FAA/Aviation Industry Agenda for
OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) 2010-01

January 19 – 20, 2010

Tuesday, January 19:  1:00 PM-5:00 PM

Wednesday, January 20: 9:00 AM – NOON

 

Hosted by Amerijet, Miami, Florida

Wyndam Miami Airport

 

 

Tuesday, January 19, 2010—9:00 am – noon Industry Premeeting

 

 

Most items represented by the tables in the draft can be properly placed in other specs.

Meeting Schedule:

Domestic Sessions

January 19 - 20, 2010

OSWG 2010-01

AmeriJet, Miami, FL

Domestic, Joint, and International Sessions

April 20 – 22, 2010

OSWG 2010-02

Washington , D.C.

Domestic Sessions

July 22 – 23, 2010

OSWG 2010-03

 

Domestic, Joint, and International Sessions

October 19 – 21, 2010

OSWG 2010-04

Washington , D.C.

Domestic Sessions

January 19 – 20, 2011

OSWG 2011-01

 

 

 

Chairpersons:       U.S. Domestic

                              Steve Kuhar, FEDEX, Industry Chair

                              Steve Bush, Horizon Air, Industry Vice Chair

                              Bob Davis, AFS-260, FAA Chair

 

Meeting Location: Wyndam Miami Airport

3900 NW 21st Street

Miami , FL 33142

 

Table of Contents

 

                           Day 1                                                   Day 2

                           Topic                                          pg.     Topic                           pg.

1.  Convene                                              2

11.  Stakeholder Survey          11

2.  Status of Assigned Action Items    2

12.  WebOPSS Update            11

3.  A030                                                     4

13.  A008                                   11

4.  A025                                                     4

14.  D091                                   11

5.  A012                                                     5

15.  D172                                   12

6.  B044                                                    5

16.  C384                                   13

7.  B343                                                    6

17. B036/B054                         13

8.  B342/344 B055                                  7

18.  B032/B034/B035/C063   13

9.  A061                                                     8

19.  A003                                   14

10.  C052/C053/C074/C055                 8

20.  B050                                   14

                                                                     

21.  C050                                   15

 

 

 

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 http://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

 

2. Status of Assigned Action Items.

 

Chairpersons discussion.

 

Additional Agenda Items:

 

2a.  NEW AGENDA ITEM:  April OSWG 2010-02 sponsored by FAA, scheduled for Washington, DC.

 

2b.   July OSWG – need a volunteer to host.

 

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.

 

FAA is revising Order 8260.19 and Order 7400.2.  When these are updated, FAA will finalize PL #98 through the MMEL IG.

 

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

 

2d.   OpSpec D085 and Special Flight Authorizations.

 

AFS-300 is reviewing the language in both the guidance and the template for D085 and A510 (Special Flight Authorization (SFA) for Ferry Flights).

 

2e.   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:  MEA for VHF voice/nav reception?

1. Glide distance?

2. 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.

 

AFS-200 will research this.

 

2f.  OpSpec C060, Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations.  

 

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

 

X

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead :  Mark Fox, AFS-410

Industry Lead:  Steve Kuhar, FedEx

 

AFS-410 plans a revision in 2010.  FedEx has submitted initial comments indicating that the paragraphs stating the requirements for different RVR values (c1 – c4) should all indicate that an operator is issued the lowest authorization, and all higher RVR authorizations are also authorized based on operational equipment for that approach.

 

FedEx comments:

 

Currently OpSpec C060 provides “Required RVR Reporting Equipment” in paragraph c. There are four categories depending on the aircraft capability:

c(1) Fail-passive Landing Systems Not Using Rollout Control Systems

c(2) Fail-passive Landing Systems Using Rollout Control Systems

c(3) Fail-operational Landing Systems Using Fail-passive Rollout Control Systems

c(4) Fail-operational Landing Systems Using Fail-operational Rollout Control Systems

 

These are obviously from least capable to most capable, with c(1) being the least capable and c(4) being the most capable.

 

c(2), c(3) and c(4) all have a paragraph (c) that states: “Operations may be conducted in accordance with the RVR limitations set forth in subparagraph c(1).” This indicates that the higher capable aircraft can always use the lower RVR capability for the least capable aircraft, i.e., Fail-passive Landing Systems Not Using Rollout Control Systems.

 

Following this philosophy of allowing use of lower capable RVR requirements, it appears that paragraph (c) of paragraphs c(3) and c(4) should read: “Operations may be conducted in accordance with the RVR limitations set forth in subparagraph c(1) and c(2).

