FAA/Aviation Industry Agenda for
OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) 2008-2

April 22-23, 2008

Tuesday, April 22:  1 PM-5 PM

Wednesday, April 23:  8:30 AM-Noon

Hosted by NetJets, Hilton Head, South Carolina

Hilton Oceanfront Resort

23 Ocean Lane , Hilton Head Island, SC

Tuesday, April 22, 2008--9:00 am – 10:30 am Industry Premeeting

 

 

Meeting Schedule:

April 22-23, 2008                 OSWG 2008-02

NetJets, Hilton Head, SC

July 22-23, 2008                  OSWG 2008-03

United Airlines, Denver, CO

October 9-10, 2008 TH/FR OSWG 2008-04

NBAA/NATA, Orlando, FL

January 20-21, 2009           OSWG 2009-01

Delta Airlines, Atlanta, GA

April 21-22, 2009                 OSWG 2009-02

 

July 21-22 2008                   OSWG 2008-03

 

October 20-21, 2009           OSWG 2008-04

Washington , D.C.

 

Chairpersons:       Chuck Schramack, DALA, Industry Chair

                              Jim Winkelman, Alaska Airlines, Industry Vice Chair

                              Bob Davis, AFS-260, FAA Chair

 

Table of Contents

Item                                                            Pg.               Item                                                                 Pg.

1.  Convene                                                        2

15.  Stakeholder Survey                                      12

2.  Status of Assigned Action Items                     2

16.  TALPARC Update                                        12

3.  ICAO Standardized OpSpec Format                3

17.  A395                                                          12

4.  B034                                                            4

18.  D095                                                          12

5.  A055                                                            5

19.  C300                                                          13

6.  B043                                                            6

20.  A028                                                          14

7.  B044                                                            6

21.  C048                                                          15

8.  B343                                                            7

22.  A041                                                          15

9.  A332                                                            8

23.  D070                                                          16

10.  C078/C079                                                  9

24.  B032                                                          16

11.  B042/B055/C055                                          9

25.  A061                                                          17

12.  C074                                                           10

26.  C050                                                          18

13.  C077                                                           10

27.  D091/491                                                    18

14.  C063                                                           11

28.  AXXX (ADG-VI Airplanes)                              19

 


 

1.  Convene .

 

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.  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 “Change” format which includes appendices containing the appropriate revision to the guidance for the OpSpec/MSpec/LOA in 8900 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 draft template we suggest you use a recently published Change to 8900 that contains at least the 2 appendices and modify it for your proposal.

 

c.  Opening remarks

 

d.  Industry chair positions.

 

Chuck Schramek for the new chair position and Jim Winkelman as the vice chair.  Chuck will serve as one year in the chair position with Jim Winkelman becoming the chair after that year.  This was approved by the industry representatives.

 

 

2.  Status of Assigned Action Items.

 

Chairpersons:

Reviewed, amended, and adopted agenda

 

Additional Agenda Items:

 

2a.  Are flights from the contiguous 48 states to/from Hawaii and Alaska considered International under this recently enacted law? For over age 60 pilots, the industry would like to treat Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc as domestic for crew pairings. The industry has suggested that we propose our questions to the ATA Ops Council and have them put to the FAA as one voice from the industry

‘‘(c) LIMITATION FOR INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS.—

 ‘‘(1) APPLICABILITY OF ICAO STANDARD.—A pilot who has attained 60 years of age may serve as pilot-in-command in covered operations between the United States and another country only if there is another pilot in the flight deck crew who has not yet attained 60 years of age.

 

Action/Outcome:  Flights between U.S. airports , including Alaska and Hawaii and U.S. territories (e.g., Guam, USVI, etc.) are domestic flights, regardless of routes.  Diversions into foreign airports are unintended; flight plans that are filed from U.S. to U.S. airports are domestic.  FAA has provided a Q&A document here:

 

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/age65_qa.pdf

 

This will be taken to the ATA Ops Council meeting January 23 and 24, 2008.

