, appendix 8, current edition.  Additional analysis or flight demonstrations are required for each aircraft type prior to approval of CAT III operations.  CAT III operations are authorized for U. S.  ILS facilities and aircraft listed below:

 

Airport Name/Identifier

Runway

Special Limitations

CINCINNATI, OH, USA/CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KENTUCKY INTL (KCVG/CVG)

36L

Cat III approach authorized for B767/B757 only.

DENVER, CO, USA/DENVER INTL (KDEN/DEN)

34R

Cat III approach authorized for B767/B757 only.

PITTSBURGH, PA, USA/GREATER PITTSBURGH INTL (KPIT/PIT)

10L

10R

CAT III approach authorized for B767/B757 only.

N/A

SEATTLE, WA, USA/SEATTLE TACOMA INTL (KSEA/SEA)

16R

CAT III approach authorized for B767/B757 only.

 

Revised text addressing Restricted U. S. Facility Runway use.

 
(2)     CAT III operations are also authorized for the foreign airports and runways listed in Table 2 below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:  After the recently revised C060 was rolled, the UPS POI called and asked where he was to put any Part 97 CAT III runway restrictions since we no longer require them to be listed routinely in C060.  The group felt that two tables may be best, a domestic table for runways with comments or restrictions and an International table. Additionally it was suggested that a “dropdown” selection menu be added to the tables which would eliminate the need for the user to go to the website.

 

Action/Outcome:   Connie will redraft to clarify how to capture and maintain known restrictions to domestic runways and develop an additional domestic table for runways with comments or restrictions with a “dropdown” selection menu.  Look for a revised HBAT 05-02 to be posted on www.opspecs.com.

 

16.  OpSpec A012, Domestic Regulations for Flag Operations

 

FAA Lead:  AFS-220

Industry Lead:  none

 

Background :  Previous POI's at ASA have been of the opinion that we cannot list an airport in A012 if that airport is in a non-radar environment. The current POI is reluctant to allow a change because of the guidance in 8400.10 VOL 3 Chapter 1 Section 3 paragraph 64 OPSPEC A012 A. (3) The flight operations have the capability of being surveiled by radar or other surveillance technology equivalent to radar such as ADS or ADS-B. 

The two airports that are in question for us at ASA are MBPV Providenciales I, Caicos Is, and MYGF Freeport, Bahamas. Flights to both airports are in a radar environment (Miami Center) until you arrive at the airports which both have a non-radar approach control facility. We (ASA) have been operating flights to both airports as FLAG operations but have recently discovered that all the other airlines operating to these airports operate their flights under domestic rules using A012.

 

My question is the above reference from the 8400.10 correct and we cannot list an airport in A012 that has a non-radar approach control facility, or are we simply interpreting this wrong and it only applies to the en route section of the flight (this is what I have been told by other carriers who list there airports in A012).

 

DISCUSSION:    

 

Desired Outcome:  Remove or revise the requirement to be under radar surveillance at all times:  (3) the flight operations have the capability of being surveilled by radar or other surveillance technology equivalent to radar such as ADS or ADS-B.

 

Action/Outcome:   Jerry Ostronic agreed to review 8400.10 VOL 3 Chapter 1 Section 3 paragraph 64 OPSPEC A012 A and consider removal of this requirement. The entire group was unable to recall why such a requirement might have been included in 8400.10.  AFS-200 will remove the following statement from the 8400.10 guidance in a future change:

This has not been done yet…

 

The FAA is removing the “radar surveillance” requirement from appropriate guidance documents. (A success!)

 

17. OpSpec A005, Exemptions and Deviations. 

Industry Lead:   none

FAA Lead:   AFS-260

 

Background:   When the original OPSS was implemented, the FAA had no database for deviations.  The users of the OPSS entered the various information with little or no guidance.  Thus, the deviations listed were variable. 

