FAA/Aviation Industry Agenda for
OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) 2010-02

April 20 – 21, 2010

Tuesday, April 20:  1:00 PM-5:00 PM Domestic Session

Wednesday, April 21: 9:00 AM – NOON Joint Session

Wednesday, April 21: 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM International Session

 

Hosted by FAA

Holiday Inn Capitol, Washington DC

 

Tuesday, April 20, 2010—9:00 am – noon Domestic Industry Premeeting

 

 

Meeting Schedule:

Domestic, Joint, and International Sessions

April 20 – 21, 2010

OSWG 2010-02

Washington , D.C.

Domestic Sessions

July 20 – 21, 2010

OSWG 2010-03

San Antonio , TX

Hosted by SWA

Domestic, Joint, and International Sessions

October 19 – 20, 2010

OSWG 2010-04

Washington , D.C.

Domestic Sessions

January 18 – 19, 2011

OSWG 2011-01

 

Domestic, Joint, and International Sessions

April 19 – 20, 2011

OSWG 2011-02

Washington , D.C.

 

Chairpersons:       U.S. Domestic

                              Steve Kuhar, FEDEX, Industry Chair

                              Steve Bush, Horizon Air, Industry Vice Chair

                              Bob Davis, AFS-260, FAA Chair

AFS Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, Manager: John Duncan

 

International (Part 129 ))

Brian Miles, Emirates, Industry Chair

David Oliver, Qantas Airways Limited, Industry Vice Chair

Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-52, FAA Chair 

 

AFS International Programs and Policy Division Manager: John Barbagallo 

 

IFO/IFU/SEA FSDO Representatives to the Part 129 OSWG:  David Krueger (DFW IFO), Dave Henthorn (SFO IFO), Rolfe Dinwoodie (ROC and ALB IFU), Herbert H. Herzog III,  W. Scott Schweizer and Patrick Crowley (ANC IFU), Jack Corbitt (MIA IFO), Mary Barker (NY IFO), (ALB IFU), and David May (SEA FSDO)

 

IATA Representative:   Jeffrey T. Miller

 

Meeting Location: Holiday Inn Capitol

550 C Street SW

Washington , DC 20024

 

Table of Contents

 

U.S. Domestic Session      pg.    Joint Session                 pg.    International Session (129)    pg.

1.  Convene                                              2

16.  Convene                             20

25. Convene                                              29

2.  Status of Assigned Action Items    4

17.  WebOPSS Update            20

26. 129 OSWG Terms of Ref.                29

3.  A030                                                     9

18.  ICAO Register of AOCs   20

27. Part 129 Rulemaking                        30

4.  A025                                                     9

19.  C052/C053/C074/C055  22

28. 8900.1 Update                                   31

5.  A012                                                  10

20.  C060                                   24

29. A001/C070                                          32

6.  B044                                                  11

21.  D172                                   26

30. A006 and A007                                   33

7.  B343                                                  12

22.  D097                                   27

31. A008, A009, and A010                      34

8.  A061                                                  13

23.  B035                                   27

32. A029                                                     34

9.  D091                                                  14

24.  C384                                   28

33. A036 and A040                                   35

10.  B036/B054                                     15

 

34. D085                                                    36

11.  B032/B034/B035/C063               15

 

35. D485                                                    36

12.  A003                                                16

 

36. C080 and C064                                 37

13.  B050                                                17

 

37. C056 and C057                                 37

14.  C050                                               18

 

38. C075 and C076                                 38

15.  Stakeholder Survey                      19

 

39. B051 and B056                                  38

 

 

40. C381                                                    39

 

 

41. AC 90-105                                           39

 

 

42. C073                                                    39

 

 

43. New Business                                   39

 

 

44. Closing Remarks                              39

 

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

 

Subjects from the floor for general Discussion:

1. B055 service to South Pole.

2. Recommencement of regular scheduled service to Haiti.

3. Draft guidance being promulgated by certain field inspectors as being regulatory.

a. By definition, only regulations are regulatory.

b. However, it may be suggested that complying with draft guidance is the best course of action.  An operator may do well to weigh all relevant factors prior to choosing not to comply with draft guidance that is suggested by the pertinent authority.

4. Who (by definition) is the “Agent for Service” for an operator?

a. FAA will research the definition and report back (Action item).

5. Appropriate guidance will be distributed describing B757 as being a non-Heavy.

6. InFO’s and SAFO’s are not regulatory.

a. FAA Orders are clear on this point, however, reiteration may be needed for some inspectors.

b. Many SAFOs originate are triggered by NTSB recommendations.

c. InFOs originate within Flight Standards.

d. It was noted that if a carrier chooses not to implement the suggestions contained in a SAFO and an incident or accident occurs as a result of that decision the lawyers will ensure the operator is penalized to the fullest extent possible.