 

2b

 

NEED A NEW AGENDA ITEM FOR B050 to discuss areas of operations and validation flights.  Chuck Schremck (DAL) and Jim winkelman (Alaska) will work this from the industry side.

 

 

2c. 

NEW AGENDA ITEM:  July OSWG in Denver, Hosted by UAL.

Emil Lassen, UAL

 

I have had real difficulty with finding a hotel with adequate conference room facilities that has enough rooms available at a government rate to accommodate our meeting.  This is due to a conference in town at the same time.  I am ready to contract with the Red Lion Hotel at Stapleton.  Attached is a copy of the contract with additional information.  The highlights are as follows:

 

1.   Up to 60 rooms available (I have a guarantee of 35 on the 21st and 50 on the 22nd with a 30 day reservation)

2.   $89 + 15% tax per night ($103 per night total)

3.   Continental Breakfast each morning

4.   Afternoon snack on the 22nd

5.   Free transportation to and from DIA every 30 minutes

6.   Transportation (21 pax limit) hourly to and from an area for dinner on the 22nd 

7.   For $37 per person, I can add Breakfast, Lunch and two breaks on the 22nd.  If we go with this option, I can probably renegotiate the room rate a little.

 

This facility is the sister facility of the Double Tree hotel across the street from our Training Center and is in close proximity.  United typically uses the Double Tree but this hotel was unavailable for these dates.  The Red Lion will not be comparable to the hotel we recently visited in Miami or the hotel in Hilton Head in location or amenities.  However, it will meet our needs and not break the bank in our current economic environment.  Please let me know if you have any concerns or would like to consider other alternatives.

 

2d.   Alcohol and drug programs for repair stations A449 , Notice 8900.18 effective until Sept 2008

 

 

3.  ICAO standardized OpSpec format. 

 

For your information.  The draft ICAO documents posted on the www.opspecs.com website still need to be adopted by the ICAO Council, with other amendment proposals (Performance-based navigation and RVSM material). This is normally a formality once the ANC has completed the final review.

 

A standardized ICAO OpSpec A404 could be developed.  Recommend a sub-committee be established to develop the OpSpec for the WebOPSS application. The current OPSS would not be user-friendly for the following reasons:

 

a.  The M/M (or M/M/S) of aircraft—If the authorizations and limitations are not identical for a M/M/S series, these models may or may not be appropriate to be grouped in a single list.

 

b.  A new available template is required for each M/M aircraft in order to have an accurate OpSpec for each M/M that has different authorizations and limitations. The current system would require each template to be individually maintained in addition to all the current templates.

 

c.  Current system is cumbersome to say the least—we hope that we can build WebOPSS so it is “automatically” filled out when your OpSpec authorizations are issued.

 

(NOTE: Sample ICAO OpSpec attached to email as PDF)

 

 

4.  B034, IFR Class I Terminal and En Route Navigation Using Area Navigation Systems

History: 2007-04

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead: Madison Walton/Mark Steinbicker, AFS-470

Industry Lead(s):  

 

Background:   B034 is populated with terms of BRNAV or PRNAV, which only apply to Europe.  Recent flight plan filing changes (e.g., Japan) require the annotation of RNAV 1, 2, 5 etc for departure, arrival and en route. It seems this may be the time to consider other terms such that the paragraph will give a broader authorization.  Additionally, paragraphs B034, B035, B036, and C063 seem to overlap in some areas while leaving gaping holes in others.

 

Desired Outcome:   Review the possibility of reorganizing these paragraphs consolidating all authorizations for en route navigation using RNAV in B034 and all terminal area navigation using RNAV (SIDS and STARS) in C063.  Address the potential need for a straight-forward paragraph addressing RNAV approaches. During this review and possible reorganization, update the RNAV terms to better reflect today’s broader RNAV environment.  Unfortunately, these are complex issues to be able to resolve quickly.  The FAA policy divisions recognize that it would be beneficial to be able to combine these authorizations but the time and resources have not yet been available to do so.

