FAA/Aviation Industry Agenda for
OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) 2007-03
July 24-25, 2007
Tuesday, April 24: 1 PM-5 PM
Wednesday, April 25: 8:30AM-Noon
Hosted by Alaska Airlines
Tuesday, July 24, 2007 --9:00 am – 10:30 am Industry Premeeting (AALA)
Tuesday, July 24, 2007 --9:00 am – 10:30 am FAA Premeeting (AALA)
Tuesday, July 24—10:30-12 noon—Discussion on C300 (AALA)
Alaska Airlines Flight Training Center
2651 S. 192nd in Seattle, Washington
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
NetJets, Savanna, GA
July 22-23, 2008 OSWG 2008-03
United Airlines, Denver
Chairpersons: John Cowan, UALA, Industry Chair
Jackson Seltzer, CALA, Industry Vice Chair
Connie Streeter, FAA Chair
1. Convene :
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. Review and finalize the 2008 OSWG Procedures Guide. 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, the template for agenda items is available on the www.opspecs.com website. For the Notice template we suggest you use a recently published Notice that contains at least the 2 appendices and modify it for your proposal.
d. Opening remarks :
2. Status of Assigned Action Items :
Reviewed, amended, and adopted agenda
3. OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C063, IFR RNAV Departure Procedures (DP) [OSWG 2007-01]
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 : The AC 90-100 has been revised and a notice to revise C063 was published and C063 was changed to replace the Type B with RNAV 1 terminology. Compliance date is 09/28/2007.
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.
Desired Outcome: For all to understand that it is not by accident for the requirement to list the “software version” being used.
Mark Steinbicker gave a PowerPoint presentation explaining N8900.2. He stated that if you have RNAV A, you should have approval for RNAV Type 1. Type B has gone away as this was really for DME-DME only aircraft. RNAV 1 and 2 are very similar with only the accuracy the main difference.
Table 1 for C063 should only include the FMC manufacturer, model, and part number and the software part number that is being used by the FMC in each aircraft fleet type. Other RNAV sensors, support boxes, and equipment are not required to be listed.
We need to go back to the FAA personnel who wanted C063 software information included and see how they think the POI will use this and what they are going to do with it.
The expectation is that as you go forward in the non SAAAR world, explicate validation is not required.
4. OpSpec/MSpec/LOA B034, IFR Class I Terminal and En Route Navigation Using Area Navigation Systems [ OSWG 2007-02]
Industry Lead: Jim Johnson, AA
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.
Desired Outcome: Guidance for B034 and the template need to be updated to address the “oceanic” and the new Domestic Q-Routes
(same as OSWG 2007-02) FAA still needs to update guidance for B034 and B035.
5. OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C051 for RNAV Substitution; (C300 RNAV with RNAV RNP) [forever on the agenda]
Industry Lead: Alaska Airlines, Jim Winkleman, CALA, Jackson Seltzer, Steve Bush Horizon, Netjets, John Trolan
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: http://www.opspecs.com/ 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.
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 .
This item will go away with the new C300 paragraph .
Mark will get together with Alaska Airlines, Jim Winkleman, CALA, Jackson Seltzer, Horizon, Steve Bush, Netjets, John Trolan and continue to work on the new C300.
6. OpSpec A055: Carriage of Hazardous Materials [ OSWG 2006-01]
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). 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. 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.
Desired Outcome : Question in regard to the carriage of Dry ice.
It has been suggested that if Dry Ice Hazmat is being carried it will have an operator approved training program that covers it. However, if you are carrying up to 5 pounds of dry ice, you are now a WILL CARRY. It was always an exception before and now the only thing that is being carried is dry ice.
Need to have a selectable the states WILL CARRY FOR DRY ICE ONLY. Connie will need to roll the entire paragraph for this to change. It will be a non mandatory change. For the time being, non standard text will be approved that states WILL CARRY FOR DRY ICE ONLY. A004 will also need to be changed.
7. OpSpec C355, Exemption to §121.619 for Domestic Destination Alternate Airport Requirements- [ OSWG 2005-2]
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 : 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.
Desired Outcome: The FAA & the industry have worked together to revise the OpSpec 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 roll out of this paragraph has been delayed by the fact that two airlines have applied for an exemption that allows 1-1-3 with not CAT II/III approval. The FAA has stated that it should be ready in a couple of weeks. At that time, new exemptions will be accepted.
This item should be closed by the next meeting.