 

Either this, or paragraph (c) should be deleted from c(2), c(3) and c(4), with the assumption that an operator is always authorized to use a lower capability.

 

As an example. The newer Boeing products have three autopilots and are certified to Fail-operational Landing Systems Using Fail-operational Rollout Control Systems. However, if they have an autopilot and or autothrottles deferred, the aircraft is now a Fail-passive Landing System Using a Rollout Control System. The current wording of the OpSpec would lead one to believe that the only option if the Operator is authorized to utilize paragraph c(4), but loses the fail-operational landing capability, is to revert back to paragraph c(1). In reality, in this situation, the Operator should be able to utilize paragraph c(2).

 

 

3.  A 030, Part 121 Supplemental Operations.

History: 2010-01

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  Theo Kessaris, AFS-260; Dave Morton and Leo Hollis, AFS-220

Industry Lead:  

 

There are approximately 66 A030 OpSpecs currently issued.  Out of those 66, approximately 15 have nonstandard language which allows for additional authorizations.  AFS-220 is seeking to rationalize the many versions of nonstandard text.  To that end, AFS-220 and AFS-260 will  work to create standard language that takes into account the different versions of nonstandard language in attempt to create a level playing field among operators and also to incorporate the recent legal interpretation regarding the carriage of the manual required by 121.139.

 

 

4.  A025, Electronic Record Keeping Systems.

History: 2009-03

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  AFS-260 – Theo Kessaris

Industry Lead:  Casey Seabright, NWA, Jim Winkelman, Alaska Airlines

 

FAA is proposing to amend the A025 template include tables for specific approvals such as flight planning systems, training record repositories, and other electronic/software applications.

 

AFS-260 to brief.

  1. A025 is generally considered to be a dumping ground for many assorted items.
    1. Much of Industry’s concern regarding this OpSpec centers around Operators being required to list flight planning software applications, etc. in the OpSpec.
    2. Industry believes that FAA’s concern (whether the software performs the intended task correctly?) will not be resolved by simply listing a software application number in the OpSpec.
  2. The FAA intends ensure that certificate holder’s are using this OpSpec to list only those system  specified in FAA Order 8900.79 and ACs 120.78 and 21.35 (electronic record keeping systems, electronic signatures and manuals). The FAA will work with certificate holders to remove any other electronic systems such as those that provide calculations.
  3. In addition, after conferring with Headquarter Legal Council (AGC) the FAA (Flight Standards) has decided to create a new OpSpec as a method of granting authorization to certificate holders who use electronic systems as a means of compliance with regulations such as 121.645, 121.471 and 121.197, which require calculations of fuel, time and performance.
  4. The FAA will establish this new OpSpec in accordance with 119.49(a)(14) and 119.49(b)(14).

Guidance and an Advisory Circular will also have to be developed to provide information to FAA and industry regarding the substantiation of systems that provide calculations and how a certificate holder obtains authorization to use those systems as well as what the FAA needs to know in order to grant that authorization. 

 

NOTE: The update of A025 and the creation of the new OpSpec (A0xx?) will be delayed for at least 6 months due to the need for further coordination with AGC who has a very busy calendar due to current rule making projects.

 

 

5.  A012, Domestic Operations to Certain Airports Outside the 48 Contiguous United States

History: 2009-04

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  AFS-260 – Theo Kessaris, Leo Hollis, AFS-220, Gordy Rother MSP FSDO

Industry Lead:  Mindy Waham, Alaska;

 

Alaska requests that the FAA remove limitation and provision (4) regarding the carrying of alternate airports from October 1 to May 1.

  1. Current weather reports in the state of Alaska are as accurate as those obtained at destinations of similar size which are located in the lower ’48.
    1. What is it about Alaska that makes the weather reports less reliable?

i. FAA responded by stating they would like to see “data” to substantiate the claim that the reports are just as reliable.

  1. The OpSpec has been updated to replace the maximum 2hrs flight time from the territorial limits of the 48 Contiguous United States to a maximum distance of 2350nm or total flight time of 5 hours, which ever is the lesser.  This change was prompted by an extensive review of the A012 paragraphs currently issued to certificate holders, which revealed lack of adherence to current guidance regarding the issuance of the OpSpec.

