FAA/Aviation Industry Agenda for
OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) 2007-02

April 24-25, 2007

Tuesday, April 24:  1 PM-5 PM

Wednesday, April 25:  8:30AM-Noon

Hosted by US AIRWAYS

Tuesday, April 24, 2007--9:00 am – 11:30 am Industry Premeeting

Tuesday, April 24, 2007--10:00 am – 11:30 am FAA Premeeting

US Airways Flight Center

1950 E. Buckeye Rd in Phoenix, AZ

 

Meeting Schedule:

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

January 22-23, 2008           OSWG 2008-01

AmeriJet @ Miami

April 22-23, 2008               OSWG 2008-02

 

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/Introductions:  Please initial to the left of your name when the roster comes to you and provide any corrections to the information.  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.  The OSWG Procedures Guide is available with the change marks on.  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 :  

 

2.  Status of Assigned Action Items :    

Chairpersons

Reviewed, amended, and adopted agenda

 


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

Ø          Applicability:  Parts 121, 135, 125, 125M, 91K, 145, 133, 137

Industry Lead : None

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

 

Background:   Notice 8000.341, Designated Recipient to Receive Safety Alerts for Operators (SAFO) and Information for Operators (InFO), was published; there was a mandatory change to the A007 template for the following CFR databases in the OPSS:  121, 121/135, 135, 125, 125M, 91K, 133, 137, 145.

SAFOs (Safety Alert for Operators) will be for safety information only and will not require PTRS input by the POI.  Administrative type of information, such as the requirement by ICAO to carry a certified copy of the air carrier certificate on board the airplane, will not use the SAFO communication vehicle.  InFO messages contain valuable information for operators that should help them meet administrative requirements or certain regulatory requirements with relatively low urgency or impact in safety.]

 

The FAA intends to use the email address(es) provided in A007 to be able to send these out to only the affected Operators and personnel.  It is not the intent to take the FAA field inspector out of the loop.  Notice 8000.341 was published to include the following operators, i.e., Parts 121, 135, 125, 125M, 133, 137, 145, and Part 91K.

 

ACTION: 

Dave Burr, AFS-260 , will look into the FAA putting together a team to include the industry to review any InFO or SAFO before it goes out.

 

DISCUSSION :  

 

Desired Outcome: 

 

OUTCOME: 

 

 

4.  OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C063, IFR RNAV Departure Procedures (DP)

Ø            Applicability:  Parts 121, 135, 125, 125M, 91K

Industry Lead:  Chuck Schramek, DALA, Jim Winkelman, ASAA, John Trolan, NetJets

FAA Lead:  Mark Steinbicker, AFS-410. Tom Walsh, AFS-220/Mike Frank, AFS-250/Phil Dougherty, AFS-820/

 

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

 

The RNAV Type B did not have an RNP.  It is an ATC expected navigation tolerance. The Type B verbiage has now been changed to harmonize with ICAO to RNAV-1.  We removed the RNP verbiage since RNP requires an alerting function where the RNAV-1 has no RNP alerting function.  The AC 90-100 has been revised and a notice to revise C063 is in its final stages of coordination to replace the Type B with RNAV 1 terminology. 

 

RNAV 1 is normally a 1 nm tolerance but can be published as 2 nm in some cases.

There is a question regarding the update to Op Spec C063. The selectable is either RNAV-A only + or – 2 miles or RNAV-A and B + or – 1 mile. The Type B RNAV SIDs that we fly, specify an RNP of 1.0. However, the Type B RNAV STARs specify an RNP of 2.0. This jives with the automatic changeover in the FMC’s RNP when transitioning from the En route environment (2 miles) to the Terminal environment (1 mile).  The present selectable in the OpSpec database does not allow for Type-B procedures requiring an RNP of 2.0 miles, such as those in Las Vegas. Wouldn’t it be better to have the authorization be for either Type-A, Type-B, or for both Type-A and B with no distance listed since the RNP requirement is listed on the individual SID or STAR?

 

ACTION:  Until notice is published and OpSpec is revised, operators should inform their flightcrews of the name change and that if they were authorized Type B procedures they are also authorized RNAV 1 procedures.

 

Desired Outcome:   Revise C063 to remove the domestic Q-Route authorization and revise the terminology to reflect the RNAV 1 instead of Type B RNAV DP and Stars.