8. OpSpec B043, Special Fuel Reserves in International Operations [OSWG 2005-04]
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. The rewrite harmonizes the reporting for minimum and low fuel reporting requirements for C043 and C343. Also, any carrier using CDM will need to report when an aircraft is moved ahead of other company flights.
Gordy stated that all the comments have been received. He will now format it into a Notice format. Gordy will send it to Connie this week when it should be ready to roll out.
Should be closed at the next meeting.
9. OpSpec B044, Re-Dispatch [OSWG 2005-04]
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: Gordy has been reviewing B044. Currently B044 references Section 121.645(c) which should now be Section 121.645(f). Subparagraph 8 in the Opspec states that the certificate holder shall not conduct planned re-dispatch/re-release en route operations using fuel less than the fuel supplies required by the basic provisions of Section 121.645, without a deviation. The reason carriers use B044 is to deviate from Section 121.645 en route reserves, specifically Section 121.645(b)(2). A quick check in the OPSS deviation database only shows a deviation from Section 121.645(b) for B043. This should also be amended to allow for a deviation from Section 121.645(b)(2)(4) specifically and not from “1-4”.
Desired Outcome :
1) Add Section 121.645(b) to the to the deviation authority for B044 and add the deviation from Section 121.645(b)(2) for the 10% calculation. Have ALL holders of B044 amend A005 to include this deviation.
2) Dispatch group should do some work on the text of B044 in an effort to clarify the text IAW AFS-220 policy for alternates and fuel calculations as previously discussed with Jerry Ostronic.
Gordy stated that this paragraph needs to be reviewed by the industry leads.
10. OpSpec B343 Fuel Reserves for Flag and Supplemental Operations [OSWG 2005-4]
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.
The FAA is still looking at revising the paragraph for reserve fuel. It will go to a performance based fuel reserve.
Down the road after they get into this, the FAA would also like to meet with CAL, DAL, and AA at discuss how this paragraph will change and how will it affect each airline.
This item will stay open for at least the next meeting or so.
The FAA is currently working with one additional carrier who is getting their data together. A change will be forth coming to the template based on the FAA’s recent assessment of all current operators. The new carrier is beta testing the new requirement to validate the performance for the enroute phase of flight and other requirements.
For the next meeting, Gordy and Ed will write up a new agenda item that contains what they are working on, desired outcome action, and the direction that they areeaded.
11. OpSpec A332, Ultra Long Range Flag Operations in Excess of 16 Hours Block Time [OSWG 2007-01]
Ø Applicability: Part 121
Industry Lead: Chuck Schramek, Delta Air Lines; Jim Johnson, AALA
FAA Lead: Larry Youngblut, AFS-220
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.
This is still an on-going work in progress. Presently, CALA, AALA, and DALA are the only carriers using it.
How to get into the paragraph, the lay over time, the crew complement, and rest facilities for flight attendants are still being discussed.
Desired Outcome: The development of a policy by the FAA and the affected Flag carriers that provides an acceptable resolution.
ACTION/Outcome : ( This will stay open for one more meeting.)
The outcome is to have a standard, non standard paragraph for all carriers. This should be in place in a couple of months.
12. OpSpec C078/C079 , Lower Than Standard Takeoff Minima [forever]
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.”)
A letter was sent to Jeppesen rescinding the original June 2001 letter.
CFR Part 139 now has language that can make some of the provisions of AC 150s mandatory. A new SMCGS FAA Order(?) is being written. (Previously it was an AC??)
Desired Outcome: Provide revised guidance and revised OpSpec C-078/C079 lower than standard takeoff minimums to provide support and oversight to help insure accurate publication of C-078/C079 authorizations. Specifically, regardless of runway length, when at least two RVR reporting systems are available, C-078/C079 allows 500 RVR if CL and RCLM are available and 1000 RVR if only CL are available.
A meeting with industry and the FAA was held with Jeppesen. For C078, the requirement for 1000 RVR will be removed. The need for runway markings are no longer required. The 300 RVR HUD requirement has added language for the ILS signal. A new Notice (N8900.xx) will be forth coming.
C079, for two pilots it will look like C078. Different requirements for single pilot operations. It should be completed this week. After that, a C079 for 91K will only go down to 600 because of the regulation.
Jeppesen should be able to issue the lower takeoff minimums by October 2007. The FAA will direct the airport SMCGS operators to change the 600 to 1200 plan to 500 to 1200.
