FAA/Aviation Industry Agenda for
OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) 2009-02

May 6, 2009

Wednesday, May 6:  8:30 AM-4:30 PM

 

Hosted by ATA and FAA, Washington, DC

 

 

Tuesday, May 5, 2009—1:00 Pm – 4:30 Pm Industry Premeeting

ATA Headquarters, Washington, DC

 

 

 

Chairpersons:       Steve Kuhar, FEDEX, Industry Chair

                              Steve Bush, Horizon Air, Industry Vice Chair

                              Bob Davis, AFS-260, FAA Chair

 

1.  Convene .

Roll call—

 

 

Bill Cook announced his retirement.  As a charter member of the OSWG, he along with the other “Old Timers”, is the reason this group has been a success.  His eloquence, wit and wisdom will truly be missed.  We wish you the best, Bill.

 

2.          Status of Assigned Action Items.

 

Chairpersons discussion.

 

Additional Agenda Items:

 

 

2a.  NEW AGENDA ITEM:  July 21-22 OSWG 2009-03 in Seattle, WA, sponsored by Alaska Airlines.

 

Details to follow.

 

2b.   AGC Legal Interpretation of “ authorized minimums ” in 121.613:  Legal interpretation is final.  See attached “Hart Interpretation.”

 

The latest letter has revised the legal interpretation of what constitutes authorized Minimums.

See the Hart interpretation dated April 21, 2009 (written by Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel) is posted on OpSpecs.com.  Also, Info 08050 provides additional complimentary detail.

 

This interpretation essentially identifies that, for the purpose of dispatching, visibility is the primary element which defines authorized minima but also goes on to itemizes situations in which ceiling must be considered as well in that determination.

 

2c.   MMEL Policy Letter #98:   Navigation Databases.  Bob Davis to Brief.

This has been discussed at the MMEL IG.  Revision to 98 is in work and comments are welcome.  Draft will be available on OpsSpec.com.

 

10 days is OK if you have a dispatch/flight following organization to support the flight crew in checking RNAV route to limit their exposure to errors.  If you do not have this support, then it would be 3 days.

 

MMEL relief will be available in two forms:

1.            Relief for 3 days “B” if the flight crew must perform all the work in regard to verifying the accuracy of the Navdata being used

2.            Relief for 10 days “C” if a dispatch department will assists in the Navdata verification (i.e. Flight crew is not exclusively responsible for the navdata check).

See draft available on OpSpecs.com > MMEL > Draft Comments > Policy Letters.

 

2d .  A061 – Currently only requires Class 3 be listed.  However, once the trial phase is completed for a Class 2 unit, it must also be listed in the Ops Spec.  Where would this be listed?  This needs to be added to the agenda for rewrite. 

Steve Morrison, AFS-400, is planning to update the template to include Class 1 and Class 2.

 

FAA feels they need to know what specific equipment operators are using for EFB’s and to also monitor for possible improper installations.

Evidently an operator improperly mounted a class II device to a control Yoke which resulted in unintended airworthiness issues.

Currently class II devices are typically free text listed.

It was suggested to make new A-061 template to include a table for class II devices??

       Note: it appears that FAA’s intent is to update the template to include a table for the class II devices.

Draft will be available on OpSpecs.com for review and discussion by the July,2009 meeting.

 

2e.   B050 areas of the world.

B050 will be reorganized in WebOPSS.

There will be a map corresponding to each specific geographic region which is intended to make the authorized areas selection more user friendly.

A presentation of the new features should be given at the July, 2009 meeting.

 

2f.   Process for placing aircraft onto OpSpec D085.

 

FAA will update guidance to field inspectors on how to issue Special Flight Authorizations.

 

2g.   From AA: OpSpec A013, Operations Without Certain Emergency Equipment:   Minimum altitude restriction of FL250 for limited overwater equipped aircraft probably dates to older aircraft.  Can we re-analyze for modern aircraft capabilities?

 

Where did the min alt of 25,000’ come from?

May have been tied to:

1.            MEA for VHF voice/nav reception?

2.            Glide distance?

3.            DC-9 driftdown?

The best historical documentation may be contained in some old Western Airlines documents for their east coast flights.

 

It was proposed that a new analysis be conducted to review the requirements based on current aircraft capabilities and regulations to see if the altitude limitation of 25000’ can be reduced.