 

DISCUSSION:   Draft Notice developed to revise C063 to replace the Type B with RNAV 1. 

 

Outcome: 

 

5.  OpSpec/MSpec/LOA B034, IFR Class I Terminal and En Route Navigation Using Area Navigation Systems

Ø            Applicability:  Parts 121, 135, 125, 125M, 91K

Industry Lead:  

FAA Lead:  Madison Walton, AFS-410, Mark Steinbicker, AFS-410, Tom Walsh, AFS-220, Mike Frank, AFS-250/AFS-820/

 

Background A NOTAM for the Gulf of Mexico Q routes requires long range navigation equipment;  The Domestic Q routes will be authorized in B034.

 

ACTION: 

 

Desired Outcome:  Guidance for B034 and the template need to be updated to address the “oceanic” and the new Domestic Q-Routes

 

DISCUSSION :  

 

Outcome: 

 

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

Ø            Applicability:  Parts 121, 135, 125, 125M, 91K

Industry Lead:  Alaska Airlines, Jim Winkleman

FAA Lead:  Tom Walsh, AFS-220/Mark Steinbicker, AFS-410, Mike Frank, AFS-250/AFS-820, Coby Johnson, 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. 

 

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 wants 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:  b under POLICY/OSWG information.

 

NOTAM language has changed to be more specific and allow aircraft with specified equipment in the NOTAM to substitute for the NAVAID that is OTS. What was published in the NOTAM last year is now being published in the AIM.  The FAA is getting close to having this completed.  The RNAV rule is still on track for March/April 2007.  The FAA also has to resolve some of its internal issues.

 

The Memorandum that was issued July 31, 2006, addressed the NOTAM service that will allow an operator to use a procedure if there is a navigation outage if the aircraft have a GPS feed for the RNAV unit.

 

Check out this website for the NTAP:  http://www.faa.gov/ntap

 

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).

Aviation Safety inspector’s guidance and appropriate authorization need to be developed and published in a Notice. 

 

ACTION:

AFS-200 (in coordination with AFS-410) will determine if additional NOTAM language can be incorporated allowing final approach coarse guidance RNAV substitution as authorized in OpSpec C300.  It was suggested that the C300 be replaced with standard language for RNAV substitution. 

A subcommittee with Alaska Airlines, Delta Airlines, NetJets, & Horizon Airlines and Tom Walsh agreed continue to explore how to standardize the implementation of NAVAID substitution with aircraft that have some advanced NAVAID technology.

Tom Walsh:  Wants to have draft proposal at next OSWG meeting .

 

DISCUSSION :

 

Outcome:  

 

7.  OpSpec C052, Instrument Approach Procedures

Ø            Applicability:  Parts 121, 135, 125, 125M, 91K

Industry Lead:   Thomas Schaner, AirNet Systems

FAA Lead:  Hooper Harris, AFS-250/260, AFS-220,Hank Cabler, AFS-430/AFS-820/AFS-410 Mike Frank, AFS 250/AFS-220

 

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.

 

“RNAV-ILS” was added to the selectables for C052.  The JobAid for C052 was revised to explain the new pull-down selectable for “RNAV-ILS” in OpSpec C052.  Jeppesen and LIDO are now issuing approach plates for Dubai labeled RNAV ILS or ILS RNAV. 

How to handle different state’s approach naming conventions vs the US standards is still somewhat inconclusive.  For example, airports such as Dubai’s RNAV ILS, really is a RNAV transition to an ILS with an RNAV missed.  It is not an RNAV approach. 

 

Desired Outcome:  Clarification in guidance, and documentation for authorizing GPS vs GPS WAAS, as well as clarification of the charts. A solution may be to add a table that identifies specific aircraft for specific approaches. 

 

ACTION: A draft Notice for updating C052 for GPS & GPS WAAS has been on the http://www.opspecs.com/ website for a couple of months.  Instead of listing the GPS aircraft in C052, those aircraft will be listed in B034.