7. Legal interpretation for carrying Mx manuals on board the aircraft during supplemental operations:

a. In accordance with 121.139, maintenance manuals must be on board (in any form) unless a certificate holder shows an alternate means of compliance that meets the intent of the regulation.

b. A certificate holder may submit an alternate means of compliance to the FAA for approval.

c. AGC-200 suggested that a group of certificate holders could work through ATA to request a specific alternate means of compliance.

 

WebOPSS Update:

  1. Many items that should have been done by now will have to go to next phase.
  2. Total number of significant problems is dropping now that the system has been on line for a number of months.
  3. Hot fix program is completed.
    1. Funding is in place for the contractor to build the requirements for the next phase.
  4. Questions:
    1. Will old guidance be upgraded?

i. The effort to update old guidance documents and replace them with the appropriate 8900.1 references is underway.  Expired guidance documents are also being removed as appropriate.  This project should be completed by the end of summer, 2010.

ii. Updated guidance documents will be referenced in WebOPSS and whenever possible, links to applicable documents will be included.  This represents a change from how guidance documents were provided in OPSS, where an actual Word document was posted.

  1. Will there be a way to transmit information to the industry users?
    1. Message function was intended to do this but currently not functional.
  2. Is there a training course for WebOPSS?
    1. Yes, a training course is available in Oak City.

 

ICAO Update

  1. The FAA is working on the interface that will transmit data from A-999 (AOC) automatically from WebOpss into the ICAO Registry of AOC currently in development.  This would make the AOC data available electronically to other contracting states (approx 190 countries) to the Chicago Convention.
  2. Beta testing of the system should be completed 2nd qtr 2011
    1. Singapore and Canada scheduled to be the initial countries beta tested.
  3. An advantage to having one centralized  data base at ICAO is that if there are changes to an operator’s authorizations, only one notification will be required as opposed to a separate notification for each country into which an operator flies.
  4. A concern from the floor is the inability for an operator to view their authorizing information in the ICAO data base, to see what the ICAO contracting state has the ability to see about itself.
    1. The operator would have to access this information through their POI or other appropriate FAA conduit for viewing.
  5. Questions should be addressed to Henry Defalque – hdefalue@icao.int
  6. Not all countries agree on current format.
    1. The ICAO data base is a work in process.

 

1. Status of Assigned Action Items.

Chairperson’s discussion.

 

Additional Agenda Items:

 

2a. NEW AGENDA ITEM:  July OSWG – need a volunteer to host .

 

2b. D095

a. Industry would like to make “D” category MEL’s extendable (120day/extendable).

i. EASA allows this.

 

This needs to be presented to the MMEL IG.

 

Discussion:

1. The question regarding “D” MELs is an MMEL policy issue and should be addressed through that forum.

a. For questions, contact Mark Lopez

2. Moved to close this issue until addressed by MMEL working group.

 

2c. 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).

Discussion:

1. New language constructed for ferrying flights.

2. There is variation on how the rules are applied in regard to new aircraft.

a. There is a need for a single standard applied consistently.

 

2d.  A999.

 

a. Industry would like to add to A-999 agenda.

b. How is this opspec intended to be used?

1.  A-999 provides a certified true copy of the AOC in the ICAO format.

2.  The digital signature makes the A-999 template a “certified true copy”.

i. Written signature is not required.

ii. Name of the original signatory of any specific spec is not required.

iii. Notary is not required and provides no additional value.

3.  Guidance documents are now published.

4.  End goal is to develop a database that is compatible with ICAO.

 

Question from Industry:

Does FAA have similar requirements for 129 carriers?

 

Answer from FAA: this is not an FAA requirement; however, FAA ASIs, when performing ramp inspections of Part 129 foreign air carriers, do check to see that they are carrying their AOC on board.  (The AOC requirement is an International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO standard.  Member States to the Chicago Convention i.e. the United States has a responsibility to conform to ICAO standards).

Discussion:

  1. It should be remembered that the AOC is an ICAO requirement.  Not FAA.
  2. State of registry determines what constitutes a “Certified True Copy”.
    1. FAA has determined the POI digital signature makes the AOC a certified true copy.
    2. The end goal is to provide a mechanism for feeding data from the FAA database to an ICAO data base from which contracting states may draw in a format that is usable.

 

2e. From American Airlines: 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.

· FAA indicated that before the 25,000’ restriction can be removed it must first be understood why it originally became a restriction.

 

From John Reilly, AWO Eastern Region:

 

       The limit is from the formula for theoretical Max Line of Sight Distance between two elevated points.

       Given antenna height 9 feet and an aircraft at FL250 (25,000 feet) the calculation is D1+D2=Total Line of Sight Distance.

       D1=4.245NM (square root of 9' antenna height..."3"X 1.415) thus setting antenna to horizon distance.

   For the aircraft in flight 25,000' D2 is calculated as 1.415 X the square root of 25,000...eg 158.118....158.118+4.245=162.363.