 

 

3.  C052, Basic Instrument Approach Procedure Authorizations – All Airports

History: 2008-03

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead :  Lou Lucero, AFS-470

 

Industry Lead:  Stanley Finch

 

OPSPEC C052 AND RELATED REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE.

 

Questions:

1.            Must GPS approaches be demonstrated on every recurrent training or check ride?

Answer:  No; however, a sampling of all non-precision approach types which an operator is approved for should be accomplished.  It is expected that over the course of time an operator will sample each approach non-precision approach type equally.

2.            For operators who have panel mount GPS units, must the GPS approaches sampled during recurrent training and check rides use the specific make / model of GPS unit that is installed in the aircraft flown?  What if the operator has several different types of GPS units?

It is not disputed that FAA has a legitimate argument, for those authorized, to sample GPS approach types during recurrent training and checking events, however, it is legitimately questioned by operators, “why must that check be conducted with the identical make/model/series panel mount GPS unit”?

Pressing this requirement places unnecessary burden on those operators affected.  This requirement will also have the effect of pushing operators away from space-based Continuous Descent Approach operations back to the old ground based approach types with the conventional step-down method of descent to minimums…A direction that clearly the FAA and industry would both like to avoid.

FAA needs to articulate to industry exactly what their concerns are regarding GPS approaches so that a collaborative solution may be found.

In the mean time, Industry would like to explore the following alternatives:

1.            Would it be possible to address the FAA’s concerns through the use of some type of training device?

2.            Explore possible specific deviation avenues to the rule thus allowing for operators to continue conducting GPS approach operations?

Industry would like to arrange a meeting with FAA (possibly AFS-210/AFS-250) and anyone else concerned to talk through this issue and to explore possible resolutions

Other aspects of C-052 discussed:

1.            Inspector guidance for C-052 currently is vague and confusing.

2.            The Op Spec is being rewritten to reflect the requirement to sample all NP approach types.


 

4.  B032/B034/B035/C063, 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: Lou Lucero, AFS-470, Terry Pearsall, AFS-300

Industry Lead(s): Rich Yuknatvich, American & Jim Winkelman, Alaska

 

No tangible progress on this effort since last meeting due to the need for FAA to first update B-034 to include RNP-5 operations.

The intent is to combine all enroute and terminal RNAV OpSpecs into possibly just two:

1. RNAV Class I operations.

2. RNAV Class II operations.

Hopefully there will be progress to report at the July ’09 meeting.

 

5.  B036/B054, IFR Class II Navigation Using Long-Range Navigation Systems (LRNS)

History: 2009-01

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead: Lou Lucero, AFS-470

Industry Lead(s):

 

Background:

 

Industry would like to explore the possibility of adding several alternative methods of validating an aircraft’s position when transitioning into Class II navigation and also when transitioning back to Class I that could be used in addition to those methods currently listed in the opspec.

FAA seemed to be open to this idea.

 

These Specs are also associated with the consolidation effort in item 4 above, however, little progress to report at this time.

 

 

6.  C300 NDB, NDB/DME, VOR, and VOR/DME IAPs using RNAV

History: forever

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  Mark Steinbicker, AFS-470, /AFS-820, Coby Johnson, AFS-410 , Jim Ryan, AFS-220

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

 

CLOSED.

Published as N8900.72 dates April 30, 2009.

 

Questions regarding C-300:

1.            Is C-300 being coordinated with air traffic?

Answer:  Yes.  The air traffic aspect, however, has historically been the most difficult aspect of navaid substitution for an operator to deal with and will probably continue to be so for the near future.  FAA is working the internal coordination / training etc. through the various lines of business within the agency.

For the short term, an operator’s best course of action for planned outages may be through close coordination with the regions AWO and the specific ATC facility involved ensuring acceptable wording of specific NOTAMs and to ensure a clear understanding by ATC facility of the operator’s specific authorizations.

2.            Is the 7110.65 being updated?

From all indications given, it appears the coordination process has begun but will take considerable time to complete.  Need to monitor progress.

3.            Are NOTAMS being written to accommodate suitably equipped aircraft?  (MSO is a prime example).

Efforts are being made to draft NOTAMs to accommodate suitably equipped and authorized aircraft but an operator should closely monitor language used.

4.            Is a new draft C-300 being written?

No. AFS-470 has agreed to continue to look to improve C300.