 

DISCUSSION: 

 

Desired Outcome:

 

ACTION/Outcome:   Be sure that you SELECT from the deviation database only.  If you feel that a deviation is missing provide to AFS-260 the regulatory deviation authority, what is being deviated from, and a standard description of the deviation. The deviation will be put into the deviation DB if HQ agrees with the suggested deviation.

 

18.  OpSpec A011, Carry On Baggage Program.

 

Industry Lead:   none

FAA Lead:   AFS-220, Dennis Pratte & Robert Davis.

 

Background :   The part 121 OpSpec A011 was revised and a part 135 OpSpec A011 was put into the part 135 DB.

 

DISCUSSION:   There have been so many questions come in to us in regard to the Part 135 A011 that we realize the necessity to revise it so that it fits more appropriately for Part 135 certificate holders.

 

ACTION/Outcome :   Part 135 only, OpSpec A011 will be revised as a mandatory revision in order to align the No Carry-On Baggage Program more appropriately for Part 135 operations.  There will probably not be a HBAT but only a notification in the OPSS messages.

 

19.  OpSpec B043 Fuel Reserves in International Operations :

 

FAA Lead: Gordy Rother / Jerry Ostronic

Industry Lead(s):  Jim Johnson, American Airlines

 

Desired Outcome: Update B043 with a “correction” to the requirement for an alternate during supplemental operations, while the FAA continues to debate the definition of “class 1 navigation”.

 

DISCUSSION:  Industry is concerned that attempts will erode the definition of Class 1 navigation as provided in B032.

 

ACTION/Outcome:   Knowing that any attempts to erode the definition of Class 1 navigation as provided in B032 will meet with serious Industry opposition, Gordy will attempt to be creative in recommending an appropriate resolution. 

 

20. OpSpec A030, Supplemental Flights Using Domestic/Flag Regulations. 

 

Industry Lead:   Chuck Schramek, Delta

FAA Lead:   AFS-260/220 Joe Keenan

 

Background:   OpSpec A030 authorized a certificate holder to conduct nonscheduled (supplemental) operations between the airports listed in its OpSpec paragraph C070 in accordance with the regulations applicable to domestic operations or flag operations as appropriate to the kind of operation being conducted.  After review of legal interpretations, SFAR 38 (the precursor to §119) and §119.21 it has been determined the restriction to airports listed in C070 is no longer required.

 

Desired Outcome:  Revise OpSpec A030 to provide a selectable authorization to allow carriers to conduct operations between airports that are not listed in C070 under domestic, flag, or supplemental regulations, with certain restrictions.

 

DISCUSSION:  Chuck briefed the group on his progress and what restrictions would be required (e.g., notify your POI prior to any supplemental operations). It seems rest requirements are the FAA’s biggest concern.

 

ACTION/Outcome:   It was determined by the FAA that since there are so many variables, each air carrier will have to submit its own nonstandard proposal to the FAA for consideration. 

 

21.  [Standing agenda item]  OpSpec C050, Special PIC Qualification Airports—14 CFR Section 121.445 Airport List Review & Recommendation of OSWG to AFS-220:

 

Industry Lead:   Casey Seabright, NWA

FAA Lead:   AFS-220/260

 

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.

 

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:  In a political (yet practical) move to minimize future embarrassment caused by “ugly American” style blanket policies aimed at specific and all too offended Countries, Jackson Seltzer, CALA. will list several Chinese airports with a recommendation they be eliminated from the “Special” Airport Qualification list.

 

ACTION/Outcome:  

1.  Jackson Seltzer, CALA, will submit the data to the FAA for evaluation and removal from the Special PIC Airport Qualification List.  The following Chinese airport was submitted and the information is available on the website, opspecs.com under POLICY/OPS/Special PIC:

ZBSJ-Zhengding, Shijiazhuang

Please OSWG members review the information that Jackson submitted.

 

2.   Connie Streeter will provide an editorial change to the Special PIC Airport Qualification List that enlarges the word “ except ” for the Russian and Chinese airports.

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

26.  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.