FAA/Aviation Industry Minutes for
OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) July 2006-03

July 25 (Tuesday, 1PM-5 PM) /26 (Wednesday, 8:30AM-Noon), 2006

Hosted by Richard Marcotte, COMAIR

Covington , Kentucky

There was an industry pre-meeting on the morning of Tuesday the 25th at the same location. 

 

Meeting Schedule:

October 24-25, 2006               OSWG 2006-04

UPS @ Louisville

January 23-24, 2007                  OSWG 2007-01

AmeriJet host @ Miami

April 24-25, 2007                    OSWG 2007-02

USAirways, @ PHX

July 24-25, 2007                      OSWG 2007-03

Alaska Airlines, SEA

October 23-24, 2007               OSWG 2007-04

NBAA/NATA, Washington, DC

Chairpersons:  John Cowan, UALA, Industry Chair

Jackson Seltzer, CALA, Industry Vice Chair

Connie Streeter, FAA Chair

 

1.  Convene :

Chairs

Roll call—

a.  Roster and Roll Call:   A copy of this meeting’s Roster will be sent in a separate electronic file to all those on the OSWG email list. 

 

b.   The OSWG SPEC is now called the OSWG Procedures Guide.  It is on the www.opspecs.com website under POLICY/OSWG Meetings.  All are encouraged to review this procedures guide.

 

c.  General Information in Regard to Agenda Items: 

(1) Proposed changes to a template or to the guidance that would constitute "policy changes" to an authorizing document will generally need to be presented to the OSWG and AFS-260 in Notice format which includes appendices containing the appropriate revision to the guidance for the OpSpec/MSpec/LOA in 8400.10/8300.10 and a sample of the proposed Template revision and/or guidance. 

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

 

d.  Opening remarks :  N8400.10, N8300.10, and 8700.10 will be combined into one Order.  This is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2006.  Any changes to this new e-doc will be accomplished via a Notice.  Therefore, the Spec will need to be changed to reflect that no new HBATs will be issued.  However, there will need to be a method for changing the information.  Chuck Schramek would like to re-convene the old 8400.10 working committee to help the FAA review the new, combined handbook. 

ACTION:   Connie has said that she will take this up the line.

 

2.  Status of Assigned Action Items :    

Chairpersons

Reviewed, amended, and adopted agenda

Ø            Added C077 from AALA;

Ø            Added A023 Deicing from UALA

Ø          Added A003--# of seats installed greater than # demonstrated???  The table will not allow an insert of greater number of seats installed than demonstrated.  There seems to be an intermix of words between seats installed and seats approved.

Ø          OpSpec A008 for Part 135:  Guidance is in development. 

 

3.  OpSpec/MSpec/LOA A005, Exemptions and Deviations

 

Industry Lead:  None

FAA Lead:  AFS-260 is responsible for maintaining the database—The deviations that into the database is the responsibility of the appropriate branch AFS220/AFS-250/AFS-820/AFS-300

 

Background :  Template A005 is used to authorize operators to use exemptions that ha ve been granted by the AFS or deviations granted by the FAA.

 

Desired Outcome:   Deviation Database Updates.

 

DISCUSSION:  

Deviation Petitions: Deviations are now identified in the deviation database of the automated OPSS in template A005.  Deviations requested that are not listed in the drop-down data box will be handled through a separate application process. At no time should deviations be added or manually entered into A005 templates. If the specific deviation is not in the OPSS national database, a request to add the deviation to the deviation database must be sent via email (from the principal inspectors) to the OPSS Help Desk at 9-awa-afs-opssprob.

The request (from the principal inspectors) for the deviation to be put into the OPSS deviation database must contain the following:

For example:

Deviation Authority

Deviation From

Description

125.3

125.5(a) and 119.23(a)

Authorizes a deviation from the requirement to hold a 14 CFR Part 125 operating certificate and operations specifications.

Once the appropriate FAA policy division approves the deviation, it will be entered into the OPSS Deviation database and made available for authorizing in an OpSpec/MSpec or LOA template A005.

 

Exemption petitions and exemption extensions :  If you send your petition into the FAA in paper it takes an incredibly long time because all mail goes through security screening.  We recommend that everyone use the electronic submission instead.   http://dms.dot.gov/   or http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/petition/

 

ACTION/Outcome:   Timely processing of exemption and deviation requests.  All exemptions and deviations are entered into a national database and made available for Principal Inspectors to authorize in template A005 in the appropriate database of the OPSS.

 

4.  OpSpec/MSpec/LOA A007, Other Designated Persons

 

Industry Lead :

FAA Lead:   AFS-260/AFS-210/250/820/300/400

 

Background :   SAFOs (Safety Alert For Operators) are being sent out, but not everyone receives them.  In the future, the FAA would like to send these out to only the affected airlines and personnel.  Therefore, the FAA wants to have an email address in A007.  The FAA has never had a legal means for an electronic notification.  The FAA is not worried about getting information to the major airlines.  It is the small carriers that have a POI with oversight of numerous airlines that are the concerns.  It is not the intent to take the POI out of the loop.

 

The industry and the FAA are concerned about the receipt of this information.  What are the requirements for notification and receipt, who is responsible, should there be more than one person on the list, and does the airline have a group mailbox?  Any information that requires a PTRS entry will also be delivered through the POI.  An additional table will be added to the A007 templates for person, persons, or mailbox reference to notify with information.  It will include the name, email address, telephone number, and label for type of SAFO information to receive.  These labels are OPS (operations), AW (airworthiness), or ALL.  The table should have a disclaimer that notification of receipt of the information by a carrier or person is not required.

 

DISCUSSION :   It was suggested that instead of inserting the name of a specific person that we provide for a generic email box.

 

ACTION:   AFS-260 will prepare an official document with the appropriate revision for a mandatory change to A007, Designated Persons. 

 

5.  OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C063, IFR RNAV Departure Procedures (DP) and Standard Terminal Arrivals (STAR)

Industry Lead:  

FAA Lead:  Robert Davis, AFS-220/AFS-250/AFS-820/AFS-410

 

Background :  HBAT 05-04 announced the revision to C063 for IFR RNAV Departure Procedures (DP) and Standard Terminal Arrivals (STAR)…and Q Route authorization.

 

Desired Outcome:   Separate Q-Route from RNAV DP and Stars in C063 and put it in B035.