 

This agenda item indicates CLOSED, however, industry would like to keep it OPEN and on the July 2009 agenda to:

1.            Explore alternatives for using this authorization at an alternate airport with suitable equipment other than WAAS.

 

Notice N8900.72 dated April 30th is available.

There will be a 120 day transition period for an operator to move to the current C-300.

 

 

7.  OpSpec/MSpec/LOA - A353, ADS-B Out Operations in the Hudson Bay Area, Canada: 14 CFR Parts 91, 91 Subpart K, 121, 125, 125M, and 135 Operators

History: 2008-04

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead: AFS-410, Mark Fox; AFS-260, John Blair

Industry Lead(s):

 

On www.OpSpecs.com for review.

 

The reason given for this opspec being regional is that is was produced in response to a specific request by the Canadian government and that there was a short time frame provided to meet a specified deadline.

This opspec is currently intended to be used as a vehicle to approve U.S. operators to Canadian standards but will likely be expanded to include other regions in the future.


 

8.  C078, IFR Lower Than Standard Takeoff Minima, 14 CFR Part 121 Airplane Operations – All Airports

History: 2008-04

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:   Coby Johnson, Mark Fox, AFS-410

Industry Lead:  

 

CLOSED – AFS-410 concurs with closing – C079 issue requires rule change or exemption, not an OpSpec.

 

SMGCS is migrating from an AC to an Order, and there will soon be teeth which FAA will have to enforce SMGCS policy.  Progress of this migration will be worth monitoring as it was indicated that it involves moving SMGCS from being a Flight Standards issue making it an Airports issue.

 

One item particularly difficult to manage operationally is the disparity with between takeoff minima and SMGCS thresholds.  General consensus is that the lower RVR value of the first level SMGCS, currently 600 RVR, should be reduced to 500 RVR.  FAA indicated that doing this may be possible at some airports depending on ground infrastructure and equipment (ASDE-X, etc.) and that there was an effort underway to see if 500 RVR takeoff minimums and SMGCS can be harmonized.

 

 

9.  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 / Dave Maloy, AFS-430, Jim Ryan and Leo Hollis, AFS-220

Industry Lead(s):    Chuck Schramek, Delta and Jim Winkelman, Alaska Airlines.

 

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

 

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:

 

Work is complete.  Awaiting industry review.

The industry does not want to report a minimum fuel declaration.  There is already a rule in place to report an emergency for minimum fuel.  How is an airline going to track and report every movement that is for minimum fuel.  Right now there is no rule that supports this but the new Ops Spec would now require it.

The industry is offering to report arrival fuel instead.

There will need to be more discussion on this.

Two points:

  1. Re-Dispatch has been a part of the regulations for a long time
  2. B-044 was intended to manage how the regulation is administered.

Reporting minimum fuel is problematic for the operators and may not provide the data desired:

1. Declaration of minimum fuel is often a subjective decision on the part of the flight crew.

a. When researched, for most min-fuel declarations there is actually more fuel onboard the aircraft than the flight crew thought they had.

2. The definition for min-fuel is very subjective.

3. Policies concerning min-fuel may vary between carriers.

Industry believes the metric of min-fuel does not provide meaningful data

This issue will be discussed further between key industry and FAA representatives prior to the July 2009 meeting.

 

 

10.  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 /Jim Ryan and Leo Hollis, 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.

 

Action/Outcome:

Data was provided by FedEx small group.  Analysis showed FEX had a constant underburn, but not as a result of inaccurate flight planning.  Underburn was due to conservative business and operational model.

Question is how do you evaluate the accuracy of the flight plan using a performance base model?

Gordy Rother & Steve Kuhar will continue to work establishing a true mathematical model.

 

FAA has identified a level of safety and would like to tie it to a level of risk.  So, Miter will look at it for them and see if they can support this number.  It needs to be performance based and needs to be validated.

ICAO/FAA is working on fuel planning in annex 6

Additionally, work is in progress on “performance based fuel planning”.

 

 

11.  B342/344  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, Theo Kessaris, AFS-260

Industry Lead:  Jim Winkelman (B042 – Alaska),

 

BACKGROUND:   The previous B042 will now be four separate Operations Specification templates.  There are two  for Part 121 and two for Part 135 Operations, based upon the number of engines the airplane has.  They are non-standard OpSpecs and are numbered B342 for two-engine operations and B344 for operations with aircraft with more than two engines.  A rough draft of these was briefed at the last two OSWGs and has been posted to the web site.