 

If you are into math, the approximate distance (in miles) to the radio horizon can be calculated by multiplying the square root of the antenna height (in feet) by 1.415 times. For example, the theoretical distance to the radio horizon for an antenna 1,000 feet above the ground is just under 45 miles.

 

 

 

The distance, D1, to the radio horizon for the transmitter is 1.415 times the square root of h1 (feet). The theoretical maximum line-of-sight distance between two elevated points, presumably the transmitter (h1) and the receiver (h2), is the sum of the two distances to the radio horizon (D1 + D2).

All this, of course, assumes that the Earth is a perfectly smooth sphere, and that no signal disturbances or enhancements occur along the path between the transmit and receive points. As we know, the Earth is not a perfect sphere, and the space through which the radio signal travels is not perfect either. FM and TV signals can be either attenuated or enhanced by various path imperfections. Hills, buildings, trees and other physical obstacles along atmospheric and ionospheric conditions serve to enhance our FM and TV reception distance.

Discussion:

FAA indicated that the origin of the 25,000’ restriction for operating up to 162 nm off shore along the east coast is due to “line of sight” Communications and navigation capabilities.

 

2f. OpSpec S400.  CAST Safety Enhancements.

History: 2010-02

Database:

 

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following section of Operations Specifications is intended to gather critical information about the voluntary implementation of safety enhancements. These safety enhancements were developed by the joint government and industry Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) over the last several years.

 

The intent of these paragraphs is to gather information on safety enhancement implementations only. Principal Inspectors should not make safety determinations from these answers. In cases where the exact enhancement has not been implemented but the intent was met through another means, the answer should be "fully meet the intent." Also, if a given enhancement only applies partially to a certificate holder, for example for only one fleet of aircraft, the answer may reflect fully meet the intent if the enhancement has been implemented for the applicable fleet.

 

The information gathered here is intended for use in safety related issues and not intended to reflect regulatory compliance. No answers to these questions should be construed as acceptance or approval by the Federal Aviation Administration. Those approvals, acceptances, or changes will be processed in accordance with procedures and requirements already in place.

 

Principal Inspector signature on these Operations Specifications paragraphs signifies acknowledgment, but not approval or acceptance, of the given enhancements.

 

Discussion:  Greg Michael and Keeton Zachary gave presentation on CAST

1. Goal is to find a way to implement safety enhancements

2. S400 provides a mechanism for collecting voluntary information/data.

a. Filling out this template is VOLUNTARY, not regulatory

b. The template does not say “OpSpec”…Compliance is voluntary.

3. Data is de-identified once extracted from out of the template.  However, the answers are observable while the data resides in WebOPSS.

4. CAST info is protected under far part 193…is not “discoverable” and is not “foiable”.

5. Each operator may fill out the S400 template if they wish to provide FAA with the desired info.

a. Each operator must determine whether they will fill out the template.

6. The operator determines the quality or correctness of any given answer.

7. S400 will be a Mandatory template, but it is not mandatory that it is filled-out.

8. Comments from Industry:

a. It is questioned whether opspecs is the proper forum for collecting this type of information.

b. What value is in this for industry?

i. Answer:  A carrier can evaluate how they stand among their peers.

 

2g. OpSpec A353, ADS-B Out Operations in the Hudson Bay Area, Canada, and OpSpec A3XX.

History: 2010-02

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  Dennis Mills

Industry Lead:  Armando Cardenas and Andy Newcomer have volunteered to be the industry leads for ADS-B.

 

OpSpec A353, guidance update only.  AFS-220 to brief.

 

Discussion:   Dennis Mills gave a presentation.

1. To date no operators have this opspec.

2. U.S carriers are required to comply with foreign guidance documents.

3. The 80 miles in-trail requirement is reduced down to 5 miles in trail.

a. non radar area changed to a surveillance area.

4. About 50% of radar facilities will eventually be eliminated

a. There will still be 100% coverage but no redundancy.

5. Aircraft must emit proper 24 bit ICAO code (extended squidder).

6. A353 and A3xx will eventually be merged.

a. Should have a single generic ADS-B OpSpec (A353).

7. The requirement for headquarters approval is intended to be only temporary.

a. At some point field inspectors should be trained to do the approvals locally.

b. Intent is for the aircraft registration and SN# fields in table 1 to auto fill (not yet functional).

8. Question from the floor:

a. If GPS is good enough for 5 mile in trail why is it not good enough for position fixing in class II airspace in regard to fuel reserves?

 

2h. OpSpec A3XX, Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B)

History: 2010-02

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  Dennis Mills

Industry Lead: 

 

AFS-220 to brief  See above.