 

DISCUSSION:  

 

Outcome:  

 

8.  OpSpec A055:  Carriage of Hazardous Materials

Ø            Applicability:  Parts 121 and 135

FAA LEAD:  AFS-250 Mike Frank/Connie Streeter, AFS-260, Rick Clarke, AFS-220,

Industry LEAD : FedEx and AmeriJet

 

Background:   Friday, October 7, 2005, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amended its hazardous materials (HAZMAT) training requirements for air carriers. 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 rule sets clear HAZMAT training standards and ensure uniform compliance with HAZMAT training requirements.  FAA expanded the manual requirements for HAZMAT of sections 121.135(b)(23) and 135.23(p), respectively, to require both will-carry and will-not carry certificate holders’ OpSpecs to authorize or prohibit the operator’s carriage of HAZMAT.

 

February 13, 2007 Notice 8000.352 was issued that cancelled Notice 8400.87.  This notice made the OpSpec A055 official.  According to the HAZMAT division, the 49 CFRs do mirror the ICAO standards; In the FAA’s eyes, COMAT is company material; if the COMAT is HAZMAT, then the company carries HAZMAT and must meet the requirements to carry.

 

Action:  The HAZMAT inspector must approve the information in the manuals and the training required by the applicable regulations cited in the draft notice.  He/she then notifies the POI that the OpSpec can be issued. 

Ø          A table for DOT exemptions/deviations was added.  Carriers should remove them from A005 and add them to A055—this is purely optional to document these in the A055 table—but if the POI/Carrier want to document them in the OpSpecs, A055 is the only place to do that.

Ø                    A new OpSpec A004 may need to be “pulled” over from Available and re-issued for those that DO NOT CARRY.  OpSpec A004 is the OpSpec that satisfies the regulatory requirement of 119.49(a)(13) for those that DO NOT CARRY.

 

There are powerpoint presentations on the http://www.opspecs.com/ website provided by the HAZMAT division that explain the revised requirements very well. 

 

Desired Outcome All certificate holders conducting operations under parts 135 and 121 must comply with the revised applicable regulations and have an OPSPEC that addresses whether they do or no not carry HAZMAT by February 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:  

 

Outcome:  

 

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

Ø            Applicability:  Part 121

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

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

 

Background :  The FAA has stopped issuing the exemption until they gather and analysis more data from the carriers that now are operating with it. 

 

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.

 

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 first OSWG in 2007, Ed Duchnowski will share his suggested language for incorporating into a draft revision to the specification.  The drafted changes are also available on the www.opspecs.com website for your review and comment.  Ed Duchnowski surveyed the carriers that are issued the OpSpec and reviewed their data as well as the changes and recommendations for this paragraph. 

 

DISCUSSION:  

 

ACTION/Outcome:  

 

10.  OpSpec B043, Special Fuel Reserves in International Operations   

Ø            Applicability:  Parts 121 and 125

FAA Lead: Gordy Rother, NWA CMO / Ed Duchnowski/AFS-220/Jack Pinto, AFS-820 (part 125)), Dave Maloy, AFS-430

Industry Lead(s):  John Cowan, UALA/Jim Johnson, AALA

 

Background:   A draft revision clarifying reporting requirements and correcting the requirement for an alternate during supplemental operations is available on http://www.opspecs.com.

 

Desired Outcome :  

Obtain final comments, work towards a group consensus and republish the updated paragraph. Gordy Rother would like for the fuel language in B043 to mirror the reformatted requirements of C355. 

 

ACTION :   Gordy incorporated the comments from the website into his draft.  He will work with Ed Duchnowski, Jack Pinto, and Dave Maloy to resolve the issue.

 

DISCUSSION :  

 

Outcome:

 

11.  OpSpec B343 Fuel Reserves for Flag and Supplemental Operations

Ø            Applicability:  Part 121

FAA Lead: Gordy Rother, NWA CMO / Ed Duchnowski, AFS-220, Dave Maloy, AFS-430

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.  This is a performance-based authorization using fuel burn data and statistical analysis within certain criteria as justification. Although the airlines are not experiencing any problems or concerns, a single (minor) low fuel event caused the FAA some concern. Hence, for now the FAA will not consider allowing less than a 5% fuel reserve.

 

The FAA (Gordy) has asked the Airlines to voluntarily provide greater detail in their fuel data (that would be de-identified) to help with their internal analysis and justification. Unfortunately, the majority of airline data collection systems are not currently programmed to provide this level of data breakout. Several airlines are now in the process of reprogramming existing flight planning systems or acquiring new systems that will accommodate such data extraction and collection capabilities.  