 

We currently have 6 paragraphs that authorize RNAV type operations and 4 of these are en route.  Jim Johnson presented a chart that shows a representation of the ICAO requirements and how it incorporates all the information together.  It would replace B34, B35, and C63.

 

However, paragraph B035 is not an IFR required paragraph.  It is only to allow for operations to reach 18,000 but not IFR.

 

NOTE:  New AFS branch 470 has all RNP, SAAAR, etc.  The new AFS-470 is just cranking up.  Mark Steinbicker is the new branch manager.  It is dealing with all performance based navigation (RNP), ETOPS, etc.  They are also working on an RNAV-5.

 

DISCUSSION:  B034, B035, C063 all need to be reworked.  Jim Johnson has written a draft paragraph to roll all of this information into one place.  B035 would then go away.

Action/Outcome:

 

 

5.   A055:  Carriage of Hazardous Materials

History: 2006-01

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

FAA LEAD:   Ed Duchnowski , AFS-260, Rick Clarke, AFS-220,

Industry LEAD : FedEx and AmeriJet

 

Background:   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.

 

Desired Outcome Clarify whether or not the carrier would be required to have a full Will Carry program to carry the 5# of dry ice.  

 

DISCUSSION:  The HazMat division has made the determination that any part 121 or 135 operation that carries dry ice (5#) must be a Will-Carry operator and comply with the requirements of 49 CFR 175 and issue A055.  They suggested that the operators may have to petition for an exemption from the HazMat requirements of 14 CFR part 119 for any exceptions. 

 

An internal ASH/ADG policy memo regarding the transition from a Will-Not-Carry hazmat training program to a Will-Carry program is posted on the www.opspecs.com website and the A055 JobAid provides the following link:  http://www.opspecs.com/FAAInfo/Policy/HazMatInfo/Final/.  In particular, it addresses those situations where an air carrier wants to become a Will-Carry operator but limit the types of hazmat it carries--thus limiting the content/depth of its hazmat training program.

 

Ed Duchnowski has done some research and has found that the HAZMAT office has now stated that you do not need to be a full will carry operator to carry dry ice.  The new memorandum states that you only need to train for the types of material that you carry.  However, if the operator is using dry ice for their own use such as in the galley, they do not need to be a will carry.  Also, if a passenger carries dry ice in their carry on baggage, this falls under the carry on baggage rules and does not require the operator to be a will carry.

 

We need to change the boiler plate for A055 to have one of the options that have the exact words to carry up to 5 pounds for operator use or with a passenger carry on bag for an operator who is a will not carry.  This information will also be posted on the OpSpec web site.  Richard Marcotte will also help.

 

Action/Outcome: 


 

 

6.  B043, Special Fuel Reserves in International Operations

History: 2005-04

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead: Gordy Rother, NWA CMO / Ed Duchnowski/AFS-260/Jack Pinto, AFS-820 (part 125)), Dave Maloy, AFS-430

Industry Lead(s):  

 

Background:  An updated 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. 

 

The rewrite harmonizes the reporting for minimum and low fuel reporting requirements for B043 and B343.  Also, any carrier using CDM will need to report when an aircraft is moved ahead of other company flights.  The draft document is in formal coordination.

 

Still in coordination.

 

DISCUSSION:  

 

Action/Outcome:  Will be published shortly.  This item will be closed when the paragraph comes out.

 

 

7.  B044, Re-Dispatch  

History: 2005-04

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Industry Lead(s):   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.  (Was this done?)

 

DISCUSSION:   The FAA will propose a rewrite of the paragraph to clean up the language and put in the correct FAR references.  More of the guidance will change than the paragraph itself.

 

ACTION/Outcome:

 

 

8.  OpSpec B343 Fuel Reserves for Flag and Supplemental Operations

History: 2005-04

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Industry Lead(s):  

 

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 and, until recently, was not granting any new approvals.