(1) FAA proposes that C063 & its corresponding guidance will have Q routes taken out and the authorization will be put into B035 (because the Q routes are above 18K)

(2) Change the HBAT 05-04 guidance to remove the Q route authorization from C063 and revise B035 to accommodate Q route authorization.

(3) The C063 training requirements in the HBAT will be clarified in response to POI queries.

 

DISCUSSION:  

We are finding C063 has been incorrectly authorized and are working to change the HBAT guidance to be more specific.

We anticipate that later down the road we will change the verbiage to harmonize with ICAO to RNAV-1 and RNAV-2; we anticipate removing the RNP verbiage since RNP requires an alerting function where the RNAV-1 has no RNP alerting function.  The AC should be revised at that time.

The HBAT stated in error that C063 has a requirement to track software.

 

ACTION/Outcome:   FAA design criteria and operational guidance for RNAV terminal procedures and routes:  The draft revision to the HBAT is now in coordination and will be put up on www.opspecs.com.

 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/afs400/afs410/policy_guidance/

 

 

6.  OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C051 for RNAV Substitution; (C300 RNAV with RNAV RNP)

Industry Lead:  United Airlines , Captain John Cowan

FAA Lead:  AFS-220/AFS-250/AFS-820/AFS-410

 

Background :   Recent events with NAVAID outages (e.g., JAC, EGE) have highlighted a disconnect between OPSPEC authorizations (both standard and and non-standard text) other FAA agencies (e.g., AVN, ATC). If NOTAMs are issued saying the procedure is “NA”, that effectively eliminates RNAV substitution capabilities. Mark Steinbicker gave the FAA update (AFS-410).  It is possible that by early in 2007 the NTAP policy will be published to expand RNAV substitution. This policy will include AIM and NOTAM changes to accommodate RNAV substitution for all but final approach coarse guidance. OpSpec C300 for RNAV substitution for approach coarse guidance will be addressed by AFS-200 to determine if NOTAM language can be incorporated. 

 

Current guidance documents include AIM, Ops Spec, and AC 12-29A.  Proposed guidance documents are NTAP (graphic notice NOTAM), AIM (new section), AC xx, Order 7110.65 (ATC), and Order 8260.19 (NOTAMs). 

 

The three phase approach for this.  1- easy stuff with current equipment.  2 - moderate problems, additions of new equipment.  3- the hard stuff including integrated equipment.  The GPS equipped aircraft are the low hanging fruit. DME/DME will take longer.

 

Desired Outcome:    The FAA must define the equipment and training requirements and appropriate approval text for authorizing RNAV substitution.  It is necessary to understand the issues and guidance so as to appropriately revise operational publications (e.g., FOM/FM).

Industry suggests the following two paragraphs be considered for RNAV substitution:

DME / DME - The operator is authorized to substitute RNAV for any VOR, TACAN, NDB, or DME in a WGS-84 or WGS-84 equivalent environment as long as the position of the aircraft can be verified using other NAVAIDS or an on-ground update (such as runway update / quick align before takeoff) and as long as the NAVAID name and latitude / longitude information for the out of service NAVAID are available in the navigation data base.

GPS - The operator is allowed to substitute RNAV for any VOR, TACAN, NDB, or DME in a WGS-84 or WGS-84 equivalent environment as long as GPS is the update source to the FMC and as long as the NAVAID name and latitude / longitude information for the out of service NAVAID are available in the navigation data base.

Industry suggested the following timeline for implementation:

Phase 1: RNAV GPS may be substituted for any VOR, NDB, and any fix in the en route and terminal environment (Terminal being defined as SIDs and STARs.

Phase 2:  Same statement as above except using DME/DME RNAV instead of RNAV GPS

Phase 3:  GPS may be substituted for any VOR, NDB, and on an instrument approach provided that use of GPS does not have an adverse impact on the existing obstruction clearance surfaces ( With FMS use only?)

Phase 4:  RNAV GPS may be substituted for Localizer

 

DISCUSSION: AFS-410 provided a draft copy of the proposed change to the AIM to accomplish some of the above.  It sets forth policy concerning the operational use of RNAV equipment for the following applications within the National Airspace System (NAS).  This document states "pilots may not substitute for the navigation aid providing lateral guidance for the final approach segment."  AFS-410 plans to publish this in the AIM and want to help develop the appropriate authorization in the OpSpecs.  This document does fix the problem of an approach where the initial or missed approach is based on a non-operative NAVAID or the equipment is not installed on the aircraft.  The group has established that this is the starting point.  A copy of this policy is available on the OpSpecs.com website:  http://www.opspecs.com/ under POLICY/OSWG information.

 

ACTION/Outcome:   Coby Johnson will try to determine if the RNAV Task Force has reviewed this document.  He also stated that this document will be published in the August 1 graphic NOTAMS for a policy change.

 

A.  The document states the following:

1. No approval is required for these operations except for operators operating under 14 CFR Part 91 Subpart K, 121, 125, 129, and 135.

2. These allowances apply only to operations conducted within the NAS.

3. The allowances defined in this notice apply even when a facility is explicitly identified as required on a procedure (for example, “Note ADF required”).  These allowances do not apply to procedures that are identified as not authorized (NA) without exception by a NOTAM, as other conditions may still exist and result in a procedure not being available.

4. ADF equipment need not be installed and operational, although operators of aircraft without an ADF will be bound by the operational requirements defined in this notice and not have access to some procedures.

5. For the purpose of this notice, “VOR” includes VOR, VOR/DME, and VORTAC facilities.     

6. Heading-based legs associated with procedures may be flown using manual technique (based on indicated magnetic heading) or, if available, extracted from the aircraft database and flown using RNAV system guidance.

B.  Aviation Safety inspectors guidance and authorizations need to be developed and published in a Notice. 

 

7.  OpSpec C052, Instrument Approach Procedures

 

Industry Lead:   Thomas Schaner, AirNet Systems

FAA Lead:   AFS-250/260, AFS-220,Hank Cabler, AFS-430/AFS-820/AFS-410

 

Background :  GPS/GPS WAAS. The airlines claim that there is a lack of understanding on which minima lines they can fly.  They also had some negative comments about chart naming conventions.  For example, most RNAV (GPS) charts say RNP 0.3 DME/DME NA.  This means that the only current authorized approach aid is GPS.  Some of the aircraft databases code these approaches as “GPS” and some code “RNAV” so the Charting Forum decided to name the charts RNAV (GPS).  This issue was discussed by the RNAV Task Force which recommended it be re-considered by the Charting Forum.  Some said that a few of their pilots had assumed that they could automatically fly the LPV line, which can only be flown by GPS WAAS-equipped aircraft.