 

Currently there are 4 templates in draft.

AFS-260 is working on the guidance and notice.

       Hopefully guidance will be available by the July, 2009 meeting.

Jim Ryan has been working this issue

 

Although there was some initial confusion, the best information indicates that B-042 will be discontinued and replaced by B-342 and B-343.

The migration from a standard spec to a 300 series spec is to ensure headquarters oversight of ETOPS authorizations due to unique situations that exist.

It was pointed out that as a 300 series opspec listing various alternates will require an additional volume of work that must be performed by FAA and whether Headquarters is really prepared for this?

FAA assures that the added work will not be a big deal and will probably rely on assistance from the dispatch inspectors at the CMO.

“The migration to a 300 series opspec may result in unintended consequences”.

 

Polar suits:

1.            FAA is still looking for scientific data to substantiate that the suits are not required during certain times of the year.

2.            Was scientific data used to substantiate the original rule?

a.            If so, is this data still available?

b.            What is the historical context of the rule?


 

 

12.  A008, Operational Control

History: 2008-04

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:   Dennis Pratte, AFS-250

Industry Lead:  

 

We need to revise A008 to state all required management personnel must be direct employees.  The current version says, at least one must be a full time employee.

 

AFS-250 is currently working on revising the template and the guidance.

 

The FAA is still working on the guidance to match the rule.  A direct employee is not an agent for service, but someone who works for you and is paid by you.  This employee does not have to be full time.

 

CLOSE. Awaiting notice.

Draft opspec is ready and will be placed on OpSpecs.com soon.

The new opspec will be aligned with current rules.

There appears to be no objection to the intent of the change in this opspec, however, Industry is interested in looking at the new draft once it is available.

 

 

13.  Stakeholder Survey.   The FAA has asked each meeting participant to fill out an OSWG Customer Survey.  Results of previous survey will be available at the next OSWG meeting.

 


 


 

 

LUNCH

12:00 – 13:00

 

 

 

14.  Introduction of International OSWG Co-chairs and members.

 

 

15.   WebOPSS Update.  Bob Davis to brief.

1.            WebOPSS is a Web-based process intended to operate essentially the same as the current OPSS/IOPSS system.

2.            FAA IT in Okalahoma City administers the WebOPSS system.

3.            US Airways is currently the only operator on WebOPSS

4.            A new digital signature is required.

a.            ARINC digital signatures will not work in WebOPSS.

b.            The WebOPSS digital signature is the same as that used for the Form 337.

c.            Costs: 30.00 per person which can be billed directly to a company

                                                                                                                            i.          FAA will try to bill in bulk (they are working on this)

d.            Persons who have signature authority for an operator must still be coordinated with and be approved by the FAA Certificate Holding District Office (CHDO).

5.            Training will be available sometime after May 11th on the WebOPSS website (free of charge to Industry users).

a.            Once a company has a logon and password they can go into WebOPSS and look at the training course.

6.            Check with Bob Davis for schedule to begin the changeover to WebOPSS.

a.            The process will begin with the CMO offices first.  The remaining CHDOs will follow after all of the CMOs have been transitioned.

7.            Carriers should coordinate with their CHDO prior to their anticipated changeover date.  It is strongly suggested that all operators export a complete copy of their active OpSpecs into MS Word just before the office is transitioned to WebOPSS to have a reference copy to refer to.

8.            Once deployed, a carrier’s OpSpecs will be migrated to WebOPSS.

a.            Prior to the changeover an operator should ensure that all issued OpSpecs have been Activated in OPSS/IOPSS and moved to Certificate Holder grid and that the Certificate Holder drop-down menu (e.g., Aircraft Authorizations, Addresses, Peronnel)  section of their OpSpecs is up to date and reflects the current  OpSpec.  Only Active and Archived authorizations in the Certificate Holder’s grid and data entered in the Certificate Holder menu areas will migrate to WebOPSS.  Nothing from Workspace will be migrated.

b.            Once migrated, on initial update of most OpSpecs, information will have to be entered manually.

                                                                                                                            i.          For a few “data intense” specs ( A008, A096, A097, A098, A099, A449, C070, D091, D092, D097, D485, and the Part 145 A003) data  will be transferred to load “From Active.”