13. OpSpec C055, Alternate Airports (ETOPS issue) [OSWG 2007-03]
Industry Lead: Jim Winkelman, Alaska Airlines/Jackson Seltzer, CALA
FAA Lead: Jim Ryan, AFS 220
Background: The guidance from the draft ETOPS AC, table "ETOPS Alternate Minimum", states: "For airports with at least two operational navigational facilities, each providing a straight-in approach procedure to different suitable runways."
"Different suitable runways" can be opposite ends of the same piece of concrete.
Ops Spec C055, for ETOPS states:
"For airports with at least two operational navigational facilities, each providing a straight-in non-precision approach procedure or a straight-in precision approach procedure to different, suitable runways. (However, when an airport is designated as an ER-OPS En Route Alternate Airport in these operations specifications, the approach procedures used must be to separate, suitable runways)."
"Separate suitable runways" are different pieces of concrete.
Thus, the draft AC guidance does not require separate pieces of concrete, but the Ops Spec does.
Desired Outcome: Revise the ops spec to delete the parenthetical statement on ER-OPS.
The AC for 121 and 135 has gone through final review. Once the language is finalized for the AC, the Notice will be completed. Connie will put the draft on website for all to view. This should be accomplished in a couple of weeks.
The Ops Spec cannot be changed until the AC and Notice are approved and published.
14. Op Spec C055, Alternate Airports IFR Weather Minimums (TITLE Change and new information) [OSWG 2007-03]
Ø Applicability: Parts 121
Industry Lead: Jackson Seltzer, Continental
FAA Lead: AFS-220
Background : In reviewing the FAA legal interpretation answering an inquiry from Capital Cargo International Airlines (see below), we do not believe that the interpretation has the effect, or was intended, to change the way in which the major airlines, rather than Capital Cargo, in addressing compliance with 14 CFR § 121.613. The well established practices of the major carriers are lawful and supported by parts 119 and 121 of the FARs and FAA guidance, orders, and interpretations spanning more than forty years, as well as the airline specific Operations Specifications issued by the FAA.
In FAA Order 8400.10, Volume 3, Chapter 6, of the Air Carriers handbook under Section 2 (FLIGHT DISPATCH SYSTEMS AND DOMESTIC OPERATING RULES 1181. WEATHER REQUIREMENTS FOR DISPATCH UNDER DOMESTIC RULES) it states,
“Inspectors must be informed about the weather requirements for the dispatch of domestic part 121 flights
C. Destination Weather - IFR Operations. Part 121, § 121.613 prohibits an aircraft dispatcher from releasing a domestic flight under IFR or over-the-top rules unless weather reports and/or forecasts indicate that the weather will be at, or above, minimums required in the OpSpecs at the destination airport at the ETA. Category I minimums are given in OpSpecs C053 and C054. Category II and III minimums are given in OpSpecs C059 and C060 respectively.”
The guidance states that the weather should be at or above minimums required in the OpSpecs. Paragraphs C053 (CAT I), C054 (Special Limitations), C059 (CAT II), and C060 (CAT III) list visibility along with HAT, DH and/or AH, but makes no reference to a ceiling. However, in OpSpec C055 (Alternate Airports), the ceiling, which is required, is spelled out with a formula that is derived from the HAT.
This above statement is strengthened by Order 8400.10, Volume 4, Chapter 2, of the Air Carriers handbook under Section 1 (INTRODUCTION TO AND EVOLUTION OF ALL-WEATHER TERMINAL AREA OPERATIONS), paragraph 405, which states:
B. A major change in the method of specifying the operating minimums for precision approaches evolved with the introduction of the decision height concept and the RVR concept. These changes were finalized by the publication of U.S. TERPS criteria in 1966. This conceptual change eliminated the ceiling requirement by introducing a decision height (DH) (see section 2, paragraph 489) and based landing minimums on runway visual range (RVR) reports, when available, instead of ground or flight visibility reports. This conceptual change was necessary because of the limitations in the methods used to observe or measure ceiling and visibility (see section 2, paragraph 495).
The major airlines as a rule fly do not dispatch or fly VFR. Their operation and schedule require them to be equipped, trained, and approved for IFR operations. Therefore, to use a VRF regulation and/or VFR guidance material is not a logical or relevant argument. Moreover, it should be recognized that the extra work, cost, and added safety margin of such efforts in order to be low visibility operator needs to be considered when evaluating and interpreting their operations.