 

Desired Outcome:  Clarification in guidance, and documentation for authorizing GPS vs GPS WAAS, as well as clarification of the charts.

 

DISCUSSION:   A discussion was to add a table that identifies specific aircraft for specific approaches.  GPS and GPS WAAS may be put into a new paragraph.

 

ACTION/Outcome: Draft guidance and authorization proposal for next OSWG

 

8.  OpSpec A055:  Carriage of Hazardous Materials

FAA LEAD:  AFS-250 (Harlan Sparrow)/260, AFS-220/AFS-820

Industry LEAD : FedEx and AmeriJet

 

Background:   Friday, October 7, 2005 Federal Register notification published the following:

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is amending its hazardous materials (hazmat) training requirements for certain air carriers and commercial operators. In addition, the FAA is requiring that certain repair stations provide documentation showing that persons handling hazmat for transportation have been trained, as required by the Department of Transportation’s Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs). The FAA is updating its regulations because hazmat transportation and the aviation industry have changed significantly since the FAA promulgated its hazmat regulations over 25 years ago. The rule will set clear hazmat training standards and ensure uniform compliance with hazmat training requirements.

 

Desired Outcome:   Having an OPSPEC is critical to addressing the requests of several foreign countries.  Effective Date: November 7, 2005. SFAR Expiration Date: February 7, 2007. Compliance Date: February 7, 2007.

 

A Notice was published with a temporary OpSpec A055 and an HBAT will be developed with a replacement/permanent OpSpec with a compliance date of Febr. 7, 2007.  All must remember that for your set of OpSpecs to say that you DO NOT CARRY HAZMAT, you have to bring over a new A004 which will give the appropriate statement.

 

DISCUSSION:   FedEx and AmeriJet have agreed to work with AFS-260, AFS-250 and AFS-820 to develop this and to ensure that the DOT & DOD documentation will also be taken into account.

 

Action/Outcome:   DRAFT Notice & OpSpec revison.

 

9.  OpSpec C355, Exemption to §121.619 for Domestic Destination Alternate Airport Requirements-

Industry Lead:   DALA

Industry Lead:  Jim Stieve, Manager Dispatch ASAP and Ops Performance Southwest Airlines/

 Chuck Schramek, Delta Air Lines

FAA Lead:  Bob Reich, AFS-220/Ed Duchnowski, AFS-220

 

Background :  C355 authorizes those with the appropriate exemption to dispatch flights in accordance with the exemption which grants relief from 14 CFR Sections 121.619(a)(1) and (2) for domestic operations.  All operations under the exemption are subject to compliance with the conditions and limitations set forth in the exemption and this operations specification.

 

b.     In accordance with the provisions and limitations of the exemption, the certificate holder is allowed to reduce the destination airport weather requirement of Section 121.619(a)(1) and (2) for designating an alternate airport from the current CFR requirement of at least 2,000 feet ceilings and at least 3 miles visibility to at least 1,000-foot ceilings and at least 2 statute miles visibility based on the limitations and provisions of this operations specification.

 

Desired Outcome:   The FAA & the industry would like to revise the OpSpec or the exemption to contain all the requirements since some of the requirements are in the OpSpec and some are in the exemption.  None of the requirements are in conflict but it would make it clearer to have them all in one place rather than two places.  The industry would also like to

 

DISCUSSION:   The FAA has stopped issuing the exemption until they gather and analysis more data from the carriers that now are operating with it.  Industry would appreciate any comments from the FAA on any problems or concerns they may have with this authorization.  Industry members are also encouraged to provide “how goes it” comments.

 

ACTION/Outcome:   The PowerPoint presentation by Ed Duchnowski will be sent with the minutes.

 

10.  OpSpec B043, Special Fuel Reserves in International Operations   2006-03—need to fix the supplemental –b--problem with this OpSpec…alternate airport –d-issue too…took out of B343 & put into B043…John Cowan will send it to me-counter proposal to Gordy’s proposal

 

Attached to the email is a copy of Gordy’s proposed changes.

FAA Lead: Gordy Rother, NWA CMO / Ed Duchnowski/AFS-220

Industry Lead(s):  John Cowan, UALA

 

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

 

Desired Outcome:   Update with a “correction” to the requirement for an alternate during supplemental operations and address the definition of “class 1 navigation” for the purpose of this authorization.

 

The industry would like to move toward a performance-based process for B043.  Gordy Rother stated that the current B043 allows a Supplemental carrier to use domestic rules.  Part B is wrong and Part A needs to be rewritten to level the playing field.  The proposal was initially supposed to correct these sections.  They want this to mirror what the military does that when you go feet wet.  However, some carriers are using a 45-minute reserve in South America.  To help with this the benign area was developed.  This would allow operation down south with adequate oversight.

 

The industry does not see a problem with this because B043 is defined by reference to B032.  John Cowan will resubmit his rewrite of B032 and see if it is relevant today.  Why can’t the airlines carry domestic fuel reserve world wide, irrespective of ETOPS requirements?  We should be able to get there.

 

Planned fuel on arrival versus predicted fuel on arrival.  What is this delta and why did it happen.  We need a group of interested parties that will collect the data.  This will allow us to go forward and petition to change the fuel rule or at least change the OpSpec paragraph.  This group needs to decide what data points will be collected and how to present the information.  If we don’t collect this information, there is no way that we can change the requirements.  However, we hope to have B043 and or B343 to eventually become the rule. 

 

DISCUSSION :   A modification that John Cowan has proposed is still under negations within the FAA.  This would be an interim step because the long term goal is to make this a performance based process.  We would also need to look at B032 along with this.

 

ACTION/Outcome:   Industry will wait to comment until they see the draft from the FAA.

 

11.  OpSpec B343 Fuel Reserves for Flag and Supplemental Operations

 

FAA Lead: Gordy Rother, NWA CMO / Ed Duchnowski (AFS-220)

Industry Lead(s):  Jim Johnson, American Airlines

 

Background:  OpSpec B343 is a nonstandard authorization that has been granted to only a few international air carriers.  Each one is required to provide to the FAA on a monthly basis reports that i ndicate that a portion of en-route reserve fuel will be consumed:

(i)   must be coordinated between the Pilot-in-Command (PIC) and dispatcher or flight follower, as soon as practical, and

(ii)   the PIC and dispatcher or flight follower must agree upon a course of action and have that decision recorded.