 

 

6.  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, MSP FSDO, Theo Kessaris 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:

  1. B-044 is essentially finished but will still need a few adjustments from what is now currently on opspec.com.
  2. Outstanding comments will be handled in the guidance materials rather than within the OpSpec.
  3. Comments on the re-dispatch event:
    1. There was ambiguity on whether you should upload a new flightplan to the flight deck for fuel burn based on actual weight.
    2. At the re-dispatch point is there the minimum fuel need by FAR to continue?
  4. Andy newcomer (UPS) has volunteered to review the proposed guidance.
  5. More discussion will continue off line.
  6. This OpSpec is not closed.

7.    Final version of OpSpec along with guidance to be inserted in 8900.1 and an accompanying NOTICE posted on opspec.com

 

 

7.  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):  Steve Kuhar, FedEx

 

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”.

  1. The FAA and industry are looking at the European Union metrics for justifying a 3% fuel reserve.
  2. Collection of useful and sufficient data is a major challenge.
  3. B-343 is currently on indefinite hold.
    1. FAA is not currently accepting any new applications for this spec.
    2. FAA will look at the EU numbers to see if they are valid.

i. More Data is sought by FAA.

  1. Questions:
    1. What fuel reserves do part 129 carriers use when operating in the U.S.?

i. Do they use EU fuel reserves or those amounts required by FAR?

    1. FAA should define more clearly exactly what data is needed?

i. En route portion (top of climb to top of descent or CLASS II phase)

1. 121.647 fuel only applies from top of descent to landing.

    1. FAA is willing to show all data that has been collected so far to any carrier who wishes to see it.

 

 

8.  B342/344  ETOPS /B055, North Polar Operations

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:  Steve Kuhar, FedEx

 

BACKGROUND:   The previous B042 is now 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 draft of these was briefed at the last two OSWGs and has been posted to the web site.

 

B042 will be discontinued and replaced by B342 and B343.

 

These four OpSpecs were previously presented with no apparent objection; with the exception of Aircraft Make/Model/Series being duplicated in both ETOPS OpSpecs and D086.  This issue is covered in the instructions contained in the 8900.1.  The applicable part of the handbook as previously reviewed and accepted by the OSWG. 

 

Theo Kessaris has developed the Notice and 8900.1 guidance and the OpSpecs will be rolled as soon as the guidance has completed coordination.  The guidance is currently in coordination and should be published soon.

 

B055, North Polar Operations.  This OpSpec has been presented for comment on two previous occasions.  The only item that was presented for discussion was paragraph (8) which requires airplanes be equipped with a minimum of two cold weather anti-exposure suits so that outside coordination at a diversion airport with extreme climatic conditions can be accomplished safety.

The rule gives some relief during those periods of the year when the seasonal temperature makes the equipment unnecessary.  Without scientific data to stipulate a specific period of time when temperatures will remain above hazardous levels, this relief must be given on a case-by-case basis and not included in the operations specification.  

This is an MEL item and should be pursued through that process.  Since no further data has been presented, we have drafted 8900.1 guidance and are preparing to roll the OpSpec.

 

 

9.  A061, Authorization To Use An Electronic Flight Bag

History: 2009-03

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead: Steve Morrison, AFS-400

Industry Lead(s): Jackson Seltzer, CO

 

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.

 

Update:  A061 has been sent for FAA coordination.  All Class 2 and Class 3 EFBs, as well as Class 1 with Type B software, will be listed in the table in A061.  They need to be listed by model, not by individual unit (50 identical units need only be listed once to denote authorization for that model).  The final version is on OpSpecs.com.

 

 

10.  C052/C053/C074/C055, Basic Straight-in Non-Precision, APV, and Category I Precision Approach and Landing Minima– 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 :  Mark Fox, AFS-410, Cathy Majauskas, AFS-470

Industry Lead:  Stanley Finch, Steve Bush

 

C052/C053/C074 will be merged. 

 

8400.13D is closely related to these OpSpecs – signed on October 22, 2009.

 

Will need to explore avenues for reducing T/O minima at certain airports – C078/SMGCS to be addressed in 2010.

 

CURRENT OPSPEC C052 AND RELATED REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE.

 

An issue has recently come up in the Southwest region involving air carriers who have been issued OpSpec paragraph C052. Specifically, what are the regulatory and policy requirements with regard to recurrent training and checking requirements for pilots using standalone GPS units to conduct GPS and/or RNAV (GPS and GNSS) approaches?