 

2i. 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

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  Mark Steinbicker, AFS-470,

Industry Lead:  Alaska Airlines, Jim Winkelman

 

Question from Alaska Airlines: 

 

Twice at OSWG, we have been told that those of us who have C300 need not re-apply unless we have changes to make.  If we need to change anything in the specification, we MUST use the new one.  I believe it has something to do with no expiration date?  The symbol used in available tab is the template revision is current so I don't show it as a mandatory revision, but there is confusion "in the field".

 

2. C-300.

a. Mandatory rollover 2008 or 2009 depending on specific template?

b. Original issuance of C-300 for an operator should have been coordinated with Head quarters.

c. Required an operator obstacle assessment.

d. Several operators were issued this opspec inappropriately (no coordination with DC).

e. FAA has allowed operators who hold the old C-300 to continue using it (evidently, there is no longer a compliance date for a mandatory change-over).

i. If a carrier ever update’s their old template, it will not be available for revision and therefore they need to use the new opspec and comply with the associated requirements.

1. Approx half of the operators who had held C-300 have discontinued it.

f. If an operator wishes to update an existing C-300, their choices are:

i. Fly an overlay of the approach via FMS while monitoring ground based guidance, or

ii. Comply with the current requirements of the opspec, or

iii. Work out a special agreement with headquarters.

g. Draft inspector guidance is in coordination with the Document Control Board.

Discussion: 

1. FAA working on inspector guidance.

2. New draft in place.

3. The new template will become mandatory when the guidance is published.

4. C300 will remain an AFS-400 approval.

 

2j. A027, Land and Hold Short Operations.

 

Question from FedEx.

 

Memphis airport is initiating LAHSO procedures for MEM runway 27 this month.

 

FedEx Express flight standards department while researching the implication of this new LAHSO procedure found a very small difference between the OpSpec language and 8900.1 guidance.

 

 

 

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:   Jim Winkelman (AS), John DiPaolo (SW)

 

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.

· It appears that FAA headquarters is trying to reign in inappropriate use of non-standard text

­ If it is apparent that similar free text is used repeatedly, then the boiler plate should probably be updated.

· All non-standard language must be coordinated with headquarters.

· FAA Would like to take the best of the non standard text and possibly use that language as either new boiler plate or as a selectable.

· Work on A-030 is in the initial phase of development.

Discussion:

  1. Non-standard language has been added to template
    1. Template is now on opspec.com for comment.
  2. The spec is not intended to relieve the requirement for carrying applicable portions of the maintenance manual.
    1. FAA Legal believes the maintenance manual may be in electronic format

i. If electronic the operator must have the means to read it.

ii. OpSpec on hold until those certificate holders who have raised concerns regarding the carriage of the maintenance manual seek further legal clarification from FAA.  A group of representatives from various certificate holders had discussed seeking the assistance of ATA to obtain clarification from the FAA.

 

 

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.

 

ON HOLD.

 

Background:

  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 to 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.

· The primary goal for A-025 is to transform it from a dumping ground and keep it only as a depository for primarily electronic record keeping plus an optional storehouse for electronic signatures and electronic manuals.

­ References to EFB in guidance documents will be removed.

­ This project may take a while before much headway is made due to current rule making projects and the availability of AGC.

· The current A-025 template will remain unchanged.

­ A new opspec will be developed for programs such as flight planning, flight/duty times etc

­ Expect process to begin no sooner than June 2010.

No change until consultation with FAA legal

 

 

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 950nm from the territorial limits. In addition, the entire State of Alaska will applicable with no mileage or time restriction as long as the Alaskan airports are listed in the certificate holder’s C070.  An alternate airport will now be required for all flights scheduled for more than 6 hours and the requirement to carry an alternate on flights operating to Alaska from October 1 to May 1 will remain intact until such time as substantiating data can be provided to the FAA that would indicate that the removal of this  limitation is warranted.

Discussion:  Based on the review of NWS regarding airports in Alaska, the FAA has removed the automatic requirement for a destination alternate to be applied in the state of Alaska from October 1 to May 1 as long as the destination airport has “separate” suitable runways.

 

 

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.  This ambiguity has been removed by making it clearer that it’s the results of the operational reanalysis that has to be transmitted to the crew, not the analysis itself.
    2. At the re-dispatch point is there the minimum fuel need by FAR to continue?  This has also been clarified in the guidance.
  4. More discussion will continue off line.
  5. This OpSpec is not closed.

6.    Final version of OpSpec along with guidance to be inserted in 8900.1 and an accompanying NOTICE posted on opspec.com once review by AGC-200 is complete.

· FAA indicated that all comments received have been incorporated into either the latest B-044 template or in the supporting guidance documents.

· A workgroup comprised of industry and FAA was formed in March to work on the guidance documents and update the OpSpec itself.  The workgroup focused on the “Internal Fuel Evaluation Program” which had been a requirement of the updated OpSpec.  The group collectively decided that both the FAA and industry would be better served if a certificate holder establishes procedures for en route fuel monitoring rather than an internal evaluation program.  The monitoring procedures would provide direction for action to be taken in the event of fuel over burn while a flight is actually en route rather than analyzing the situation after the fact.