 

Desired Outcome:   The FAA is to review communications requirements with a recommendation to remove the reference requiring SATCOM.

FAA to provide:

Ø          A quick “how’s it going” status check ( e.g., any problems or concerns and are required reports satisfactory?).

Ø          Status of SATCOM requirement?

Ø          Should B043 and B343 be merged?

Ø          B343 will not be merged into B043.  Shouldn’t an end date be incorporated for the reporting requirements?

 

ACTION :  The FAA (Ed Duchnowski) asks that the operators provide the data to support their claim that they really are doing as well as they say they are; The FAA will be looking at each paragraph and will determine what the reports will show and whether or not it needs to continue.

 

DISCUSSION :

 

Outcome:

 

12.  OpSpec A048, Verification of Personnel for Access to Flightdeck

Ø            Applicability:  Part 121

Industry Lead:  None

FAA Lead:  Joe Kennan, AFS-250

 

Background:   When the original OpSpec for A048 was written, it contained a requirement to use the passport for identification for the CASS program.  TSA also had a passport requirement.  TSA removed its requirement for the passport and this began to cause confusion for the air carriers at the gate.

1. Sept. 23, 2006, TSA required all CASS approved carriers to transmit a digital photo of each OA employee requesting access to a flight deck Jumpseat.  The CASS system is now capable of verifying employment, confirming eligibility, and since Sept. 23rd, airlines are now able to verify a persons identity by displaying a digital photo of the individual requesting flight deck jumpseat access. All of the above listed items must be accomplished prior to admission to the flight deck jumpseat. The digital photo replaces the need to carry and present a passport for identification.

2. Cockpit jumpseating is not allowed on international segments for OA employees; therefore employees requesting jumpseat access may not carry their passport, or place it in their checked luggage.

3. Requiring employees to present a passport at the gate, also presents a security threat by exposing the passport more often to the potential of being lost or stolen.  Land and sea travel is still acceptable without a passport until January 2008.  

Desired Outcome:  Removal of the passport requirement for CASS. 

 

ACTION:  D raft a notice to revise the guidance and the A048 and post on the http://www.opspecs.com/ website for review and comment.

 

DISCUSSION: 

 

Outcome Notice 8000.356 was issued on 03/16/2007 that revised the guidance and OpSpec to remove the passport requirement for CASS.

 

13.  OpSpec A332, Ultra Long Range Flag Operations in Excess of 16 Hours Block Time

Ø            Applicability:  Part 121

Industry Lead:  Chuck Schramek, Delta Air Lines; Jim Johnson, AALA

FAA Lead:  Larry Youngblut, AFS-220

 

Background:   Current Part 121 flag flight duty time and crew rest regulations are old and have not kept pace with aviation technological advances.  

CALA and AALA and their unions met with the FAA in Washington to discuss this issue.  The FAA had a choice to either remain silent or manage it—the FAA choses to manage the issue by being proactive. 

 

Desired Outcome:  The development of a policy by the FAA and the affected Flag carriers that provides an acceptable resolution.

 

DISCUSSION: 

 

ACTION/Outcome

 

14.  D107  Authorization to perform line maintenance for certificate holders conducting operations under 14 CFR Parts 121, 135, and for foreign air carriers or foreign persons operating a U.S.-registered aircraft in common carriage under 14 CFR Part 129 .  

Ø            Applicability:  Part 145—(Parts 121, 135, 129)

FAA Lead: George Bean, AFS-300

Industry Lead:  Mike Keller, AALA

 

BACKGROUND:   Mike has requested a discussion in regard to D107 regarding the customer listing (D107 is the OpSpec where the part 145 Repair Station lists all the domestic line stations they consider capable of doing part 145 work).  Each station listed must contain a list of customers or potential customers.  (If the Repair Station cannot provide a list of customers, then they are not able to list the stations based on the current guidance).

 

Desired Outcome:   Interested in finding a solution that will be suitable to the FAA and the air carriers.

 

DISCUSSION

 

 

ACTION/OUTCOME: 


 

 

 

Day 2

Begin at 8:30am

 

 

15.  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 will be available at the next OSWG meeting.