The March 9, 2007, interpretation references 14 CFR Section 121.611 (Dispatch or flight release under VFR), which is for only for VFR operations. Therefore, based on the above paragraph, if an operator is dispatching a flight VFR or the operator did not have the approval for low visibility, then this would be an appropriate reference and the ceiling should be required for the destination. However, the next paragraph 14 CFR Section 121.613 (Dispatch or flight release under IFR or over the top), which is the one in question is for IFR and it does not list a ceiling requirement. It only requires that the weather be at or above the authorized minimums. Once again, the word ceiling is not referenced. And, for a 121 operator, the authorized minimums are a function of visibility. This is further highlighted by the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), which defines landing minimums as “the minimum visibility prescribed for landing a civil aircraft while using an instrument approach procedure.”
The FAA interpretation also used a 14 CFR 91 reference. However, 14 CFR Part 91 is superseded if there is a regulation in part 14 CFR Part 119 or 121 addressing that item. In reviewing 14 CFR Section 121.625 (Alternate airport weather minimums) it states the use of alternate weather minimum as approved in the operator’s Operations Specifications. Even though the language is slightly different from 14 CFR Section 121.613, the Order 8400.10 reference (see above) states that the operator is to use their Ops Spec for the weather minimums for this FAR .
Finally, the following is from the Thursday, December 31, 1964, Federal Register, page 19223:
“§ 121.613 Dispatch or flight release under IFR or over the top: Except as provided in § 121.615, no person may dispatch or release an aircraft for operations under IFR or over-the-top, unless appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combination thereof, indicate that the ceilings and visibilities will be at or above the authorized minimums at the estimated time of arrival at the airport or airports to which dispatched or released.”
In 1967 (32 FR 13909, October 6, 1967) this language was changed to what we currently have. The preamble for this change states:
“Appropriate sections of 121 and 135 have been amended to reflect the reliance on visibility, MDA, and DH, as controlling factors for approach and landing, and to clarify the term “minimum initial approach altitude” as it applies in designation or an alternate airport. The term “weather conditions” has been substituted for “ceiling and ground visibility” in certain sections to accommodate those situations in which ceiling alone is controlling, or ceiling and visibility are controlling, depending on the procedure being used or the terms of the applicable operations specifications.”
And, as we have shown, the terms of the applicable Ops Specs have clearly been written to use only visibility.
14 CFR Section 121.613 INTERPRETATION
Ronald E. Bush
Director of Operations
Capital Cargo International Airlines, Inc.
7100 TPC Drive
Orlando , Florida 32822
Dear Mr. Bush:
This letter responds to your request of November 10, 2006 for a legal interpretation of 14 CFR §121.613.
14 C.F.R. § 121.613 Dispatch or flight release under IFR or over the top. Except as provided in §121.615, no person may dispatch or release an aircraft for operations under IFR or over-the-top, unless appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combination thereof, indicate that the weather conditions will be at or above the authorized minimums at the estimated time of arrival at the airport or airports to which dispatched or released.
Your question is, "does 'authorized minimums' [in §121.613] mean that both the ceiling (HAT) and visibility values 'will be at or above authorized minimums,' or mean that only the visibility values 'will be at or above authorized minimums, for the purpose of a Flight Release to an airport under IFR or Over- The-Top?" The FAA has determined that the phrase "authorized minimums" in §121.613 refers to both the ceiling and visibility minimums. Although both ceiling and visibility are not specifically stated in § 121.613, for flight planning purposes, the FAA requires both. In other FAA rules involving flight planning, the FAA makes both ceiling and visibility minimums a specified requirement. For example, when designating an IFR alternate, § 91. 169(c) states" ... at the estimated time of arrival at the alternate airport, the ceiling and visibility at that airport will be at or above the following weather minima." In addition, § 121.611, "Dispatch or flight release under VFR," states "[n]o person may dispatch or release an aircraft for VFR operation unless the ceiling and visibility en route, as indicated by available weather reports or forecasts, or any combination thereof, are and will remain at or above applicable VFR minimums .... " The FAA believes requiring, for part 121 dispatch or flight release, that both ceiling and visibility minimums be met at the destination airport adds a reasonable level of safety for each part 121 scheduled flight.
In addition, the FAA has provided legal interpretations to assist operators when reviewing weather forecast information and determining whether or not to dispatch or flight release an aircraft. These interpretations include 1977-20; 1979-24; 1984-16; 1989-28; and 1990-6. For your information and to assist you, attached are copies of the last two interpretations, 1989-28 and 1990-6.