 

ACTION/Outcome:  AFS-470 is continuing to rewrite the Inspector guidance for OpSpec C052.  The old Job Aid and Inspector guidance will be combined.  We are not recommending a new Job Aid for this specific OpSpec.

The OpSpec will also change to include the requirement for GPS approaches during recurrent training, and clarification of RNP APCH (AR).

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 

 

C052 guidance has been re-written to reference regulatory requirements and the requirements for training programs:

 

D. Crew Training and Qualification.  Crew training and qualification for all authorized instrument approach operations should meet the requirements in Volume 3, Chapter 19, Training Programs and Airman Qualifications; AC 120-53 (as revised); Crew Qualification and Pilot Type Rating Requirements for Transport Category Aircraft Operated under FAR Part 121 ; 14 CFR parts 61 , 91 , 121 , 125 , 129 , and 135 ;; and Advanced Qualification Program requirements, if applicable.

 

AFS-210 will address recent comments from NBAA and Jet Logistics.

 

Other aspects of C052 discussed:

1. Inspector guidance for C052 currently is vague and confusing.

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

 

C053/C074 Current

 

A revision to C074 should be available by the next meeting.  The 15 knots will then only be a limitation below 1800 RVR.  1400 RVR requirements will be included in the initial draft.

 

Changes to the text that is currently in C053 will implement harmonized CDFA minima when procedures are produced based on TERPS 20 criteria.

 

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 have the 15 knot crosswind limit removed for 1800 RVR (Reduced Precision CAT I landing Minima).   The current C-052 draft appears to have this limitation removed.

2. A selectable will provide for 1400 RVR (Special Authorization CAT I).

3. New template will contain a visibility penalty for non-precision approaches if a Continuous Descent Final Approach (CDFA) technique is not used on non-precision approaches which have been recalculated using TERPS 20 criteria.

a. 1/8th for CAT A or B aircraft, or ¼ mile decrement for CAT C or D aircraft.

 

b. Lyle Wink briefed OSWG on this harmonization agreement in 2007.

 

C052 is in FAA coordination, expecting signature prior to April OSWG meeting.

 

OpSpec C055 issues:

C055 has been adjusted to state that one piece of concrete will suffice and this will align it to the ETOPS AC.  We also modified the “Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums” table to align it with the ETOPS Alternate Minimum table, as recommended by the ETOPS ARAC.  Several questions have been raised regarding the table.  These items have been addressed and accepted by the OSWG and the template has been updated.

 

OpSpec C055 is in FAA coordination – expecting signature prior to April meeting.

 


 



 

Wed., January 20

9:00 – 12:00

 

 

11.  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.

 

 

12.  WebOPSS Update.  Bob Davis, AFS-260, to brief.

 

 

13. 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:   Mike Nickols, NBAA

 

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 and is paid by the operator.  This employee does not have to be full time.

 

The issue of what is a direct employee is addressed by InFO 08005:

 

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2008/info08005.pdf

 

CLOSE. Published as N8900.95, dated October 19, 2009.

 

 

14.  D091, Substantial Maintenance and all other Outside Maintenance Providers

History: 2009-01

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead: 

Industry Lead:  Mike Keller

 

Published as N8900.102, dated November 25, 2009

 

 

15.  D172 Incorporation of Aircraft Electrical Wiring Interconnection System Instruction for Continual Airworthiness Into the Operation’s Maintenance Program/ CAMP.

History: 2009-03

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  Fred Sobeck, Tim Holt, AFS-300; Dr. Gary Layton, AFS-50

Industry Lead:   Tom Taylor FedEx

 

Part 129 , § 129.111 require that operators of transport aircraft with a type certificate (TC) issued after 1958 and a seating capacity of 30 or more seats or a max payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or more incorporate inspections and procedures for the electrical wiring interconnection systems (EWIS) into their maintenance programs by March 10, 2011.

 

The EAPAS/FTS rule requires that operators must submit EWIS maintenance program changes and any later EWIS revisions to the principal inspector (PI) for review and approval. The PI will approve the EWIS maintenance program changes, which include the operator’s initial incorporation and any revisions, on OpSpec D071. Guidance for both principal maintenance inspectors (PMI) and principal avionics inspectors (PAI) to determine operator compliance is contained in Order 8900.1, volume 6, chapter 11, section 24, Evaluate/Inspect Part 121 and 129 Operators’ Electrical Wiring Interconnection System Instructions for Continued Airworthiness/Revisions. The FAA will publish draft Advisory Circular (AC) 120-EAPAS, Incorporation of Electrical Wiring Interconnection Systems Instructions for Continued Airworthiness into an Operator’s Maintenance Program, as a method of compliance for operators.