 

A more rigorous approval process is now being tested.  It shows promise in terms of the quality of data being provided and the duration of the approval process.

 

Desired Outcome: 

  1.  Provide FAA with higher quality data
  2.  Shorten the approval process time for new applicants
  3.  Develop metrics to more accurately determine performance levels and establish a routine review and analysis process that ensures continuous improvement, thus higher levels of safety.

 

The FAA (Ed Duchnowski) asks that currently approved operators provide data in a revised format that will more accurately determine the usage of en route and reserve fuel, both actual and planned.  The same format will be required for new applicants.

 

The FAA is still looking at revising the paragraph for reserve fuel.  It will go to a performance-based fuel reserve that will allow for routine trend analysis.

 

Down the road after they get into this, the FAA would also like to meet with CALA, DALA, and AALA at discuss how this paragraph will change and how will it affect each airline.   The FAA is changing the reporting requirements for new entrants.  This will make if easier and more meaningful.  Initial application required 3 to 5 years of data.  FedEx is now applying with less data points as this should be sufficient.  The FAA is hoping that a 6 month time frame will allow for a shortened and better approval process.

 

Additionally, there is no set percentage for the paragraph.  It could be a reduction of anywhere from 1% to 5% dependent upon the carriers ability to meet the requirements. 

 

One of the reasons for the change is that the FAA current data collection does not actually tell them much.  So far, there has only been one minimum fuel but no fuel emergency.

 

DISCUSSION: The latest trail is with FEDEX.  No other changes have been done.  The FAA wants to have this as more of a performance based driven rather than lots of data with no relevance.  Once the FAA comes up with their performance data points, the FAA would like to enter into a dialog with the other operators that have this paragraph and try to get that data.

 

The industry would like to have the draft of this published in the minutes for this meeting.

 

The desired outcome is to have a higher quality of data and shorten the time for exemption approval.

 

Team will present a report on the FedEx trial.

 

Action/Outcome:

 

 

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

History: 2007-01

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Industry Lead:  Chuck Schramek, Delta Air Lines;

FAA Lead:  AFS-220 – Jodi Baker, Rick Clarke, Rick Huss, Larry Youngblut

 

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

HQ approved non-standards A332 developed and in use by DALA.  Other operators are interested but would like changes.  An Ultra Long Range FAA/Industry group is meeting monthly.

This is still an on-going work in progress.

 

Desired Outcome:  The development of an updated policy by the FAA and the affected Flag carriers that provides acceptable fatigue mitigations.  The outcome is to have updated standard requirements in a Headquarters approved non standard authorization, A332, available for all carriers. 

 

DISCUSSION:  This is being at the individual airline level at American, Delta, and Continental.  After the FAA and the airlines agree on the requirements a paragraph will be published.

 

ACTION/Outcome: 

 

 

 

10.  C078/C079 , Lower Than Standard Takeoff Minima

History: Forever

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead: Coby Johnson, AFS 410, Mike Frank, AFS-260

 Published & CLOSED

 

Explain the use of the Table in this OpSpec.

 

 

11.  B042 ETOPS /B055, North Polar Operations/C055, Alternate Airports

History: 2007-01

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead–Jim Ryan and Dennis Mills, AFS-220

Industry Lead:  Jim Winkelman (B042 – Alaska),

 

BACKGROUND:   The New ETOPS Rule was scheduled to become effective for Part 135 carriers on February 15, 2008.  In response to comments to the Advisory Circular (AC) in the Federal Register, a change is being made to the rule.  The AC will be issued when the rule is finalized.  This should occur by May 2008.  As a result of the postponement in publishing the AC, the compliance date for Part 135 operators has been extended until August 13, 2008.  

 

B042 will now be four separate Operations Specification templates   There are two each for Part 121 and Part 135 Operations, based upon the number of engines the airplane has.  A rough draft of these will be put up on the web site.