9.            After migrating to WebOPSS, it would be wise for an operator to check and ensure that  the information in Item 8 above transferred successfully and that nothing was lost.

a.            Look at every detail of each OpSpec to ensure nothing requiring manual entry was lost.


 

16.   Digital Signatures.  AFS-200 published Notice N8900.68, Digital Signature Expiration in the Industry Operations Safety System.  The notice presents interim procedures until WebOPSS is fully functional. 

Once a digital signature expires an operator should follow the process outlined in notice 8900.68.

If there are no remaining FAA Inspectors in the office with an active ARINC digital signature, call the help desk to disable their digital signature feature.  Doing so will allow for signed documents to be made active and moved to Certificate Holder’s grid, printed out and then the paper copy can subsequently be signed.  Any OpSpec remaining in the Workspace is not considered to have been issued.  To be issued, all OpSpecs must be made Active in IOPSS and moved to the Certificate Holder’s grid.

 

 

17.   From AA:  ICAO requirement for noise certificate (Federal Register Vol. 73, No. 206 proposed rule change for U.S. comply).

This is an FAA rule to comply with an ICAO requirement for international ops.  As such the FAA folks associated with the OSWG have limited influence over the specific requirements.

1.            Currently each aircraft will require its own noise certification form.

a.            Aircraft serial number specific

b.            One airplane listed per form / an aircraft fleet form will not be acceptable under the current rule.

IATA is addressing the “aircraft specific” part of this rule through the ICAO counsel.

 

 

18.  ICAO AOC – OpSpec Template A999. 

 

The FAA will make the ICAO formatted AOC template A999 available in WebOPSS.  Much of the required information can be auto-filled.  Draft of guidance and A999 is available on OpSpecs.com. 

 

A digital signature on A999 will suffice, eliminating the need for FAA to hand-sign each AOC.  The AOC may be printed out and placed on board each aircraft or, if the certificate holder has the capability, it may be carried electronically on board the aircraft

  1. FAA position is that the digital signature on the A-999 establishes the opspec as a Certified True Copy.
    1. It was mentioned by one international carrier representative that he believed ICAO requires some type of official seal (Notary Public seal will not cut it!)
    2. FAA stressed that their interpretation is in agreement with the ICAO requirements.
  2. A-999 should be available for review within the next few months.

 

Similar to the Noise certificate, FAA stressed that the ICAO formatted OpSpec carried on the aircraft must be tail number/ serial number specific even though the guidance may seem to indicate that make/model/series is sufficient.

 


 

19.  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 – Rick Clarke,  Larry Youngblut

 

DISCUSSION: 

OpSpec A332 subject matter is the subject of ongoing review.

Law suit concerning A-332 has been dismissed without prejudice.

Industry would like to keep this on agenda to monitor developments.

 

 

20.  C384, Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Procedures With Special Aircraft And Aircrew Authorization Required (SAAAR)

History: 2008-04

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:   Lou Lucero, AFS-470

Industry Lead:  

 

CLOSED.

 

Will be published soon.

 

Added foreign RNP SAAR approaches that are harmonized with U.S. requirements, and AFS-470 is clarifying the guidance.

 

AFS-470 has updated OpSpec C384, Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Procedures with Special Aircraft and Aircrew Authorization Required (SAAAR), in addition to the inspector guidance for this OpSpec.  A template, Notice, and Guidance are available on OpSpecs.com.

 

Every change to this authorization, not just initial issuance, must be coordinated with FAA headquarters.

1.            FAA has a draft template which will be available soon:

a.            New draft will include a table to list approved foreign approaches built to US standards.

b.            Currently no such approaches exist.

c.            Specials, such as those built by NAVEROUS, are not applicable to this Op Spec

2.            FAA would either flight check these approaches or delegate the responsibility for flight check to another qualified entity.

Industry requests that this opspec remain open and on the agenda so that progress on the draft may be monitored

 


 

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

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  Terry Stubblefield, AFS-400; Dennis Mills, AFS-220

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

 

Background:  14 CFR 91.175 (l) and (m), 121.651, 125.381, and 135.225 permit the use of EFVS to descend below DA/H or MDA to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation on straight in instrument approach procedures other than Category II or III (Cat I ILS, nonprecision, and APV approaches).  Advisory Circular 90-EFVS, OpSpec C048, an FAA Notice, and inspector guidance for FAA Order 8900.1 has been drafted to support EFVS operations under the current regulations.