(c)  Both flightcrews and the dispatcher or flight follower, as applicable, must record all reports required by this operations specification until completion of the flight. 

(d)  Both a primary and secondary method of communicating the reports required by this operations specification must be available for the entire route of flight.

(e)  The FAA-accepted procedures must be included in the certificate holder's manual.

(f)   Flight crewmembers and dispatchers or flight followers, as applicable, must be trained in the use of these procedures.

 

FAA to provide a briefing on any problems or concerns they may have as well as any Industry comments (e.g., are the required reports being submitted satisfactory).

 

None of the airlines are having any problems with this process.  The FAA has seen some arrivals fuel loads that they are not happy with.  They would like to have a performance-based system with a 5% bottom end.  Gordy put a request out to try and receive more data that is to be deidentified.  To date, no one has come forward with this data.

 

The FAA has also stated they will look at the communications requirement and remove the reference that requires SATCOM.

 

Desired Outcome:   Provide a quick “how’s it going” status check.

 

DISCUSSION

 

ACTION/Outcome:   FAA wants to do an in-depth analysis of this.

 

12.  A023, Deicing Programs

FAA Lead:  AFS-220 is lead, Cliff Fiscus/AFS-250

 

Desired Outcome:   Holdover Times published now.

 

DISCUSSION When will the Holdover Time Tables be published?? 

 

ACTION/Outcome:   The official notice will be published in September.  However, the tables are available now.   The link to the 2006-2007 Holdover Time Tables/Ice Pellet Allowance Time/Heavy Snow Procedures appears on the Airline Safety web page (under "More"):

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/

Here's the direct link to the document:

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/media/FAAHOT2006-2007.doc

 

 

 

 

Day 2

Begin at 8:30am

 

 

 

13.  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.

 

14. Discussion of the OSWG Procedures Guide.  Several suggestions were made and Connie Streeter will take a closer look at the details and present the proposed changes via email and make them available on the www.opspecs.com website.

 

15.  OpSpec/MSpec C077, Terminal Visual Flight Rules, Limitations, and Provisions

 

Industry Lead:   Jim Johnson, AALA

FAA Lead:   AFS-220/AFS-250

Background:   OpSpec C077 allows Part 121 and Part 135 Turbojet operators to accept a visual approach or a CVFP provided when specific conditions exist.

 

Desired Outcome:    American Airlines would like clarification on the following issue

C077 states that a flightcrew may not accept a visual approach without a CVFP unless the reported visibility/ceiling is 3 miles/1000 feet or greater.  AA operated a flight which was dispatched to a scheduled destination with reported weather greater than 1000/3 (all reports were available).  When the aircraft arrived in the terminal area, the latest weather observation included a visibility that was above 3 miles, however it did not include a reported ceiling.  The weather observer had left the airport prior to our flight landing.  The local tower reported the visibility but was not qualified to report ceiling.  The flight was on an IFR flight plan under radar control.  The flightcrew could see the airport.

 

Does C077 preclude the flightcrew from landing at the destination when in the terminal area, the airport is in sight and an element of the latest weather observation, such as ceiling, is not available?  This would seem inconsistent with inferences in the regulations which allow the pilot to continue a landing when visual references the airport, runway, or runway environment are in sight.

 

DISCUSSION: 

The OpSpec/MSpec says:  The flightcrew may accept a visual approach or a CVFP provided all the following conditions exist. ...

For a visual approach without a CVFP CVFP - The flightcrew must be able to establish and maintain visual contact with the airport or maintain visual contact with the traffic to be followed as directed by ATC.  In addition, all of the following provisions and weather conditions at the airport at the time of the approach must be met:

 

(a)  Reported visibility must be as specified in Section 91.155, but not lower than a visibility of three miles. 

(b)  Reported ceiling must be 1,000 feet or greater.

 

ACTION/Outcome:  The reported ceiling must be at least 1000 ft. Thus, if ceiling is not reported, the crew does not meet the OpSpec C077 requirement. I know it does not make sense that a crew can see the runway and not be able to accept the visual, but that is what the OpSpec says. I think the intent is to not have crews pushing the envelope on ceiling and visibility (1000/3) required for VFR. The crew was in VMC, but did not meet the requirement for VFR flight.

 

This OpSpec may be a candidate for discussion. Since all instrument approaches now only require visibility and not a ceiling, maybe VFR in the terminal area could just meet the 91.155 of 3 miles visibility and the class B requirement of clear of clouds or the class C/D requirement of cloud clearance of 500 below, 1000 above, 2000 horizontal.

 

16.  OpSpec C074, Cat I ILS, MLS, or GLS [Precision] Approaches/OpSpec C359, Special Authorization for Certain Category II Operations at Specifically Approved Facilities/new OpSpec C047 proposed

 

FAA Lead : AFS-410/AFS-220/AFS-250

Industry Lead: Mindy Waham, Alaska Airlines

 

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.  We are still looking for the status of these airports as to which approach procedures are now published as Part 97s.

 

3.  Questions regarding Ops Spec C074 and Order 8400.13B  from Alaska Airlines.:

1.  Autoland or Autopilot?

a. Order 8400.13Bses the term “autopilot” throughout.

b. Ops Spec C074, paragraph a, Note 3 and paragraph b use the term “autoland”.

c. Ops Spec C074, paragraph c uses the term “autopilot”

Which is the appropriate term autoland or autopilot?

 

2.Special Aircrew and Aircraft Authorization Required (SAAAR) or Special Aircrew and Aircraft Certification Required (SAACR)

 

a. Order 8400.13BItem 7c(1), CAT I Operations to 1800 RVR, states: Add a separate line of minima for the 1800 RVR, 200’ height above touchdown, with the following notes: “SPECIAL AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED,”….  This phrase does not even mention aircrew.

b. Ops Spec C074, paragraph c, Special Aircrew, Aircraft Authorized Minimums, states:  The certificate holder shall not use an IFR landing minimum for straight-in precision Category I approaches labeled as “Special Aircrew, Aircraft Authorization Required” except in accordance with subparagraph a of this operations specification and the following….

c. In conversations with the FAA I have been told the phrase Special Aircrew and Aircraft Certification Required is the correct term for CAT II/III Operations.

d. Special Aircrew and Aircraft Authorization Required is for RNP approaches only.

If the statement in item c is correct can the Order and/or Ops Spec be updated to reflect this statement?