We trust this interpretation has answered your questions. This was prepared by Bruce Glendening, Attorney, reviewed by Joseph Conte, Manager, Operations Law Branch of the Office of the Chief Counsel and coordinated with Flight Standards Service.
Rebecca B. MacPherson
Assistant Chief Counsel , Regulations Division
Attachment: FAA Legal Interpretations 1989-28 and 1990-6.
Desired Outcome: Change the title of C055 to “Destination and Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums” and add a new first paragraph that states:
For operators with approval of paragraphs C059 and/or C060:
The certificate holder is authorized to derive destination airport weather minimums (as required by 14 CFR 121.613) using weather reports and/or forecasts that indicate the visibility will be at or above the authorized minimums as stated in Ops Spec paragraphs C053, C054, C059 and/or C060 at the estimated time of arrival. If a ceiling is required by the destination AIP, the ceiling (in addition to the visibility) will also need to at or above the stated minimum at the estimated time of arrival.
For operators without approval of paragraphs C059 and/or C060:
The certificate holder is authorized to derive destination airport weather minimums (as required by 14 CFR Section 121.613) using weather reports and/or forecasts that indicate the visibility and ceiling will be at or above the authorized minimums as stated in Ops Spec paragraphs C053 and/or C054 at the estimated time of arrival.
The FAA dispatch group has sent a “white paper” to AFS 200 to ask them to rescind the FAA legal interpretation. They have also asked for more 8400.10 guidance when a ceiling is required for dispatch. At the present time, no one at the OSWG agrees with the FAA’s legal interpretation.
If the interpretation is rescinded and more guidance is published, then there is no reason to change the paragraph.
It is suggested that the industry side of the OSWG put together a letter for the ATA, RAA, and the NBAA (Mike Nichols) to each sign and send in to the FAA. This letter will combined the agenda item, the “white paper”, and other information that asks the FAA to pull both the interpretation. If this does not happen, then the OSWG will issue an emergency paragraph change for C055 that will have the following statement (or similar language):
The certificate holder is authorized to derive destination airport weather minimums (as required by 14 CFR 121.613) using weather reports and/or forecasts that indicate the visibility will be at or above the authorized minimums as stated in Ops Spec paragraphs C053, C054, C059 and/or C060 at the estimated time of arrival. If a ceiling is required (by the destination AIP or other guidance), the ceiling (in addition to the visibility) will also need to at or above the stated minimum at the estimated time of arrival.
The 250 knots below 10,000 feet interpretation also needs to be rescinded and should be included in the above letter.
15. B042 ER-OPS [OSWG 2007-01]
FAA Lead– Jim Ryan, AFS-220
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?
16. OpSpec/MSpec C077, Terminal Visual Flight Rules, Limitations, and Provisions [OSWG 2006-04]
FAA Lead: AFS-220/AFS-250/AFS-820—Tom Walsh
Industry Lead: Jim Johnson, AALA
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: The draft Notice is in formal coordination and is available on the www.opspecs.com web site. 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.
17. OpSpec B050, Areas of Operations [OSWG 2007-03]
FAA Lead: Dave Catey, AFS-200
Angela H. Stubblefield
S-60, Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response
Department of Transportation
202-366-1769 (DOT HQ)
202-267-7576 (FAA HQ)
Background: Restrictions for flights to Lebanon
The threat to U.S. civil aviation in Lebanon was determined on Friday, June 1, to be high and the situation has grown worse since. The CRWG met on Monday, June 4, to discuss options on how to provide for the safety of U.S. carriers when the Presidential Determination is signed and U.S. air carriers are contracted to operate there. The CRWG invited representatives from the Department of State (DOS) and TSA to the meeting, but only the DOS representative could attend due to the short notice. The CRWG plans to meet again the afternoon of June 6.
The CRWG tentatively agreed that an SFAR would not be needed if we can obtain agreement from the other U.S. Departments and agencies for them to be responsible for the safety oversight of the U.S. carriers they contract with to operate in Lebanon. We believe the safest approach would be for these departments and agencies to sub-contract with DOD for these operations and for DOD to be responsible for the safety oversight of the contract operations in Lebanon.
Currently, the Lebanese government is fulfilling its responsibilities under the Chicago Convention by continuing to issue current NOTAMs concerning the condition of facilities at Beirut INTL and the ATC system in Lebanon.