· FAA stated that comments on opspec templates and guidance materials are very helpful to create a quality end product and to help fill unintended holes.

Discussion:

  1. FAA and Industry leads worked out details and reached a consensus.
    1. Draft is currently in final review and should be posted on opspec.com soon.
  2. This OpSpec serves as an example of how process should work.  Credit for the successful outcome should be given to the FAA and Industry leads.

 

 

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, MSP-FSDO / Leo Hollis, AFS-220, Dave Burnham, UALA CMO

Industry Lead(s):  Steve Kuhar, FedEx

 

ON HOLD.

 

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.

 

ICAO is working on a Circular to address “Alternate Selection, Fuel Planning and In-Flight Fuel Management.  ICAO is working on this project in conjunction with the FAA, IATA, and EASA.

 

Note: Dave Burnham is the FAA point of contact for ICAO for the purposes of writing the Circular.

 

The work in progress with respect to “performance based fuel planning” is being worked on within the scope of the ICAO Circular.

  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 and will not be revisited until the ICAO Circular is complete.
    1. FAA is not currently accepting any new applications for this OpSpec.
    2. FAA is attempting to analyze the data provided by certificate holders who are currently issued and using B343..
  4. Part 129 carriers are not required to carry part 121 fuel reserves when operating into the U.S.
  5. FAA will entertain starting work on a new version of B343 based on consensus of the ICAO/IATA/EASA/FAA workgroup that is addressing Fuel Planning and In-Flight Fuel Management (performance based fuel).

Discussion: 

FAA is working with ICAO to formulate a method to apply their rule to the U.S. OpSpecs.

 

 

8.  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

 

Update (4/8/10):  A061 is still on track.  Template is currently undergoing technical writer review.

 

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.

· Template should be done by the April to June timeframe.

· Industry would like to keep this opspec on the agenda until published.

Discussion:

Template is finished with internal coordination and is now with the Tech writers.  Expected finish date is not yet known.

 

 

9.  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

· ATA gave FAA a list of 22 questions regarding the new D-091.

­ This list has been subsequently added to and is now up to approx. 46 questions (Send any questions to span style='color:windowtext' ).

¨ Questions may be viewed on the AFS-300 website:

Ø AFS-300 > Flight Standards Service > Air Carrier Maintenance Branch > Resources > Questions.

­ AFS 300 has addressed in writing several of the questions.

­ Industry essentially needs answers to all of the questions in order to proceed.

¨ Once questions are answered and the requirements fully understood, then the process for an operator to comply with those requirements can be initiated.

· Even if all questions were answered today, there would still not be enough time for many operators to comply by the mandatory compliance date of Feb 23rd, 2010.

· Is there an opportunity for an industry wide extension?

­ FAA is currently honoring extension requests on a case by case basis.  There will not be a blanket extension given.

­ Letter requesting an extension must state Reason Cause, facts and input from CMO.

­ FAA was required to contact operators within 10 days.  If this letter was not received within the mandatory 10 day window, that would be cause for an extension.

Misc. Discussion:

· Definition of heavy Mx is no longer tied to the scope or complexity of the work being performed.  Instead, it is purely a time-centric (72 hr) item.

­ This can be problematic, especially when the time involved is unknown.

· There is a meeting with Steve Douglas at ATA headquarters scheduled for February 4, 2010 (1200-1600?).

· Essential Mx = on wing RII

­ RII lists are vastly over encompassing for many operators.  It would be a good exercise to reduce the size and scope of the RII lists down to what is truly RII by regulation.

Discussion:

  1. On March 9 a mandatory change to D091 became effective.
    1. Not much discussion regarding content of the Spec.
    2. Discussion centered on methodology.

i. There was minimal communication to Industry regarding implementation of the new template.

1. Industry lead was not contacted.

2. No announcement given to Industry.

ii. Industry requested that a method be devised that would alert operators when there is a mandatory change to an opspec on WebOPSS.

iii. This situation highlighted a current weakness in the WebOPSS system.  That being the absence of an effective tool that can be used to alert operators of OpSpec changes.

 

 

10.  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.

· B-036 is for class II navigation using multiple long range systems.

· B-54 is for class II operations using a single long range system.

· Objective is to combine all Class II navigation into on opspec.

­ Simpler said than done

¨ Class II rules include more than just nav systems (i.e. fuel requirements).

¨ Looking at ICAO rules may help to re-define Class I & Class II

· This project appears to be moving in a positive direction.

Discussion:  

No progress to report, although there was some discussion regarding the concept of redefining Class I and Class II navigation.

 

 

11.  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

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.

· C-63 is being updated to correspond with current AC guidance (90-100A)

· Intent is to eventually merge these opspecs, however in the meantime they must be updated to match current rules individually.