3. Currently, of the approved CAT I (1800 RVR) airports/runways, the following have had guidance published on the charts:  ABQ, AUS, LBB, OKC and DEN.

a. ABQ, AUS, LBB and OKC all have SAACR published

b. DEN has the SAAAR terminology.  I believe this is being changed to SAACR.

c. All have the guidance “Use of flight director or autopilot or HGS required”.

 

Boise discussion for CAT II (FEDEX)

Need to sort out autopilot versus autoland in 8400.13B.  Also need to sort out SAAAR (only for RNP) and SAACR.  Wayne (Coby) Johnson (AFS-410) stated that this order would be corrected within the next year.  The term in the Op Spec will be changed from autoland to autopilot.  Also, the SAAAR and SAACR will be cleaned up.  Connie sated that by the next meeting the Op Spec paragraph will be changed.  They are looking at taking the special authorizations out of C059 and C359 and putting it in its own paragraph.  Also, the training and checking requirements will come out of C359 (c).  A draft to correct these problems will be available by the next meeting via an HBAT.

 

DISCUSSION:    Coby Johnson has stated that this is still on the back burner.  However, he will check on the lists of airports and see which is accurate and try to get the airport list straightened out.  He will also look at the definitions.

 

 We need someone in the FAA to sit down and match C074 with 8400.13 because the Ops Spec does not match the Order.  It is being carried here so that it is a reminder that this needs to be re-done.  There does not seem to be a good place to house SAAAC, SAAAR, etc. the definitions and how they are applied. 

 

Mindy Waham (Alaska) emailed the following concerns and suggestions to fix this paragraph:

 

APPROACH CHART TERMINOLOGY

 

The following table defines terminology that may be found on Jeppesen approach charts for procedures that have specific conditions and limitations. 

 

Terminology

Type of Procedure(s)

Special Aircrew and Aircraft Certification Required (SAACR)

Low Weather Operations such as:

1.  CAT II/III procedure or,

2.  CAT II minimums on a CAT I or,

3.  1800 RVR on a CAT I

Special Aircrew and Aircraft Authorization Required (SAAAR)

FAA issued RNP approaches in accordance with Advisory Circular 90-101

Special Authorization Required

Special procedures addressed in the 10-7 and/or approach chart, which constitute training. (i.e. RNO Silver ILS)

Special Aircrew Training Required

Procedures that require additional training:

1.            Alaska Airlines developed RNP approach or,

2.            Special procedures addressed in the 10-7 and/or approach chart, which constitute training.

 

Alaska Airlines aircraft and pilots are qualified to perform these procedures based on our approved pilot training and the equipment on the aircraft.  The conditions and limitations for procedures are stated on the approach charts and/or the10-7s.

 

Equipment requirements for low weather procedures:

 

Explanation of the different equipment requirements on low weather procedures.  The above table will be incorporated into the next revision of the FOM to clarify for the pilot group the different terms that are appearing increasingly on the Jeppesen charts.

 

Special Aircrew and Aircraft Certification Required

Type of Approach

Equipment Required

CAT III

HGS or Autoland

CAT II

737-4/NG requires HGS or Autoland

737-200 requires Autopilot

MD-80 requires Autopilot (ILS mode) or Autoland

CAT II minimums on a CAT I 

HGS or Autoland

1800 RVR on a CAT I

HGS or Autopilot or Flight Director

 

Action/Outcome:   Coby Johnson has stated that this is still on the back burner.  However, he will check on the lists of airports and see which is accurate and try to get the airport list straightened out.  He will also look at the definitions.

 

 We need someone in the FAA to sit down and match C074 with 8400.13 because the Ops Spec does not match the Order.  It is being carried here so that it is a reminder that this needs to be re-done.  There does not seem to be a good place to house SAAAC, SAAAR, etc. the definitions and how they are applied. 

 

 

17.  OpSpec/MSpec A025/A061, Electronic Record Keeping System A025 and/or Electronic Flight Bag A061

 

FAA Lead : Wayne (Coby) Johnson/Connie Streeter, AFS-260/AFS-220/AFS-250/AFS-820

Industry Lead:  Steve Kuhar, FEDEX

 

Background:  At the last OSWG, Coby Johnson announced the following:

A draft job aid details a five step approval that the POI will go through.  It needs to be rewritten and sent out as a Notice.  Coby will send this draft out to the OSWG in approximately 30 days.  Also, EFB will be broken out from this paragraph into a new paragraph and have this Notice as its basis.

 

In the 145 Ops Spec, A025 allows for electronic signature.  However, the 121 side does not show this, but he 121 side does not prohibit it.  Connie will correct this when she separates A025.

 

Desired Outcome: 

 

DISCUSSION:  The Order/Notice for EFB is 65 pages long and should be signed by Jim Ballough within two weeks.  It is mostly dealing with certification.  The AC is 120-76A and the Order is the companion piece for it.  It might be better to have a new paragraph for EFB.  There is no HBAT or Ops Spec paragraph ties to the Order.

 

ACTION/Outcome:  However, the Order will die in one year.  It is suggested that the OSWG look at the Order and develop the paragraph.

 

Steve Kuhar and Connie Streeter will work with Coby Johnson to develop this paragraph.

 

 

18.   OpSpec C082,  Landing Performance Assessment At Time Of Arrival For Turbojet Operators:

 

Industry Lead:  John Cowan, UALA/NATA/NBAA/UPS

FAA Lead:  Jerry Ostronic, AFS-220/AFS-250/AFS-260/AFS-820

 

Background:  Based on the Southwest Airlines accident at Midway Airport , the NTSB has required Fight Standards to take action that affects ALL turbojet operations.  See Federal Register:  FR 71, No 109, Wednesday, June 7, 2006, p. 32877.

 

Desired Outcome The NTSB and the FAA want to ensure that no such accident ever occurs again.   UALA asked if there is the plan to allow for Industry involvement in the development and review of OPSPEC C082? UALS has the following concerns:

 

1. Unlike B343 or C355, this is a mandatory OPSPEC and we would hate to set a precedent counter to the guidance in the OSWG Procedures Guide by not vetting this through the group. As this is a "hot" item, the industry could provide an expeditious email review, possibly allowing 2 weeks for the group to review and funnel their comments through the OSWG Chair to AFS-220? A quick process such as this would preserve the collaborative team approach.  

 

2. As the OSWG has yet to review and comment, United Airlines’ opinion is that the guidance provided in the just released policy statement should be workable provided the OPSPEC does not stray off that path...