The attachment above contains information that does not reflect the current DOT authorizations for Lebanon nor the DOT authorizations after the amendment to the current Lebanon Presidential Determination is signed. The carriers listed above will be eligible for OPSPEC authorization to engage in foreign air transportation to Lebanon ONLY if they contract with a U.S. Government Department or agency to conduct operations there.
For Immediate Release June 6, 2007
June 5, 2007
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
SUBJECT: Partial Resumption of Travel to
Lebanon to Promote Peace and Security
By virtue of the authority vested in me by 49 U.S.C. 40106(b) and for the purpose of promoting peace and security in Lebanon, I hereby determine that the prohibition of transportation services to Lebanon established by Presidential Determination 85-14 of July 1, 1985, as amended by Presidential Determination 92-41 of August 17, 1992, and Presidential Determination 98-32 of June 19, 1998, is hereby further amended to permit U.S. air carriers under contract to the United States Government to engage in foreign air transportation to and from Lebanon of passengers, including U.S. and non-U.S. citizens, and their accompanying baggage; of goods for humanitarian purposes; and of any other cargo or materiel.
All other prohibitions set forth in the above-referenced Presidential determinations remain in effect.
You are directed to implement this determination immediately.
You are authorized and directed to publish this determination in the Federal Register.
GEORGE W. BUSH
# # #
The new International Restrictions web link is:
US restrictions to Lebanon have been lifted.
18. OpSpec D195?, Operator-Approved MEL [OSWG 2007-03]
Industry Lead: John Cowan, UALA
FAA Lead: Ed Duchnowski, AFS-260
Background: Ed has worked with John Cowan at United and others to come up with the draft that is found on the www.opspecs.com website.
Desired Outcome: Provide guidance and authorization to provide for an operator-approved MEL.
A Notice as well as a draft Ops Spec have been completed and are being circulated in the FAA. This was originally scheduled to be included with the paragraph but will now be put out as D395. This would allow someone at the operator to approve their own MELs. The operator would have subject matter experts and a committee to review and comment on the decisions. The POI will then be able to make the final approval. The draft guidance is posted on the www.opspecs.com website.
19. OpSpec D095, MMEL [OSWG 2007-03]
FAA Lead: AFS-260
Background: Over 20 years ago the FAA put an MMEL/MEL process into place within its mainframe. AFS-260, the AEGs and thousands of operators have depended upon this electronic system. Now the mainframe system is being brought down and will be replaced with a web-based MMEL/MEL process. In the meantime, the MMELs are posted in a Word format on the www.opspecs.com website.
Desired Outcome: P ublish guidance that tells the inspectors about the transition and to go to the http://www.opspecs.com/ website until the MMEL system is converted to WebMMEL.
Connie is going to publish an InFO detailing this change.
20. 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.
21. 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 [too long]
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.
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.
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.
Outcome: CAT II on Type I approved runways list updated on AFS-400 website and in the OPSS guidance subsystem associated with OpSpec C359.
Connie will include the 1800 RVR ILS Excel file with the OSWG minutes.
22. OpSpec C054 Special Limitations and Provisions for Instrument Approach Procedures and IFR Landing Minimums/C059/C060 [OSWG 2005-04]
Industry Lead: John Cowan (UAL), Les Stephens (ASA)
FAA Lead: Ed Duchnowski, AFS-260 /Jerry Ostronic, AFS-220
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 :
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:
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.
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?
Paragraph C054 b(2)(a) needs to be revised as appropriate is not defined. There are also problems with C060.
Ed wants to work with some industry personnel and clean up these paragraphs to make them more readable and usable. John Cowan (UAL) and Les Stephens (ASA) will help Ed with this project. The landing distance flow chart that Ed made is on the web site.
Jerry was not present to comment on Ed Duchnowski ’s flow chart. Ed was like to put together a small committee to review this informaiton. John Cowan and Les Stephens will help.
1) AFS-410 has updated CAT II/III foreign airports list and updated the SMCGS list on the website. These updates are also available in the OPSS.
23. OpSpec C382, Landing Performance Assessment At Time Of Arrival For Turbojet Operators. [OSWG 2005-04]
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.
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?
The AIM needs to change for braking action Fair to Medium.
24. OpSpec A021, Icing [OSWG 2007-03]
FAA Lead: Jerry Ostronic, AFS-220
Background: Each year the FAA updates the Hold-Over Times for de-icing.
Desired Outcome: Update to the HOT tables?