 

There needs to be a change to the definition for NOPAC operations as it applies to Seattle departures. 

 

The EROPS Advisory Circular, paragraph 205, ETOPS Areas of Operations, paragraph A & B needs to be reviewed.  Delta Airlines would also like to review this for the purpose of when a validation flight is required. 

 

OpSpec C055 ETOPS issues:

C055 has been adjusted to state that one piece of concrete will suffice and this will align it to the AC.  We are also looking into modifying the “Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums” table to align it with the ETOPS Alternate Minimum table, as recommended by the ETOPS ARAC.

 

B055, North Polar Operations.  (5) Airplanes are to be equipped with a minimum of two cold weather anti-exposure suits.

i.  FAA agreed to give some relief in a revised B055 for this:  MEL relief is authorized for dispatch without cold weather anti-exposure suits from 1 May through 30 September when polar diversion alternate minimum temperatures are forecast to exceed -25 degrees C (-13 degrees F).  

Note: This is an MEL item and should be persued through that process

 

Desired Outcome:  An INFO should be out within 7 days that will describe a macro view of the new ETOPS rule as it applies to Part 135 Operations. 

 

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

Deviation from section 121.161 will be removed from the deviation DB when the AC and the OpSpecs for ETOPS change.

DISCUSSION  

FOR AFS-220:  Delta would like to revisit the 180 minute ETOPS approval for all areas not one for the Pacific and one for the Atlantic.  The Draft AC defines this as only one ETOPS validation is required. 

 

The wording in C055 needs to be updated to the new regulations.  Another column could be added to the table and allow RVR equivalent reading. 

 

Jim Winkelman and Casey Seabright will edit and show changes for C055 and send to Bob Davis, Coby Johnson, Bob Reich, and the industry chairs.

 

ACTION:  

 

 

12.  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 C359 

History: forever

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

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

Industry Lead:   Mindy Waham, Alaska Airlines

 

Published in Notice N 8000.327, 3/12/2008;

Placed in Parts 91K, 121, 125, 125M, 129, and 135 databases.

 

 

13.  C077, Terminal Visual Flight Rules, Limitations, and Provisions

History: 2006-04

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  AFS-220/AFS-250/AFS-820—Mike Frank

Industry Lead:  Jim Johnson, AALA

 

Published in 8900.1 CHG 14, on 3/12/2008;

Placed in Parts 121, 135, and 91K data bases.

Outcome: CLOSED

 

 

14.  C063, IFR area navigation (RNAV 1) Instrument Departure Procedures (DPs) and Standard Terminal Arrivals (STARs) published in accordance with 14 CFR Part 97

History: 2008-01

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  Mark Steinbicker, AFS-470/Bob Davis, AFS-260/Terry Pearsoll, AFS-300

Industry Lead:  Casey Seabright, NWA(DAL)

 

Background:   OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C063 has been revised several times in the past few years.  The FAA and some of the airlines have been working together to try and come up with a reworked paragraph.  All VORs and NDBs substitution should be covered. 

 

Some operators have a data validation process and this will need to be included for all operations.   This is the big hand-up right now.  The RNAV alternate question comes up often.  The FAA is looking at the Canadian model, which has an either or rule.  This means that you could use substitution for the destination or the alternate but not both.  However, in the long run, they need to have both, but the FAA has no time frame for this.  This means that you could not shoot an RNAV approach at the destination that uses the GPS feed and then use an alternate using substitution.

 

The FAA is looking at a RAIM prediction process and tool for the industry .  This will be required for any type of GPS feed.  C063 – This will allow for different runway selections for the same arrivals.  The different boxes do it differently.

 

Desired Outcome:   Casey Seabright proposed a draft issue statement and a draft notice for the change.  The highlighted proposed changes (included in the notice) are in red.  There are other changes but subtle and not of substance of policy change.