 

3. The statement that all pilots and dispatchers must be trained prior to issuing the OPSPEC is probably too vague and some clarification that FM bulletins or revisions will suffice as the initial training step, to be followed up by routine recurrent or transition training may prevent the well intentioned POI from setting unattainable (and uneven) standards.

 

Jerry - Given the time constraints, politics and numerous masters your team had to answer too, well done on the recent 15% Policy Statement.Thanks again for your briefings to the OSWG and for working with the ATA Performance Engineering group and for considering their comments.

 

DISCUSSION:  The industry had an opportunity to view the paragraph as soon as AFS-200 finished the draft.  Jerry Ostronic had a handout available for the group.  It seems to be in conflict with dispatch requirements of C054 and the in-flight landing assessment required by C082.  Is it possible to have the assessment accomplished only when the runway is wet or contaminated? 

Having the multiple charts and paragraphs is confusing.  Is it possible to combine C054 and C82 into one paragraph?  It would be easy to just add 15% to the worst condition.  However, the airlines would rather look at multiple conditions to allow operations in at other than the worst condition.

 

What is required if the pilot is on the approach and the aircraft in front lands and calls the braking action poor?  Is the pilot required to break out and go do another reassessment of the landing distance? 

 

ACTION/Outcome: The August 7 & 8 meeting in DCA is supposed to deal with the airports and their requirements and will dealing more with the operational side.  However, there will be discussions dealing with braking actions and aircraft performance.

 

Bob Reich has committed that he, Jerry Ostronic, and John Cowan will sit down and discuss all aspects of this paragraph within the next two weeks.  However, we need to reach a middle ground and get this out ASAP.  If we try to iron our every detail and fix C054 at the same time, it will never get out.

 

19.  OpSpec B040, B043, B047, B055, B041, B036/B054:

 

Industry Lead:  

FAA Lead:   Andy Davie, Dave Maloy, AFS-400 Navigation Specialists/AFS-220/AFS-250/AFS-260/AFS-820/AFS-430

 

Background:   I n accordance with Order 8400.10, Vol. III, Para. 71, the issuance of:

1. OpSpec B040 requires coordination with AFS-400, FAA's navigation specialists.

2. OpSpec B043 requires coordination with AFS-400, FAA's navigation specialists.

3. OpSpec B047 requires coordination with AFS-400, FAA's navigation specialists.

4. OpSpec B055 requires coordination with AFS-400, if B040 is also authorized.

5. OpSpec B041 requires coordination with AFS-200.

6.  In addition, paragraph 1657B (Class II Navigation Authorizations) requires consultation with a navigation specialist for the four situations listed prior to the issuance of B036/B054.

 

Desired Outcome:    Order 8400.10 holds the POIs responsible for this coordination, but what about the Part 125 certificate holders and those that hold a Letter of Deviation Authority from holding a Part 125 certificate. 

 

Should the Part 125s also be required to have the same coordination with the navigation specialists?  Presently there is almost no coordination and oversight. Do we want to hold them to the same standard as the part 121 & 135 certificate holders, except for the training program? From the Navigation specialists perspective it appears that the Part 125 (and the deviation holders) authorizations are out of control.

 

DISCUSSION: 

 

ACTION/Outcome:   This is on the agenda as a reminder for the field FAA offices and the industry.  The FAA navigation specialists are concerned that not enough POIs are calling them when issuing B040, B041, B043, B047, and B055 paragraphs.

 

The navigation specialists also need to be consulted by the 125 POIs and operators.

 

20.  OpSpec B054 , Class II Navigation Operations Using S-LRNS

 

Industry Lead:   Jackson Seltzer, CALA

FAA Lead :  AFS-220/AFS-250/AFS-820/AFS-260

 

Background:   Take a look at B054, b(1), the second line.  It reads, "... Central East Pacific and Composite Airspace, North...".  I think inclusion of the word 'and' is a mistake.  This should read 'Central East Pacific Composite Airspace'.

 

(1)   Unless specifically authorized elsewhere in these operations specifications, the certificate holder shall not conduct Class II navigation operations within Central East Pacific and Composite Airspace (CEP), North Pacific Airspace (NOPAC ), North Atlantic Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications (NAT/MNPS) Airspace, or Areas of Magnetic Unreliability.  The S-LRNS shall be operational as required by paragraph B039 (NAT/MNPS) and B040 (Areas of Magnetic Unreliability), as applicable.

 

Desired Outcome:    Correct OpSpec B054 with a revision to read 'Central East Pacific Composite Airspace'….and while we are at it we probably should also add the appropriate acronyms, CEP and NOPAC.

 

DISCUSSION:   To roll this even as a non-mandatory change is tremendous impact to the field inspectors and the industry.  Some POIs have multiple air carrier responsibilities (up to 40) and each one would need to be re-issue the OpSpec B054.  Because the FAA evaluates the POI on how many paragraphs are out of date, they would need to do the change. 

The original airspace was composite.  However, in the last 15 years it has been put together.

 

ACTION/Outcome:   Therefore, Connie would like to leave this alone until there is something else needs to be changed or corrected in this paragraph.  Until then, she will put the correct information in the Job Aid.

 

21.  OpSpec A009, Aeronautical Data

 

Industry Lead:   Jackson Seltzer, CALA

FAA Lead:   AFS-220/AFS-250

 

Background:   A009 is used for authorizing how operators get and disseminate aeronautical data to their flight crews.

 

Desired Outcome:  In rare instances, can the carrier be authorized to Fax the chart to the Ops base? Rare instances include human errors where the established procedures have failed to comply with the intent of the paragraph. Examples, charter kit missing approach plates or a new city added to the system and communications broke down resulting in the charts not being added to the route manual. In these cases it would be acceptable to send fax copies to the flight crew.  

 

DISCUSSION: 

 

ACTION/Outcome:  Faxing a chart or data would be an absolute last ditch effort.  It is allowed, but only in extreme circumstances.  Closed.

 

22.  OpSpec A052 or A0XX? 2006-03—webopss but not now

 

Industry Lead:  Steve Kuhar, FEDEX

FAA Lead:  AFS-220/AFS-250

 

Background: There is no comprehensive OpSpec paragraph that indicates surveillance authorization or capabilities of an aircraft.