25. OpSpec B032, IFR En Route [OSWG 2007-03]
Industry Lead: John Cowan, UALA
FAA Lead: Greg Kirkland, AFS-220/AFS-250/AFS-820/AFS-400 Nav specialists
Background: B032 does not have adequate guidance associated with it—thus it is not easy to understand as it is written. John Cowan has worked on this and came up with a proposed change. His draft attempts to make the OpSpec easier to understand. He believes his change would not constitute a policy change and would be editorial only.
Desired Outcome: A revision to OpSpec B032 that is easier to understand; maybe even more explicit guidance???
The group agreed to change the paragraph to the John Cowan rewrite.
AFS-400 and AFS-200 personnel must have the B032 rewrite in an official form so that they can review it for technical and legal correctness and to verify that no policy has changed.
Coby Johnson, AFS-410, will put together the Notice for the change.
26. OpSpec/MSpec A061 Electronic Flight Bag [OSWG 2007-01]
FAA Lead : Hank Cabler, AFS-400/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 allows 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: Notice 8000.353 was cancelled but the OpSpec C061 was not. Any class 3 EFB now approved in A025 should be rolled into A061. This should only list the device. Any description and details should be in the operator’s manual. Guidance is still forth coming for class 1 and 2. The revision to the Notice 8000.353 will also contain the on own-ship position issue for ground operations. A draft of the revision is on the www.opspecs.com website.
The AC has been published. This will entail no change to the Ops Spec.
27. OpSpec B035, En Route below 18,000 Ft. [OSWG 2007-03]
FAA Lead: AFS-220/AFS-250/AFS-820/AFS-400 Nav specialists
Background: In reviewing the guidance for updating B034, it was realized that B035 guidance was seriously inadequate.
Desired Outcome: Revise B035 and the corresponding guidance.
Paragraph B035 needs FAA work.
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 http://www.opspecs.com/ 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 :
No new airport(s) to review for this meeting.
Additional agenda items:
WebOPSS update—Chuck Schramek/Connie Streeter
August 9 and 28 (1:30 to 3:30 at 800 Independence Avenue) is the next meetings with the contractor. Also, an email request will go out to ask for FAA representatives to help with the development with this document. Rollout projected date for full operation for phase 1 is April 2008.
SAFO clarification language
Please include Hop Potter’s email concerning the non-regulatory nature of the SAFO. Also, the language should be changed to not make this sound like it is required. Also, some FAA personnel are mandating that SAFOs and InFOs. How do we stop this.
FAA interpretation for airspeed 250 below 10,000 feet
This should be covered in the letter to the FAA that deals with the interpretation of the destination weather.
How goes it for CAT II/III approvals from the regions
This does not seem to be working for certain carriers. The regions do not have the expertise nor do they have all of the information to approve them without a lot of questions. The FAA held a training session and it seems to be improving.
The FAA is rewriting C059 and C060 due to the ICAO TERPS and new definations. CAT II will be down to 1000 RVR. CAT III will be below 600 RVR.
D491 for quarterly utilization report for 121 maintenance, new way to submit QUR, draft is currently on Ops Spec website.
FSIMS – Flight Standards Information Management Systems, internal to the FAA with all of the carrier’s document:
14 CFR Part 97 NDB, VOR, and VOR/DME Instrument Approach Procedures Using Approved RNAV Equipment with GPS or WAAS as an Active Sensor
Title: add TACAN to the title, or change to all Non-Precision approaches except Localizer
The certificate holder is authorized to conduct 14 CFR Part 97 NDB, VOR, and VOR/DME instrument approach procedures using RNAV equipment, approved by AFS-200 and AFS-400, with GPS or WAAS as an active sensor and shall conduct all such operations in accordance with the provisions of these operations specifications.
a. Aircraft and Equipment Authorization. The certificate holder is authorized to conduct 14 CFR Part 97 NDB, VOR, and VOR/DME instrument approach procedures using the following aircraft and equipment when operated in accordance with the approved airplane flight manual and this operations specification:
Area Navigation Systems
M/M/S & Software
b. Limitations and Provisions.
(1) The certificate holder is authorized to conduct NDB, VOR, and VOR/DME instrument approach procedures using the procedures described herein unless prohibited by the certificate holder’s Operations Advisory page. For the purposes of this operations specification, the underlying navigation aid (NDB, VOR, or DME) may be out-of-service and/or an automatic direction finder (ADF) need not be installed, monitored, or operational to conduct these operations.
Added NDB-DME Why do you need operational VOR on the aircraft, how does this match up to an operator specific MEL?