 

16.  A028, Aircraft Wet Lease Agreements

Ø          Applicability:  Parts 121 and 135

FAA Lead: Rick Clarke, AFS-220

Industry Lead: Ron Priddy, NACA

 

BACKGROUND:   There has been considerable interest in the application of the terms “wet lease” and “operational control” to certain commercial arrangements involving U.S. operators and foreign air carriers.  There are some international agreements with the DOT in progress at this time that may affect the definition of a “wet lease”.  In addition, some foreign countries may be unwilling to accept the existing OpSpec A028 as it is written.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Desired Outcome:   When the international agreements are finalized, update the guidance in the inspector’s handbook and revise the OpSpec A028 accordingly.

 

ACTION/OUTCOME: 

 

 

17.  OpSpec C078/C079 , Lower Than Standard Takeoff Minima

Ø          Applicability:  Parts 121, 135, 125, 91K

FAA Lead: Coby Johnson, AFS 410

Industry Lead:  John Cowan (United)

 

BACKGROUND:   Significant past efforts to provide harmonization with ICAO guidance is included in HBAT 99-17 and subsequent OpSpec revisions; to include C-078. The goal of this harmonization (as documented in the HBAT and C078) was to change RVR 1200 to RVR 1000 and RVR 600 to RVR 500 with all other requirements remaining the same. See the background section of HBAT 99-17 (e.g., “…the FAA has agreed to permit U.S. air carriers and air operators to now use JAA JAR-OPS-1 minima…in the U.S. for those airports where these minima as published.”)

 

However, as Jeppesen began to publish these newly harmonized takeoff minimums some confusion occurred causing the FAA to send Jeppesen a letter in June of 2001 to clarify their takeoff minimum policy in regard to SMGCS.  Unfortunately, guidance contained in that letter was incorrect and in conflict with OpSpec C-078. (Reference OSWG minutes from Jan 2006.) Additionally, the FAA’s letter also inappropriately addressed runways longer than 8000’ with only two RVR reporting systems, stating that instead of 600 (or 500) RVR, these runways require 1000 RVR. Such direction had never before been provided and is in direct conflict with C-078 (and HBAT 99-17) and needs to be rescinded.

 

Desired Outcome:   Provide Jeppesen with OpSpec C-078 lower than standard takeoff minimums guidance and provide support and oversight to help insure accurate publication of C-078 authorizations. Specifically, regardless of runway length, when at least two RVR reporting systems are available, C-078 allows 500 RVR if CL and RCLM are available and 1000 RVR if only CL are available. We need to keep this simple.

 

ACTION:  Retract the June 2001 letter sent to Jeppesen and remove the SMGCS references.

 

DISCUSSION

 

OUTCOME: 

 

 

18.  OpSpec C060, Category III Operations (C359, CAT II)

Ø          Applicability:  Parts 121, 125, 135, 91K, 91

FAA Lead:  Coby Johnson, AFS-410

Industry Lead:   Casey Seabright, NWA

 

Background:  

1) Casey Seabright attended the Seattle airport customer forum recently. It was announced that SEA Rwy16C threshold/approach end will be extended this summer (beginning May 1). At that time the approach lights will be taken down and CAT I mins to RVR 4000 will be the lowest available to that runway. Runway 16C approach lights will not be available until mid November at the earliest.

To mitigate traffic issues for low visibility operations (i.e., only 16L available for low visibility approaches) they will be publishing two new procedures for Rwy 34C & 34R. These will be CAT II to CAT I runway procedures as authorized through OpSpec C359.

This will give the airport the opportunity to have arrivals on two runways vs one runway when vis is lower than 4000 and at or above 1200RVR.

The first procedure to Rwy 34C is scheduled to be published July 5 and then Rwy 34L on Aug 30.

 

2) SMGCS reference in C060.

 

Desired Outcome: 

1) SEA airport hopes that as many operators as possible are authorized for these approaches so they can alleviate traffic demands during low visibility operations .

2) Removal of the SMGCS reference in C060

 

DISCUSSION: 

 

ACTION/Outcome

 

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

Ø          Applicability:  Parts 121, 135, 91K

FAA Lead:  AFS-220/AFS-250/AFS-820—Tom Walsh

Industry Lead:  Jim Johnson, AALA

 

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.  AALA 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. 