 

Issue Statement

Northwest Airlines believes that the current method of reporting RNAV system status data in Operating Specification C063 creates an unnecessary burden on the operator and does not provide the operator or the Certificate Management Office with the most rapid and reliable means to determine the state of RNAV capability of the respective fleets.  We understand and fully appreciate the need for the operator to show that its RNAV-capable aircraft meet the provisions of AC 90-100a, but we believe that this can be accomplished in a more efficient manner with reduced workload.

 

Northwest Airlines and other air carriers currently track hardware and software changes through an electronic modification tracking system and electronic software configuration tracking system or similar systems.  Through these means, air carriers are able to monitor the current state of all hardware and software changes to their fleet of aircraft.  We believe that use of these systems provide both air carriers and their Certificate Management Offices/FSDO's with an efficient and rapid means to verify the hardware and software states of our aircraft and thus meets the intent of Table 1 in the Ops Spec.

 

Therefore, we request/propose that the requirement to track software versions via Ops Spec paragraph C063 be revised to include the use of “other suitable means” for tracking software revisions. 

 

DISCUSSION:  Casey Seabright will discuss this issue with AFS-400.

 

ACTION/Outcome: 


 

 

 

Day 2

Begin at 8:30am

 

 

 

15.  Stakeholder Survey.   The FAA has 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.  TALPARC Update - Powerpoint presentation

 

 

17.  A395, Operator-Approved MEL

History: 2007-03

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  Ed Duchnowski, AFS-260

Industry Lead:  open

 

Published in 8900.1, CHG 15, on 3/17/2008;

Placed in Parts 121, 125, 135, and 91K databases.

Outcome: CLOSED

 

 

18.  D095, MMEL

History: 2007-03

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  AFS-260

Industry Lead:  

 

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 has been 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:  Publish 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.  Until the MMEL system is re-engineered, the web site is where to find the MMELs. 

 

The opspecs.com website does not send out a postcard notification of a MMEL change.   If you want to know what the current MMEL is, go to http://www.opspecs.com/ and select the type of operation (large transport, small transport, helicopter, etc.).   If you are not getting notification, call or email AFS-260 and get on the email list.  Or send 9-AWA-AVS-AFS-MMEL@faa.gov and you will be added the email lists.

 

ACTION/Outcome:  N8900.32, published on 2/14/08, announced the changes.

 

 

19.  C300 RNAV with RNAV RNP

History: forever

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  Mark Steinbicker, AFS-410, Mike Frank, AFS-250/AFS-820, Coby Johnson, AFS-410 , Bob Reich, AFS-220

Industry Lead:  Alaska Airlines, Jim Winkleman, CALA, Jackson Seltzer, Steve Bush Horizon, Netjets, John Trolan

 

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.

 

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.  However, TACAN is still questionable.  This would be for domestic use only, but the FAA would not prohibit an airline from using it if the foreign state allowed.  All operations would require a GPS type feed.

 

There is an allowance for DME-DME-Inertial.  However, there is no process in place to verify the NAVAID performance.

 

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.

 

Mark Steinbicker:   I won't be able to attend the upcoming OSWG meeting but would like to get your thoughts prior to the meeting with regard to the draft (previously attached) for C300.  It is my understanding that we have 3 remaining points of contention:

 

1.  GPS requirement (this has been included since the original draft

revision with few arguments against it)

 

2.  Accuracy of 0.3 nm (this is a change from current ops for some

carriers, although it is consistent with RNAV(GPS) and some RNAV (RNP)

approaches, so there may be a training benefit)

 

3.  Data validation program (I attempted to address concerns that were described at the last meeting by providing a number of options and additional flexibility).

 

Absent feedback with regard to the most current draft, my recommendation will be to implement this revision (with a compliance date TBD for operators with C300).

 

Coming to closure on this issue will 1) help me devote some resources toward the RNAV/RNP OpSpec rationalization and reorganization effort, 2) provide some material that may be used in international operations forums in order to advance this capability outside the U.S, and 3) allow other operators to apply and gain authorization for C300.