 

Airspace service providers worldwide are beginning to demand surveillance requirements for airspace usage. Some examples are;  the European requirement for elementary or enhanced mode “S”, US FAA mandate for mode “S”,  Australian requirement in some areas to have ADS-B or ADS-C utilizing either 1090 “squinter” or UAT. There are some areas of the world requiring aircraft to be equipped with FANS surveillance utilizing data link or Sat COMM. 

There is a need to document an aircrafts surveillance capability just as we document in OpSpec an aircraft’s communication capability (A056 CPDLC) and several OpSpec paragraphs documenting aircraft navigation capabilities.

 

Desired Outcome:  Create a new OpSpec paragraph or a revised A052 that will document by M/M/S an aircraft’s surveillance capability. During the change over to Lido from Jeppesen, FEDEX has examined everything in their Ops Spec.  They questioned as to where they are authorized to have a surveillance type of broadcast.  Steve Kuhar suggests make a new 400 series paragraph to facilitate this approval.

 

Note:  For foreign operation where the state of the operations requires that the operator provides verification from its state that it has met the requirements of annex 6 for COM/NAV surveillance.

 

DISCUSSION: 

 

ACTION/Outcome:   Closed for now.

 

23.  OpSpec C078 “Lower Than Standard Takeoff Minimums”

 

Industry Lead:  Steve Kuhar, FEDEX

FAA Lead:  AFS-200/AFS-250/AFS-400/AFS-820?

 

Background:  Current C078 text authorizing 500 RVR minimums has stipulations with regard to runway lighting, markings and RVR reporting systems only. No other stipulations are indicated.  FAA 8400 series documents the following guidance to POIs when authorizing below 600 RVR takeoff minimums:

 

2) Operations below RVR 600 at U.S. airports require appropriate surface movement and guidance control procedures to be in place at the airport.

 

Desired Outcome:   Determine what is the relevance of surface movement to takeoff minimums? The OpSpec is authorizing takeoff operations not operations on the taxiway. If it is determined that taxi conditions effect takeoff restrictions then the template needs to reflect that appropriate surface movement and guidance control procedures must be in place at the airport.

 

If it is determined that taxi restrictions are NOT part of takeoff minimums then determine what is the technical limitation for takeoff minimums; 500 RVR or 600 RVR or some other value?

 

Order 6750.24C has guidance that should be revised.  Also, the 8400.10 guidance for 121 C078 states:

 

(2) Operations below RVR 600 at U.S. airports require appropriate surface movement and guidance control procedures to be in place at the airport.

 

DISCUSSION:  None

 

ACTION/Outcome Tabled for now.

 

 

24.  OpSpec A034 “Advanced Qualification Program”

 

Industry Lead:  FEDEX Express

FAA Lead:  AFS-230, Tom Longridge

 

Background:   The FedEx Express personnel responsible for AQP pointed out that the a. statement is no longer current. SFAR 58 is no longer valid and should be replaced with FAR 121, Subpart Y, 121.901121.925.  Change OpSpec template a. to reflect change from SFAR to FAR 121, Subpart Y, 121.901121.925

 

Desired Outcome:    There was a non-mandatory change to A034. 

 

DISCUSSION:  No discussion.

 

ACTION/Outcome  No action.-closed

 

25.  OpSpec C080 Terminal Area IFR Operation in Class G Airspace and at Airports Without an Operating Control Tower for Scheduled Passenger Operations.

 

Industry Lead:  Les Stephens, Atlantic Southeast Airline

FAA Lead:  AFS-220/AFS-250

 

Background:   Gentlemen,

As the OSWG leadership, I am respectfully asking for your permission to add an item to the group’s agenda for the next meeting. I would like to propose to remove the airport listing from paragraph C080. All other provisions of C080 would remain; the operator would just have to have a process to ensure they have WX and COMM at the airport before operation. The purpose for removing the table is to remove a potential liability. We recently had a situation where we had ASOS listed as the WX source for a particular airport in C080 when the control tower was inop. The ASOS broke and the airport had the NWS send a WX observer to make official SAWRS reports when the tower was closed. We were giged by our FAA because the C080 table said ASOS not SAWRS, and C080 states you may only use the source listed in the table and no others.  I don’t see any safety value added by having the table, and a potential non-compliance issue if not kept updated. If you gentlemen agree I will draft out a proposal and send to all in the group for review.

Thank you for your time

 

Les Stephens

Manager - Flight Operations

Atlantic Southeast Airline

 

Desired Outcome:    Remove Table from OpSpec C080.

 

DISCUSSION:   If the table lists every weather source then why put it in the table?  This is where the POI approves the source for that particular airport.  However, it is already required to have an approved weather source in the OpSpecs.  The FAA will not support a removal of the table, but a modification would possibly be acceptable—maybe listing only non-government sources that are approved?

 

ACTION/Outcome 

The history was that only non-government sources were listed.  So, Les Stephens will work on the paragraph and table and send it to Connie for review.

 

 

26.  A125, Letter of Deviation Authority (LODA)

 

Industry Lead:   None

FAA Lead:  AFS-820, Jack Pinto

 

Background:   Operators of large aircraft have been issued a Letter of Deviation Authority authorizing them deviation from all of the requirements of Part 125.  Notice 8700.46 was published that requires the issuance of a New Letter of Deviation Authority, template A125 in the part 91 DB of the OPSS.  Any deviations granted to these operators must be authorized by FAA Headquarters and be selectable from the A005 Deviation Database. 

 

Desired Outcome:    A higher safety standard is established for those operators conducting operations with an LODA.

 

DISCUSSION: 

Notice N8700.46 was published for operators that had full deviations from Part 125.  They will now need to comply with all the requirements of part 125 unless they are granted specific deviations.

 

ACTION/Outcome:  See item #3, A005, Exemptions and Deviations. 

 

27.  [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 consisten standardized process for updating the Special PIC Qualification Airport List.