No discussion.

 

 

12.  A003, 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.

· Operational use Column has been removed from template.

­ Removing this column causes some possible negative impact for Intl carriers as foreign authorities use this to authorize ops in their country.

­ Even though these columns are redundant, they are helpful to the Intl carriers since ICAO looks at “what can a specific aircraft do” vs “what can the operator do.”

Post OWSG comments from Jack Pinto, AFS-260 (2-3-2010)

o 119.21(a)(1) – Domestic (D)

o 119.21(a)(2) – Flag (F)

o 119.21(a)(3) – Supplemental (S)

o 119.21 (a)(1),(2),(3) –  (D) (F) & (S)

     Eliminating the “Kind of Operation” column will remove the confusion that now exists with the authorization hierarchy question with regard to the “Kind of Operation” column.

 

· Question from the group: 

­ How hard is it to remove a column? 

¨ Answer:  Each column is a data island.  Trouble starts when the structure of a data island is hard coded by the Contractor.  However, FAA should be able to remove this data island (column).

¨ FAA looking at removing Cert seats and Installed seats columns.

¨ Industry would like to remove “installed seats” column.

¨ FAA’s Thought is that with the 3 columns for seats gives a more full picture

¨ Regulatory driver, however, is the number of FA’s and demonstrated seats.

· Question was asked:  “Does FAA require foreign carriers to list in their opspecs any authorizations by N-Number as opposed to by fleet or M/M/S?

Discussion:

  1. Draft template will be sent to coordination soon.
  2. Seating definition will be changed

 

 

13.  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

 

Guidance is in internal coordination.

 

Background:

 

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.

· Total number of “arias of operation” has increased from 33 to 34.

­ Redesign of the areas of operations for WebOPSS is now complete.

¨ Digitized map will be “hot linked” into the guidance documents.

· Changes are close to being ready for FAA internal coordination.

Discussion:

1. Draft template in formal coordination.

a. comments have been reconciled

i. should be published soon

2. Expect no changes to the OpSpec template, there should only be changes to the guidance materials.

 

 

14.  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 b website:

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

 

CURRENT for this Agenda:  

 

Current list is dated February 26, 2009. 

 

Removed Russian airport Katenburgh (USSS) from the list.

No discussion

 

 

15.  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.

 


 



 

Joint Session

Wed., April 21

9:00 – 12:00

 

 

16.  Convene.  Introductions.

 

1. Opening remarks, by Greg Kirkland, AFS-201, Assistant Division Manager followed by self introductions.  Among those present were:  Aer Lingus, V Australia, China Southern Airlines, Nippon Cargo Airlines, Singapore Airlines, Air Canada, Volga Knepr Unique Air Cargo, National Airlines Council of Canada, CAA of China, Hogan & Hartson LLP,  International Air Transport Association, International Field Office(s)/Unit(s), Flight Standards organizations (Technical Programs Branch, AFS-260, International Programs and Policy Division, AFS-50, Aircraft Maintenance Division, AFS-300, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, AFS-400, General Aviation and Commercial Division, AFS-800)

 

 

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

1.  Many items that should have been done by now will have to go to next phase.

2.  Total number of significant problems is dropping now that the system has been on line for a number of months.

3.  Hot fix program is completed.

a.  Funding is in place for the contractor to build the requirements for the next phase.

4.  Questions:

a.  Will old guidance be upgraded?

i.  The effort to update old guidance documents and replace them with the appropriate 8900.1 references is underway.  Expired guidance documents are also being removed as appropriate.  This project should be completed by the end of summer, 2010.

ii.  Updated guidance documents will be referenced in WebOPSS and whenever possible, links to applicable documents will be included.  This represents a change from how guidance documents were provided in OPSS, where an actual Word document was posted.

b.  Will there be a way to transmit information to the industry users?

i.  Message function was intended to do this but currently not functional.

c.  Is there a training course for WebOPSS?

i.  Yes, a training course is available in Oak City.

 

 

18.  Progress Recent Developments: International Register of AOCs.   Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-52, briefed the OSWG on progress/recent developments of the International register of AOCs.  Update for the briefing was provided/coordinated with Henry Defalque, International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO.   Henry’s  PowerPoint presentation in its entirety may be seen on opspecs.com.

 

Update:

· Phase I Beta testing expected to start in about 6months

o The IT requirements are being developed by the Civil Aviation University of China

§ Data set will consist of the Air Operator Certificate and Operations Specifications as defined by ICAO Annex 6 to the Convention on International Aviation (for airplanes - Part 1, Appendix 6)

o Australia and Canada first States to be Beta tested

§ France , Netherlands and Singapore to follow

§ States with lots of data i.e. US will be Beta tested later in the process

· Small, middle to large

· Phase II development to start in the second quarter of 2011

o International Air Transport Association will conduct the additional data-set development

§ Will look at commonalities among OpSpecs currently being issued around the world (based on which Phase II will be built)

· Will expand on the Phase I data set

· Extreme requirements will be simplified

· Will vet before finalizing

· Each State will upload the information to the data base by single person/interface

o Manually or via automation

§ US has chosen automation and is working on the interface between WebOpss and the International Registry of AOCs

· Once the system is operational States will be able to access the information 24hrs a day, 7 days a week

o When viewing the information the date of the last update to the document being viewed will be provided

o 6-8 queries will be available

§ For example: what US air carriers operate to Singapore?