 

ACTION:   Removing the word reported would not solve the problem.  Instead, it is suggested that a “or” statement needs to be added.  The words are TBD by the April meeting, but the intent is that if you have the runway in sight that the aircraft could legally land. 

 

DISCUSSION: 

 

Outcome:

 

20.  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

Ø          Applicability:  Parts 121, 135, 125, 125M, and 91K

FAA Lead : Coby Johnson, AFS-410/AFS-220/AFS-250/820

Industry Lead:   Mindy Waham, Alaska Airlines

 

Background:   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. 

 

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)

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”.

4.  History of the specification and the Order showed that paragraph c was for DTW RWY 21R, which had an obstacle clearance issue.  The mitigations stated in paragraph c for DTW RWY 21R are no longer need with the addition of the new RWY.  Paragraph c is no longer applicable and should be removed from the specification.

 

Desired Outcome: 

1.  Need to sort out autopilot versus autoland in 8400.13B.  Also need to sort out SAAAR (only for RNP) and SAACR.  Need to remove subparagraph c from C074.

 

2.  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. 

 

3.  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.

 

4.  Update the table in paragraph b of the specification to meet the current guidance in AFS-400 list of CAT I (1800 RVR) Runways. There was concern about airports that were on the list of airports approved for operations below normal Category I minimums being removed from the list.

 

5.  The FAA wants to open up low visibility landing for other than just HGS or autoland.  This will allow the RJs to use these procedures.

 

Action:  Coby Johnson 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.  Revise Order 8400.13C and have the draft available by the April 2007 meeting.  Develop a draft Notice to remove subparagraph c.

 

DISCUSSION:   

 

 

Outcome:  

 

 

21.  B042 ER-OPS

Ø            Applicability:  Parts 121 and 135

FAA Lead– Bob Reich, AFS-220/Greg Kirkland, AFS-220

Industry Lead: 

 

BACKGROUND:   This is not a not a change to policy but a codification of existing stuff.  Also, 3 & 4 engine all cargo operations are not affected by this rule.

180 minute is the extent of the new rule.  However, they kept the 207 minute for the North Pacific and did expand it a little bit. 

The polar policy has now been extended to the South Pole.  It is for all operations whether they are ETOPS or not.

All operators have one year from the date of the rule to comply.  The aircraft that are used in ETOPS have 8 years to be certified. 

Three (3) and 4 engine aircraft that will be used in ER-OPS are not required to have an ER-OPS maintenance program due to their redundant engines and systems and reliability.

 

For more information, you can read the rule at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/ .

Desired Outcome:  An INFO should be out within 7 days that will describe a macro view of the new ETOPS rule.  The ETOPS advisory circulars should be out by the end of the first quarter 2007.  The original AC is over 20 years old and needed to be updated for the new regulation.  There will be a 121 AC, a 135 AC, and an aircraft certification AC.

ETOPS – B042, deviation from 121.161 in database, should this remain?

 

DISCUSSION:  

ACTION:  

 

22.  OpSpec C054 Special Limitations and Provisions for Instrument Approach Procedures and IFR Landing Minimums/C059/C060

Ø            Applicability:  Parts 121, 135, 125, 125M, 91K

Industry Lead:  John Cowan, UAL

FAA Lead:  Ed Duchnowski, AFS-260 /Jerry Ostronic, AFS-220

 

Background:  

The limitations sections states that an approach may not be attempted in visibility less than ¾ statute mile (or RVR 4000) unless 15% additional runway length is available over the landing field length specified “by the appropriate Sections of the CFR”. This wording may cause the unintended consequence of suggesting that a wet runway requires a second 15% pad above and beyond the first 15% increase (i.e., 2.21 times the dry demonstrated landing distance instead of 1.92). The intent has always been to use a multiplier of 1.92, even if arriving to a wet runway.

 

Desired Outcome

Replace “by the appropriate Sections of the CFR” with “in 14 CFR Section 121.195(b) or 135.385(b) which matches the intent and the guidance in 8400.10, VOL 4, Ch 2, Sec 4, paragraph 559. Example:

 

b.   Limitations on the Use of Landing Minimums for Turbojet Airplanes.