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

 

FAA Lead : AFS-220 branch

Industry Lead:   DALA

 

CURRENT for this Agenda:  

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Special PIC Qualification Airports Revision History

Airport Changes

Change Document

Date of Change

Completely Revised List per FAA-Cancelled AC 121-445 and put OpSpec C050 into place

HBAT 03-07

October 16, 2003

Added - Thule Air Base, Greenland (BGTL)

Notice 8400-63

March 29, 2004

Removed – Russian airports, Domodedovo, (UUDD), Moscow and Pulkovo, (ULLI), St. Petersburg

Notice 8400-76

January 14, 2005

Removed - Chinese airport at Zhengding, Shijazhuang (ZBSJ)

Notice 8400-86

November 23, 2005

Added - Ponce, Puerto Rico (TJPS)

Notice 8400-86

November 23, 2005

Removed - Chinese airports Wuhan (ZHHH) and Nanjing (ZSNJ)

Notice 8400-88

April 4, 2006

Removed  - all asterisks from Alaska Airports & Adak Island NAF, AK is now a public airport

No notice---asterisks were removed since they were left over in anticipation of the AC revision-which was cancelled

April 24, 2006

Removed – Russian airports Yakutsk, UEEE and Tolmachevo, UNNT

Notice 8400-91

May 19, 2006

 

Desired Outcome:   Notice 8400.91 was published 05/19/06 which removed the Russian airports UEEE and UNNT.  DALA has sent in a request to AFS-260 for the removal of the following “Russian” airports:

Ø            Kyiv/Boryspil - UKBB Airport; Kyiv, Ukraine

Ø            L’viv - UKLL Airport; L’viv, Ukraine

Ø            Minsk-2 - UMMS; Minsk, Belarus

Ø            Simferopol - UKFF; Simferopol, Ukraine

Ø            Kyiv , Ukraine , UKKM, Kyiv

 

DISCUSSION

 

ACTION/Outcome:   The 5 Russian airports look ok to remove from the special PIC list.  It is not necessary for UMMS to remain on the list.  However, the other 4 of the 5 need an RNAV system because there are fixes in their SDs & STARs procedures that are not defined by radial DME (defined by coordinates only):  UKBB; UKLL; UKFF; UKKM. 

 

The Air Transportation Division proposes to establish a “Lite List” for “Special Restrictions for Foreign Terminal Instrument Procedures” in order to make this kind of information available.  When the Notice is published to remove the 5 airports from the Special PIC Qualification Airport List, the Notice will initiate the beginning of the C058 “Lite” list.  As a result, the operator who chooses to use these airports in any way should list them in C058, for example:

 

Sample OpSpec C058.  Special Restrictions for Foreign Terminal Instrument Procedures

 

The special restrictions listed in the following table are necessary for the foreign terminal instrument procedures specified in this paragraph to be equivalent to ICAO (PANS-OPS) or U.S. (TERPS) criteria.  The certificate holder shall conduct all operations at these airports, using these instrument procedures, in accordance with the restrictions specified for that airport.

 

Airport

Procedure Identification

Restrictions

UKBB

SDs & STARs

Requires RNAV system

UKLL

SDs & STARs

Requires RNAV system

UKFF

SDs & STARs

Requires RNAV system

UKKM

SDs & STARs

Requires RNAV system

 

The C058 “Lite” list will be published in the same process as the Special PIC Qualification Airport List.  The C058, Special Restrictions for Foreign Terminal Instrument Procedures “Lite List” will be posted on http://www.opspecs.com website and in the OPSS guidance subsystem in association with OpSpec C058.

 

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

Quarterly OPSS Paragraph Release Notification - July 2006

=======================================================================

The purpose of this message is to notify you of the additions/revisions to the OPSS CHDO Active paragraph inventory for this quarter. For an explanation of revisions, please review the respective Revision History document for each paragraph, available through the documentation within the OPSS CHDO application.

 

Refer to the OPSS Guidance Subsystem under the Paragraph Menu, Guidance Documents, for documentation that may be associated with each of these paragraphs:

     - Advisory Circulars

     - OpSpec JobAid

     - Handbook Bulletins

     - Orders

     - Handbook Guidance

     - Revision History

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraphs revised in the last quarter include:

                                                            Control                Always Auth./

Para           FAR                  Rev        Date                      Optional                          Type of Change

C084   129       000   04/18/06    Optional       New Template

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

D076   91K       010   04/27/06    Always Auth    Mandatory

D076   121       020   04/27/06    Always Auth    Mandatory

D076   121/135   020   04/27/06    Always Auth    Mandatory

D076   135       020   04/27/06    Optional    Mandatory

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

A034   91K       00a   05/01/06    Optional       Non-Mandatory  

A034   121       00a   05/01/06    Optional       Non-Mandatory

A034   121/135   00a   05/01/06    Optional       Non-Mandatory

A034   135       00a   05/01/06    Optional       Non-Mandatory

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

A055   133       000   05/15/06    Optional       New Template

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

A502   135       000   05/23/06    Optional       New Template

A520   135       04a   06/28/06    Optional       Non-Mandatory

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

B501   91        000   05/11/06    Optional       New Template

A003   91        000   05/31/06    Optional       New Template

A005   91        000   05/31/06    Optional       New Template

A008   91        000   05/31/06    Optional       New Template

A009   91        000   05/31/06    Optional       New Template

A010   91        000   05/31/06    Optional       New Template

A031   91        000   05/31/06    Optional       New Template

A125   91        000   05/31/06    Optional       New Template

A447   91        000   05/31/06    Optional       New Template

D085   91        000   05/31/06    Optional       New Template

E096   91        000   05/31/06    Optional       New Template

A013   91        000   06/05/06    Optional       New Template

A031   91        010   06/05/06    Optional       Mandatory

C059   91        010   06/09/06    Optional       Mandatory

C059   91        020   06/12/06    Optional       Mandatory

 

A007   91K       00a   06/08/06    Always Auth.   Non-Mandatory

A013   125       000   06/05/06    Optional       New Template

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Changes:

 

C084(129) - Initial paragraph release.

D076 - Revised per Change 23 to 8300.10.

A034 - Replaced reference to SFAR 58 with ‘FAR 121, Subpart Y, § 121.901-121.925’.

A003(91) - Initial paragraph release.

A005(91) - Initial paragraph release.

A008(91) - Initial paragraph release.   

A009(91) - Initial paragraph release.   

A010(91) - Initial paragraph release. 

A013(91) - Initial paragraph release.

A031(91) - Initial paragraph release. (HQ Revision:000)

           Textual changes prior to any issuance of this LOA. (HQ Revision:010)

A125(91) - Initial paragraph release - See Notice 8700.46.

A447(91) - Initial paragraph release.   

B501(91) - Initial paragraph release.         

D085(91) - Initial paragraph release.        

E096(91) - Initial paragraph release.          

A013 (125) - Initial paragraph release. 

A007(91K)- Added Table 4 per Notice 8000.323 (Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program).

C059(91) - Corrected subparagraphs 6.(c), 6.(d), 7.(c) and 7.(d).