 

Status: in coordination.

 

AFS-300 to brief.

 

 

16.  C384, Required Navigation Performance Procedures with Special Aircraft and Aircrew Authorization Required.

History: 2007-01

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:   Cathy Majauskas, AFS-470

Industry Lead:  Mindy Waham, Alaska;

 

There seems to be some inconsistencies with the limitations in Table 1.  Some carriers have a limitation on RPAT / RPA approaches, while others don't have any limitations.  Some of the early obtainers of this opspec were given limitations that were not given to later applicants as the guidance material changed over time as RNP SAAAR developed. 

 

Bob Davis said to apply to POI to remove limitations.  The current limitations that we have are selectables in the new system.

 

There is no guidance on what is required of a carrier to remove the limitation(s).

 

It appears that the first carriers that applied for it have the limitations while others that were a couple of years later do not.  By then the draft AC 90-RNP was replaced by AC 90-101 and it did not mention RPA or RPAT so Nothing was limited in the OpSpec.

 

As the industry lead in RNP it seems odd that Alaska has limitations that Other carriers do not (Continental, American).  Did they provide anything additional in their original applications that we would need to refer to in an request to amend ours?

 

N8900.99 was published.  However, FAA still working on details of releasing OpSpec template and 8900.1 Handbook guidance.

 

 

17.  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: Cathy Majauskas, AFS-470, Mark Fox, AFS-410

Industry Lead(s): OJ Treadway, AA

Background:

 

Discussion:  AFS-470 is in the process of combining OpSpecs B036 and B054 to make a new B036 – IFR Class II Navigation Using Long-Range Navigation Systems (LRNS).    Work continues with this effort.

 

From AA:  Para b.(4) of B036 requires position check using airways nav facilities or ATC radar prior to entering Class II airspace.  I believe this is an outdated requirement from the days of LORAN and OMEGA.  Modern GPS navigation systems are much more accurate than either ground navaids or ATC radar.  It doesn’t make sense to fix a position using less accurate methods.

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.

 

 

18.  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: Cathy Majauskas, AFS-470 , Mark Fox, AFS-410

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

 

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.

 

DISCUSSION:   AFS-470 was in the process of combining OpSpec B034, B035, and C063 to make a new B034 – IFR Class I Navigation Using Area Navigation (RNAV) Systems.  An intermediate step was necessary to update B034 with the addition of RNAV 5.  This is in coordination now and we will continue with the combining of the three OpSpecs when the new B034 is published.

 

The FAA wants to combine all RNP into two groups:  B034/B035/C063 all with class I, and Class II B036/B054.  This would group into a nav class.  Steve Bush will work with the FAA on this.

 

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 en route and terminal RNAV opspecs into possibly just two:

1. RNAV Class I operations.

2. RNAV Class II operations.

 

 

19.  A 003, Airplane/Aircraft Authorization.

History: 2009-04

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  Jack Pinto, AFS-260

Industry Lead:   Jim Winkelman, Alaska Airlines

 

Changes to guidance to clarify demonstrated seats versus certificated seats.

 

A draft is posted on OpSpecs.com and it is ready for internal FAA coordination.

 

Jack Pinto to brief.

 

 

20.  B050, Authorized Areas of En Route Operations, Limitations, and Provisions.

History: 2009-03

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead: Jack Pinto, John Blair, AFS-260

Industry Lead(s): Chuck Schramek, Delta

 

The B050 areas of en route authorization were reorganized for the new WebOPSS application.  The areas of en route authorization have been consolidated, reducing the number of areas from 73 in OPSS/IOPSS to 33 areas in WebOPSS.

· Sample of the WebOPSS B050 showing all available areas attached

· Listing of countries within each area attached

· Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 18 being updated to reflect the reorganized areas.

 

The B050 WebOPSS area redesign is complete.  Draft Notice, Order 8900.1 guidance and sample B050 template is in coordination with AFS-140. The following draft documents are posted on Opspec.com for comment;

Note:  These draft documents are also available for reference in WebOPSS under guidance tab.

 

 

21.  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:   Dave Morton, 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 http://www.opspecs.com website:

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

 

CURRENT for this Agenda:  

 

Current list is dated July 2009. 

 

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

 

Dave Morton, AFS-220, indicated that this will be finished soon.