(1)  A pilot-in-command of a turbojet airplane shall not conduct an instrument approach procedure when visibility conditions are reported to be less than ¾ statute mile or RVR 4000 until that pilot has been specifically qualified to use the lower landing minimums.

(2)  A pilot-in-command of a turbojet airplane shall not begin an instrument approach procedure when the visibility conditions are reported to be less than ¾ statute mile or RVR 4000, unless the following conditions exist:

(a)  Fifteen percent additional runway length is available over the landing field length specified for the destination airport in 14 CFR Section 121.195(b) or 135.385(b).

 

 

C054 has a flaw that could be misinterpreted in that it says 15% landing distance needed causing some to believe that a double additive is needed.

 

ACTION:

1- C054--Bob Reich stated that this needed to be reviewed as we don’t know the history or the reason behind it.  The FAA does not know what the original intent was but will have an answer by the April meeting.

 

2—C059/C060--The FAA is looking for a way to notify operators that a change had occurred to the C060 airport list.  This would also be applicable to C059.  The message screen of the http://www.opspecs.com site and the OPSS should work.

 

3-- Ed Duchnowski committed to review this request. What are the FAA’s intentions?

 

 

DISCUSSION:  

 

Outcome:

 

23.  OpSpec C382, Landing Performance Assessment At Time Of Arrival For Turbojet Operators:

Ø            Applicability:  Parts 121, 135, 125, 125M, 91K

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

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

 

Background:   Lessons learned from the Southwest Airlines accident on a slick runway at Midway Airport have led the FAA to issue SAFO 06012.

 

Desired Outcome Encourage as many operators as possible to use the standardized braking action table and comply with the voluntarily SAFO 06012. ( A quick survey of carriers represented at the October 2006 meeting indicated that most all carriers plan to comply with the SAFO with one exception; carriers operating older fleets for which manufacture data is not available plan to “exempt” those fleets.  At this time, no carrier is planning on applying for OpSpec C382.)

 

Bob Reich stated that the ARC charter has been sent to the 10th floor for signature.  From there it goes to the Federal Register.  The Administrator will then appoint members of the ARC.  This is probably a 2 to 3 year process.

 

 

ACTION:

Status Report on the following:

·                What is the status of officially replacing the term “Fair” with “Medium”? Estimated completion date?

·                What is the status of officially issuing “Braking Action Advisories” when PIREPs less than Good are received? Estimated completion date?

·                Will a very close version of the working groups Braking Action table be issued in time for next winter?

 

DISCUSSION:  

 

Outcome:

 

24.  OpSpec C067 , Special Authorizations, Provisions, and Limitations For Certain Airports

FAA Lead: 

Industry Lead:  Jackson Seltzer (Continental)

 

Background:

C067 includes the highlighted requirement below to document airports with curfews:

 a.   The certificate holder is authorized to conduct operations into the specific airports listed in Table 1 for such things as:

  (1)  Airports that may require special aircraft performance charts and equipment or required special lighting for airports-flare pots, RBI, or required special navigation and communications equipment, etc.,

  (2)  Airports that require a curfew notation

 

(From AFS 260):

A few years ago National Airport required any carrier operating there to have the curfew notated in its OpSpecs, so, we (the FAA) put it into C067 to satisfy the National Airport requirement per the air carrier’s request—not the FAA.  If other airports (that you fly into) do not have the requirement for the curfew to be listed in your OpSpecs then don't list them, or if "someone" thinks you have to list them, you could just put a generic statement into the table in C067 that all the airports in CA and Europe require a curfew--as noted in the company Ops manual--or something to that effect.

 

DISCUSSION:   

 (From John Cowan):

By what mechanism does an airport authority have the right to specify what goes into an OpSpec?

-- Do all operators into DCA have OpSpecs?

-- How did DCA communicate this curfew OpSpec inclusion requirement to operators? (United never got the word.)

-- Did the DCA Airport Authority modify the associated C067 OpSpec guidance materials when they made this requirement?

 

While United clearly addresses DCA's curfew rules on the associated Airport Information page (10-7A), we do not list DCA, or any other curfew airport in C067. We seem to have missed any such requirement, be it for DCA or others. However, now that we are looking at the issue, we see a slippery slope of unintended consequences.