Per Mark Steinbicker, FAA, Manager, AFS-470, Performance Based Flight Systems Branch

 

DISCUSSION:   The industry does not feel that we are close to a new paragraph.  Multi mode is not discussed and the data validation from the industry’s position is not there either.  Because most of the new aircraft are coming without ADF equipment, any type of arrival approach including using it for an alternate must be available.  This also applies to VORs.

 

The industry would still like to have a meeting and bring together the FAA and industry to discuss this issue.  The CNS task force is already working on this

 

This is not new, but something that the airlines are already using and flying today.  Jim Winkelman will take the industry lead and work with Mark Steinbicker and the CNS task force to facilitate this.

 

New Action/Outcome:  

 

 

20.  A028, Aircraft Wet Lease Agreements

History: 2007-03

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead: Rick Clarke, AFS-220

Industry Lead: Ron Priddy, NACA

 

Published in Notice N 8900.29 and 8900.1 CHG 11, 1/31/2008;

Placed in Parts 121 and 135 databases.


 

 

21.  C048, Cat I Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS)

History: 2007-04

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  Terry Stubblefield

Industry Lead:  John Trolan (Netjets), Steve Kuhar (FEDEX)

 

Background:  14 CFR 91.175 (l) and (m) permits the use of EFVS to descend below DA/H or MDA to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation on Category I straight in standard instrument approach procedures.  Draft Advisory Circular 90-EFVS was published June 5, 2007 and public comments are currently being digested.  An OpSpec and inspector guidance is currently being developed.

 

Desired Outcome:  Obtain comments and work toward group consensus in publishing the new paragraphs for C048.

 

DISCUSSION:  The proposed OpSpec/Mspec will apply to Parts 121, 125, 135 and 91K operators.

 

At the next meeting we need to discuss the use of EFVS internationally.

 

ACTION/Outcome:  

 

 

22.  A041, Authorization for 14 CFR Part 135 Airplane Operators to Conduct a Pretakeoff Contamination Check

History: 2007-01

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  Jerry Ostronic/Cliff Fiscus, AFS-220

Industry Lead:  

 

Published in Notice N 8900.27 and 89000.1 CHG 8, 12/20/2007;

Placed in Part 135 database.


 

 

23.  D070, Integration of Aircraft Fuel Tank Maintenance and Inspection Instructions Into the Certificate Holder / Foreign Person’s / Foreign Air Carrier’s CAMP

History: 2008-01

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  Frederick Sobeck, AFS-300, Mario Giordano, AFS-300, Jack Pinto, AFS-820, Lou Garrido, AFS-300, Bob Reich, AFS-220

Industry Lead:  

 

Background:   Each applicable aircraft make/model/series listed in the operator’s operations specification D072, Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP), has FAA engineering-approved fuel tank system, type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC) base-line instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) incorporated into their CAMP.  These ICA consists of fuel tank system maintenance and inspection instructions as required by §§ 121.1113 and 129.113, as applicable.

 

Desired Outcome: 

 

DISCUSSION:  Discussion delayed to the next meeting as no one was present from AFS-300.  However, this does not seem like it needs to be a new paragraph.  Additionally, if the CAMP programs need to be changed, a long lead time will need to be given.

 

ACTION/Outcome: 

 

 

24.  B032, IFR En Route

History: 2007-03

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  Bob Reich, AFS-220/AFS-250/AFS-820/AFS-400 Nav specialists

Industry Lead:  open

 

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.  Publication of the new B032 and the revised guidance…however, some comments were received that need to be researched by the specialists before the changes can be made.

 

DISCUSSION:  This paragraph is with the FAA tech writers.  It should be published in the next 6 to 8 weeks.  This will include John Cowan’s exception.

 

ACTION/Outcome: 


 

 

25.  A061 Electronic Flight Bag

History: 2007-01

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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. 