 

ACTION/Outcome:  To be published soon. It has completed coordination and is awaiting signature.  Will be available soon.

Draft of guidance material is in progress.

Move to close.

 

 

22.  D570, Authorization to use ground air conditioning systems as provided in §121.1117

History: 2009-02

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  AFS-260, Fred Sobeck, AFS-300

 

Industry Lead:  

 

OpSpec D570 is used to extend the compliance date in 121.1117(e) by one year.  In order to be eligible for the extension, a certificate holder must have notified their Principal Inspector or Certificate Holding District Office (CHDO) before March 29, 2009, of its intention to use ground air conditioning systems on its applicable airplanes in accordance with §121.1117(k) (2) and (3), and the certificate holder must have applied for OpSpec D570 by June 24, 2009.  With the issuance of this OpSpec, the final compliance date is extended to December 26, 2018.

 

Section 121.1117(k) (2) and (3)require air carriers to use ground air conditioning systems for actual gate times of more than 30 minutes, when available at the gate and operational, whenever the ambient temperature exceeds 60 degrees Fahrenheit starting as soon as the OpSpec is issued.

1.            This OP Spec only provides a 1 year extension to FAR 121.1117.

a.            It appears to be too late for a carrier to use this extension unless they already have it.

2.            Operators should read the base regulation to see if or how it may apply.

3.            It seems that this communications concerning this extension or the related requirements was minimal prior to the expiration date.

Industry moved to close since the expiration date appears to have already past.


 

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, Marty Bailey, AFS-300

Industry Lead:  Mike Keller

 

ACTION/Outcome:

 

The industry maintains that the communication between HQ and the field was not well coordinated on this issue.  This process needs to be reviewed and better coordinated.  The Job Aid states that you don’t have to update the Ops Sped for date changes.  So, what is the reason for this paragraph?  What is the value and objective? The initial portion of this Ops Spec is complete.  But, a second part is due in a couple of years and it will create additional busy work.  Marty Bailey will take these concerns back to HQ.

 

Mike Keller (AA) will talk to Marty Bailey (FAA) and discuss this off line.  Marty will discuss this at HQ and then come back and brief the group at the next meeting.

  1. This opspec covers fuel tank maintenance items that are already covered in an operators CAMP
  2. This spec serves only a data collection function in response to an IG finding.
  3. The lack of coordination in regard to this opspec appears to be a result of turn-over of key personnel in AFS-300.

FAA needs to be cognizant of the burden these requirements have on operators vs. their perceived benefit.

Better coordination between FAA and industry is needed with D-070.


 

24.  D091/D491 – Substantial Maintenance and all other Outside Maintenance Providers

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  Marty Bailey, AFs-340

Industry Lead:  Mike Keller

 

Compliance is now June 30, 2009.

 

  1. Next compliance date will be pushed out approximately 3 more months from the current date.
    1. This appears to be the “standard” extension time that Bob Davis can work out.
    2. It appears that these extensions will continue indefinitely until a permanent solution is arrived at.

As with D070, coordination between FAA and Industry is woefully lacking with D091.

Need better cooperation from FAA to arrive at an acceptable permanent solution.

 

 

25.  C059/C359, Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations

History: 2008-03

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead :  Coby Johnson, Mark Fox, AFS-410

 

Industry Lead:

 

CLOSED .   Notice 8900.70 published on April 30.

 

8400.13D draft is ready for posting on OpSpecs.com.  8400.13D authorizes runways for 1000 RVR CAT II and 14oo RVR CAT I, including charting.

 

Discuss proposed chart change to NACO CAT II mins.

  1. The latest draft of 8400.13d is available on opspec.com.
    1. To take advantage of the 1400RVR provisions, the HUD must be operated in a CAT II/III guidance mode.
  2. There may be a training element required – Scope is not yet known.
  3. The new C-059 will include the items contained in C-359.
  4. C-359 will be discontinued.