 

What about "special requirements" other than curfew that an airport may have? Should we include issues such as preferred runways, noise abatement, jet blast hazards, taxiway restrictions etc, by listing the airport and restrictions in C067? The special DCA TSA security requirements are in place to help ensure our Nations security, should we list that in C067?  What value would any such OpSpec bureaucracy provide?

 

Desired Outcome: 

While the paragraphs states "for such things as" and does not require, but why is "Airports that require a curfew notation" listed?

 

To resolve this unintended consequence, delete the C067 paragraph (.i,e., a. (2)) referring to curfew notification and avoid the slippery slope all together.

 

Action/Outcome:  

 

 

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

Ø            Applicability:  Parts 121, 135, 125, 125M, 91K

FAA Lead : Dave Burr, AFS-260/AFS-220/AFS-250/AFS-820

Industry Lead:   Steve Kuhar, FEDEX

 

Background:  Notice 8200.98 was published containing the JobAid for the electronic flight bag.  The class 3 with type certificated software are the only ones that have a certification requirement.  These are installed in the aircraft and can send and receive data.

 

The AC for the EFB is approximately four years old.  Problem is that technology has passed this guidance.  A Notice N8400.XXX (Revised Guidance for Authorizing the use of Electronic Flight Bags) is in coordination and will trump the AC.  It will also explain the new paragraph A061 for the EFB.  A revised AC will be completed at a later date.

 

The paragraph will be changed go included type “C” software with a Class I or II unit.

 

Desired Outcome:  The Notice 8200.98 for EFB is 65 pages long and deals mostly with certification.  The AC is 120-76A and the Order is the companion piece for it.  A new OpSpec/MSpec A061 will allow the use of Class I & II EFB (and associated software) to be selected by the operator with the CMO accepting its use for a distinct purpose.  A separate paragraph will allow FAA approval of a Class 3 devise with FSB involvement.

 

ACTION:  

 

DISCUSSION: 

 

Outcome:

 

 

26.  OpSpec/MSpec/LOA A005, Exemptions and Deviations—Just a constant reminder (  :

Ø          Applicability:  Parts 121, 135, 125, 125M, 142, 145

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 and all authorizations SELECTED from the Database.

 

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 A005 template (e.g., OpSpec/MSpec, Training Spec, or LOA, etc.

 

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 :  Closed

 

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

Ø          Applicability:  Part 121

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 consistent 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

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.

 

FAA Lead : AFS-220 branch

Industry Lead:   All

 

CURRENT for this Agenda:  No requests were received since the last meeting.

 

Desired Outcome

 

DISCUSSION

 

ACTION/Outcome

No new airport to review for this meeting.

 

……………………………………………………….

Other items of interest:

For Immediate Release

Release No. AOC 03-07

January 30, 2007

Contact: Alison Duquette

Phone: (202) 267-3883

FAA to Propose Pilot Retirement Age Change

WASHINGTON , D.C. — Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator Marion C. Blakey today announced that the FAA will propose to raise the mandatory retirement age for U.S. commercial pilots from 60 to 65. Speaking before pilots and aviation experts at the National Press Club, Blakey said that the agency plans to propose adopting the new International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standard that allows one pilot to be up to age 65 provided the other pilot is under age 60.

The FAA plans to issue a formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) later this year and will publish a final rule after careful consideration of all public comments, as required by law.

“A pilot’s experience counts — it’s an added margin of safety,” said Blakey. “Foreign airlines have demonstrated that experienced pilots in good health can fly beyond age 60 without compromising safety.” 

On September 27, 2006, Administrator Blakey established a group of airline, labor and medical experts to recommend whether the United States should adopt the new ICAO standard and determine what actions would be necessary if the FAA were to change its rule. The Age 60 Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) did not reach a consensus recommendation but did provide detailed insight and analysis that will be helpful as the FAA develops a rule.

Since 1959, the FAA has required that all U.S. pilots stop flying commercial airplanes at age 60. In November 2006, ICAO, the United Nations’ aviation organization, increased the upper age limit for pilots to age 65, provided that the other pilot is under age 60.

The November 29, 2006 Age 60 ARC report, appendices, and public comments are available online at http://dms.dot.gov , docket number 26139.