NOTE: Operators planning to use their RNAV system as a substitute means of navigation guidance in lieu of an out-of-service navigation aid may need to coordinate with ATC regarding this intent, capability, and operational authorization.
(2) Instrument approach procedures must be selected by procedure name from the aircraft navigation database, which must be current and conform to the charted procedure. The operator is responsible for ensuring that the procedure as flown complies with the charted procedure.
Procedures must be line selectable from the database – instead of using procedure name
NOTE 1: The navigation database must be obtained from a database supplier holding an FAA Letter of Acceptance (LOA) in accordance with AC 20-153. This LOA provides recognition of a data supplier’s compliance with the data quality, integrity and quality management practices of RTCA DO-200A, Standards for Processing Aeronautical Data. Discrepancies that invalidate a procedure must be reported to the database supplier and affected procedures must be prohibited by an operator’s notice to its flight crew.
NOTE 2: Aircraft operators must conduct periodic data validation of the operational navigation database(s) in order to ensure the requirements of section b. (2) are satisfied. Acceptable processes for data validation are described in Advisory Circular 90-101 Approval Guidance for RNP Procedures with SAAAR, Appendix 3 Navigation Data Validation Program. Existing data validation programs providing equivalent performance to that described in AC 90-101 are also acceptable.
Does this require the operator to verify each non-precision approach in the database? No, but a small representative selection that the software still performs as advertised.
We need different language for acceptance for use via 90-101. We need to look at how different operators are handling this.
NOTE 3: 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.
NOTE 4 : Navigation databases are expected to be current for the duration of the flight. If the (AIRAC) cycle will change during flight, operators and pilots should establish procedures to ensure the accuracy of navigation data, including suitability of navigation facilities used to define the routes and procedures for flight. Traditionally, this has been accomplished by verifying electronic data against paper products. One acceptable means is to compare aeronautical charts (new and old) to verify navigation fixes prior to dispatch. If an amended chart affecting navigation data is published for the procedure, the database must not be used to conduct the procedure.
(2) Modification of approach waypoints is prohibited.
What about speed changes and altitude changes? Should this read no changes from the final approach fix inbound to the missed approach point?
(4) Operators of aircraft that do not automatically alert the pilot of a loss of GPS must develop procedures to verify correct GPS operation.
This could cover one system and not require dual systems. Needs to be discussed at another level
(5) NDB, VOR, and VOR/DME instrument approach procedures authorized under this paragraph are considered to have a required navigation performance (RNP) of 1.0 for initial and intermediate approach segments, 0.3 for final approach segments, and 1.0 for missed approach segments. However, it should be noted these operations are not categorized as RNP approaches and do not constitute or require an RNP authorization.
(6) The flightcrew must ensure that the RNP for each flight segment is satisfied. This requirement is normally satisfied by the inherent monitoring and alerting functions of RNP systems.
(7) Unless able to remain in visual meteorological conditions and proceed to the runway using the visual references specified in 14 CFR 91.175, the flightcrew must execute a missed approach in the event that the actual navigation performance (ANP)/estimated position error (EPE)/estimated position uncertainty (EPU) becomes greater than the RNP specified for the operation.
(8) These procedures may not be used for planning purposes at an alternate airport.
This won’t work for the Continental Micronesia operation that flies to the Pacific islands in B737NG aircraft without installed ADFs. Also, United Airlines operates a B777 with no onboard ADF equipment. They sometimes need to use a NBD approach for ETOPS alternates.
The alternate issue needs to be addressed at the PARC. Canada also has a slightly different requirement for using RNAV.
The ability to use an RNAV type approach for an alternate is now required in today’s environment and with the newer aircraft configuration.
(9) The operator must not conduct these operations to a runway with an associated in-service RNAV approach.
What is the purpose of this? Is this for any type of RNAV approach. The FAA is going toward RNAV(RNP) with paragraph C384. What if the carrier does not have this approval. What if the only procedure is an RNAV (RNP) and they don’t have C384 approval. Is the carrier authorized to shoot the VOR overlay? What does “in service” mean? What about an approach that has lower visibility? We need to keep this simple for the flight crews
c. The certificate holder shall not conduct any operation authorized by this operations specification, unless each pilot flight crewmember satisfactorily completes the certificate holder's approved training and qualification program in the equipment and special procedures to be used.
What special procedures? For numerous operators everything they do is the same, regardless of the non-precision approach type. This should be the norm as we all progress to RNP procedures.