 


 

26.  C074, Straight-In Category I Precision Approach Procedures And IFR Landing Minimums – All Airports

History: 2008-04

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:   Coby Johnson, AFS-410

Industry Lead:  

 

Discussion Item:  Some CAT I ILS’s are authorized 1800 RVR based on runway lighting.  There are additional CAT I ILS’s authorized with 1800 RVR without the runway lighting, but they have a crosswind limitation.  Industry would like to see the crosswind limitation of 15 knots removed. 

 

AFS-410 will look at revising the OpSpec to remove crosswind limitation.

 

AFS-410 to brief.

 

A revision to C074 should be available by the next meeting.  The 15 knots will then only be a limitation below 1800 RVR.  The FAA is still reviewing the 1400 RVR requirements.

 

The FAA has asked if any operators have any information that they can use as a business case to obtain more equipment.  This would be especially useful at airports that have been requested by the airlines.

 

Draft C074 is not quite ready – will implement new CAT I 1400 RVR mins.  Determining feasibility of C053/C074 merger.  C053 will implement harmonized CDFA minima when procedures are produced based on TERPS 20 criteria.

 

AFS-410 is looking for any business case support for the current special authorization CAT II (CAT II on Type I, reduced lighting) to help support and justify the overall programs.

 

AFS-410 will distribute a list of runways for reduced lighting CAT II operations (CAT II on Type I, Special Authorization on CAT II) which require equipment upgrades.  We’re looking for support of a business case for replacement of ground equipment at specific sites where upgraded service is desired, in priority order.

1.            The new draft should 15 knot crosswind limit removed.

2.            A selectable will provide for 1400 RVR.

3.            Consideration is being given to merging C-053 with C-052.

4.            New template may contain a visibility penalty if Constant Descent Angle (CDA) approach operations are not used

a.            Possibly a 1/8th or ¼ mile decrement depending on approach speed category of the aircraft.

 


 

 

27.  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:   Rick Huss, AFS-220

Industry Lead:  

 

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:

http://www.opspecs.com/ops/SpecialPICAirports/SpecialAirportListRevisionJun2008.doc

 

CURRENT for this Agenda:  

 

Current list is dated June 2008. 

Delta Airlines Requests that UIBB (Bratsk Airport, Russia) and UIII (Irkutsk International Airport, Russia) be removed from the Special PIC Qualification list, and that ENSB (Svalbard, Norway) be added to the list.

 

UIBB (Bratsk Airport, Russia) and UIII (Irkutsk International Airport, Russia) will be removed from the Special PIC Qualification list and that ENSB (Svalbard, Norway) be added to the list.  Awaiting publication of Notice.

 

American Airlines is working on one Russian airport (Katenburgh) for removal.  They have submitted all required information.  Analysis is available on OpSpecs.com.

Industry seems generally satisfied with how C-050 is being administered.

 

 

Misc Subjects:

 

1.            Question: are FSAT, HBATS, etc still valid?

Answer: Definitely maybe depending on whether the specific guidance document has been incorporated into the 8900.1 and if not, whether it is otherwise determined to still be valid.  The intent though, is that the various guidance documents will eventually all be incorporated in the 8900.1 and then phased out.

 

2.            IATA is trying to create a central repository for the listing of aircraft (A003)

 

3.            Industry would like to continue to hold every second meeting in DC.

a.             To enable more FAA personnel to attend.

                                                                                                                            i.          FAA attendance is crucial to the success of the OSWG.

b.            Coordinating and availability of meeting facilities in DC (rooms etc.) will be a continuing problem but should be workable on a tactical basis.

                                                                                                                            i.          Consensus is that the extra work related to coordination is worth the value added from greater FAA participation.

 

4.            It was suggested that recording dates on the agenda would be helpful for maintaining better historical context of issues and progress.

 

5.            Visibility Tables – DE-ICE:

a.            Next year FAA will require use of FAA derived visibility tables for determining precipitation intensities.

b.            The ICAO table is not as rigid as the FAA table.

c.            Industry would like to know how the table was derived.

                                                                                                                            i.          In the proposed table, status of official day or night may have a profound effect on whether or not a flight may depart.

d.            Bob Davis has not been included in talks within FAA concerning De-Ice/Anti-ice subjects.

                                                                                                                            i.          Who is involved in FAA

The OSWG would like to place FAA De-Ice/Anti-Ice policy on the July 2009 agenda.  Although not an opspec, De-Ice/Anti-Ice policy has far reaching effects and it would be helpful to the OSWG members to be kept appraised of any developments.