· States will be asked to confirm the accuracy of the data in the system once a year

· States will be expected to update the system throughout the year as changes occur

· Quality Control

o When a State updates information for any one of its air carriers the air carrier will be notified with the change

§ If the change is not correct the air carrier will need to notify the State and they will need to send in an appropriate correction

· Each State may be able to have multiple individuals with access to view the Registry data

· The data set is necessary to assist States in their oversight responsibilities of foreign air carriers operating within a States airspace

 

Questions from the floor (Answers to the following have been confirmed with Henry post meeting):

 

· What language will the data base be in?   The data would be English only (based on the fact that the AOC and Ops Specs, if not in the English language, must have a translation into English, as per Annex 6, 6.1.2: An aeroplane shall carry a certified true copy of the air operator certificate specified in 4.2.1, and a copy of the operations specifications relevant to the aeroplane type, issued in conjunction with the certificate. When the certificate and the associated operations specifications are issued by the State of the Operator in a language other than English, an English translation shall be included.) . Thus there would be no requirement for additional translation of the text for the database.

 

· Quality Control

o Could the Registry permit each carrier to have the ability to view its data any time the way that a State would be able to?   The problem with an access control for operators is that its maintenance would be a heavy workload for ICAO. This is thus not possible. However, download access to inspectors would be granted by the State, which could decide to include representatives from operators in the list. The State would maintain its list of persons with access.

o Who at the air carrier would the e-mail notification go to?  The airline would specify the address to the State of the Operator, which would upload it as part of the AOC data.

 

· Once an Air Carrier’s AOC is uploaded to the Registry and other States have the ability to view it will the air carrier still need to carry a copy of the AOC on board the aircraft?

o In the long term, ICAO hopes to introduce a waiver for the carriage of the AOC certified copy for those operators which have their data in the ICAO database. However this is still controversial and in any way would require that the AOC Register is fully operational, 24h/7 days and has a back-up server on stand-by in a different location to ensure accessibility of the data. This is at least 3 years down the line. It also requires an amendment to Annex 6 which takes 2 years and cannot be initiated until the Register is operational.

 

Status:  Open

 

 

19.  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).

 

Para C052 b (5):  Alternate Airport GPS WAAS Usage.

 

Pilots may plan to use any instrument approach authorized for use with GPS WAAS avionics at a required alternate if the aircraft is equipped with such equipment certified in accordance with Technical Standard Order (TSO) C-145a/C-146a. This flight planning, however, must be based on flying the RNAV (GPS) (or RNAV (GNSS) for foreign approaches) LNAV minima line, or the minima on a GPS approach procedure or conventional approach procedure with “… or GPS” in the title. Upon arrival at an alternate, if the GPS WAAS navigation system indicates that LNAV/VNAV or LPV service is available, vertical guidance may be used to complete the approach using the displayed level of service.

 

The issue with this paragraph is the words in blue. Modern high capacity aircraft (Boeing and Airbus) do not have equipment certified to TSO C145a/C 146a. The AFM spells out the navigation accuracy capability for the aircraft. Our regulator (CASA) has included the words in red, below, to the Australian standard.  So my proposal is to mirror that in the US Ops Spec:

 

Pilots may plan to use any instrument approach authorized for use with GPS WAAS avionics at a required alternate if the aircraft is equipped with such equipment certified in accordance with Technical Standard Order (TSO) C-145a/C-146a or equivalent. This flight planning, however, must be based on flying the RNAV (GPS) (or RNAV (GNSS) for foreign approaches) LNAV minima line, or the minima on a GPS approach procedure or conventional approach procedure with “… or GPS” in the title. Upon arrival at an alternate, if the GPS WAAS navigation system indicates that LNAV/VNAV or LPV service is available, vertical guidance may be used to complete the approach using the displayed level of service."

 

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.  CDFA penalty language has been removed.

 

· Draft notice is available on opspec.com.

· There is no plan to chart CDFA penalties on U.S. government produced approach charts. It does appear, however, that other commercial chart suppliers will publish these penalties.

· No discussion on NBAA’s paper regarding checking requirement with each specific make & model GPS unit/aircraft combination.

­ If NBAA would like to pursue this further in the OSWG forum, there should be a formal request to place it on the agenda.

 

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 signed and available in FSIMs.

· WAAS language added to draft.