The PowerPoint presentation will be put on the website.  AFS-400 does not have a process for the approval of a piece of hardware to use on an aircraft.  Only Aircraft Certification can do this.  They can however approve your use of the equipment.

 

The FAA is scheduled to do a field test at Executive Jet Management of their new Job Aid for approval of an EFB.  It will start with a couple of conference calls and then conclude with an on site test.  Once this is complete, the information will go into handbook guidance.  Steven Morrison (FAA AFS-430) is leading this process.

 

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 may also contain the on own-ship position issue for ground operations. 

 

The FAA is working diligently to revise the notice to effectively explain what the principal inspectors should do to authorize the USE of an Electronic Flight Bag. This will entail no change to OpSpec A061. 

 

DISCUSSION:  The fidelity of the vendor’s taxi charts need to be reviewed.  Also, the FAA is now been charged by congress to fix the problem of runway incursion.  They are looking at both a short term and long term plan and what technologies can be installed in the cockpit to help with this problem.  To help, congress is throwing a lot of money at this.

 

Outcome/Action:  CLOSED.

 

 

26.  C050, Special PIC Qualification Airports—14 CFR Section 121.445 Airport List Review & Recommendation of OSWG to AFS-220:

History: Standing Agenda Item

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:   AFS-220/260

Industry Lead:   Casey Seabright, NWA

 

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, a Notice will be published, 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

 

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

 

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:  Adding Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan (OAIX); Draft Notice in coordination

 

 

 

27.  D091/D491 – Update from Bob Davis

 

 

 

 

28.  AXXX, Operational Requirements: Airplane Design Group VI (ADG-VI) Aircraft

 

A###

Operational Requirements Airplane Design Group VI (ADG-VI) Aircraft

HQ Control

06/01/08

 

 

HQ Revision

Original

Applicability:  Airplane Design Group VI (ADG-VI) are airplanes with a wingspan from 214 feet (65 m) up to 262 feet (80 m).

 

NOTE: This may be applicable to the Boeing 747-800 as well.

 

The operator shall ensure that all runways and associated runway protection areas designated for regular use or as alternates runways, except in the case of an emergency, meet the following conditions or the appropriate procedures identified in this paragraph are applied.

 

Airbus A380

 

Runway Requirements

 

1.          Runways for takeoffs and landings shall be at least 45 meters (150 feet) wide with stabilized runway shoulders on both sides of the runway extending an additional 15 meters (50 feet) outward from the runway edge.

2.          Runways as narrow as 45 meters (150 feet) wide without stabilized shoulders may be used for takeoff and landings provided applicable flight manual procedures for takeoffs on 45 meter wide runways without stabilized runway shoulders are followed, and procedures are implemented for the full length of the runway to be inspected for foreign object damage after the takeoff prior to successive aircraft operations.

 

      

Runway hold short line spacing from runway centerline and obstacle free zone (OFZ) requirements

 

1.  All runway hold short lines must be at least 280 ft. from the runway centerline or coordination and procedures with the appropriate Air Traffic Control facility must be in place for all aircraft and vehicles to be held at this distance for A380 landing operations.

2.          The area within 225 ft. both sides of the runway centerline must be devoid of all obstructions, those obstructions within this area required for navigation must not exceed a height of 15 ft. and must be frangible mounted.

3.          For runways with a threshold height higher than 4,000 ft. above MSL the hold short lines must be expanded outward from the 280 ft. point by 1 ft. for every 100 ft. the runway threshold height is above sea level. (Exp. 5000 ft. MSL threshold height = an additional 50 ft. 280 ft. + 50 ft. = Hold short lines no closer than 330 ft. from the runway centerline.)

 

 

1.   Issued by the Federal Aviation Administration.

2.   These Operations Specifications are approved by direction of the Administrator.

3.   Date Approval is effective:                                                                                            Amendment Number:   

4.   I hereby accept and receive the Operations Specifications in this paragraph.