 

Discussion:  Mark Fox gave a Briefing.

  1. The new C055 template is now available on WebOPSS.
  2. C052 draft is in coordination.
  3. Should be signed in June 2010.
  4. CDFA penalties have been removed from US government approach charts due to the absence of appropriate guidance materials.
    1. Expect CDFA language to return at a later date once the associated guidance materials are drafted.
  5. Expect to see a new CAT II title “SA CAT II”

 

 

20.  OpSpec C060, Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations.  

History: 2010-01

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 :  Bryant Welch, 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).

 

Horizon comments: For OpSpec C060, I suggest that you take a look at Horizon’s free text regarding single engine CAT III authorization.  This text is directly from AC 120-28D (guidance material for certifying and authorizing CAT III operations with one engine inoperative) and was coordinated through headquarters back when we originally approved our CAT III program in the Q400.  I think we should take this text and make it a selectable standard text in the template.  Also, since there are very specific aircraft performance, flight planning, and flight crew training/checking requirement to take advantage of the CAT II/III minimums for an alternate on C055, that portion of the alternate minimums table should also be a selectable which could only be available if SE CAT III operations are approved in C060.

 

· C-59/60 general:

­ On initial revision of these opspecs all data input in the tables must be installed manually.

· Opspec C-060:

­ There are 4 levels of RVR requirements corresponding to 4 levels of equipment capabilities.

¨ Essentially, if an operator is authorized for a certain level of CAT III operation, if the aircraft fails down to a lower level of capability that lower level should also be authorize provided the crews are trained for the resultant operation.

¨ Proposed amendment will require internal FAA discussions.

· Table 4 is for irregular terrain runways only.

 

· C-059:

­ Current FAA policy is that CAT II operations at military installations located on foreign soil should be treated and considered as being the same as CAT II in domestic Ops.

· It may be useful if C-059 were updated to state that if the approach is DOD then it should be considered the same as being domestic.

Discussion:

1. C060 draft is currently in the very beginning stages of draft.

a. Primary goal is to simplify.

 

 

21.  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

 

 

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.

· AC is complete

· All available ICA’s will be available by end of March (ICA = Instruction for Continuous Airworthiness).

· The OEM will supply a source document to the operator which then can be referenced for task, interval, location, etc.

· It is felt that guidance is not clear and industry is seeking assistance to understand the requirements.

­ FAA has taken an IOU on this

· Many Industry reps present view this Opspec as being unnecessary and provides no value.

Discussion:

1. FAA approved ICAs are now being published electronically.

2. ADs have no effect on this OpSpec

3. STCs must take into account EPAS rules

4. Reason for this OpSpec as stated by FAA is to document changes to ICAs

5. Question from Industry:

a. Is there a regulation that clearly defines the need for this OpSpec?

6. The regulation requires that there is a specific approval of the program.

a. This OpSpec is the method by which that approval is documented.

i. Can anyone verify authoritatively whether this is indeed the case?

ii. Further pursuit of this question will need to be taken up the food chain in AFS-300.

 

 

22.  D097, Combined OpSpec for: Repairs Assessment for Pressurized Fuselages (§§121.1107 and 129.107), Supplemental Inspections (§§121.1109 and 129.109), Electrical Wiring Interconnection Systems (EWIS) Maintenance Program (§§121.1111 and 129.111), Fuel Tank System Maintenance Program (§§121.1113 and 129.113), and Flammability Reduction Means (§§121.1117 and 129.117) .

History: 2010-02

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  Fred Sobeck, AFS-320; George Bean, AFS-50

Industry Lead:  

 

The Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Airplane Systems/Fuel Tank Safety rule established new Continued Airworthiness and Safety Improvements Subparts in part 121 , subpart AA, and part 129 , subpart B. They currently contain all the aging aircraft operational requirements. Each of the aging rules currently has its own operations specification that implements the operational requirements in the rule.

 

Consistent with the new subparts to put all existing and future aging aircraft rules in one location the FAA believes that creating one aging aircraft operations specification that includes separate paragraphs for each rule better serves the air carriers and the Flight Standards inspector workforce.

Discussion:

1. A new D097 is currently in draft.

2. The new template is expected to have a separate paragraph for each individual rule.

3. Listing each aircraft on the last table of this OpSpec is very labor intensive.

 

 

23.  B035, Addition of Q-routes.

History: 2010-02

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:   Cathy Majauskas, AFS-470

Industry Lead:

 

Update 4/8/10:  Part 129 template is on hold until we resolve the equipment requirements to fly on Q-routes in Alaska.  Parts 121 and 135 will be revised based on this outcome.

Discussion:

Template for the 129 operators is in coordination.

 

 

24.  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. 

 

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.

 

From FAA: Limitations are equipment-specific.

 

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 a request to amend ours?

 

From FAA: you can re-apply for OpSpec.

 

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

· No Update provided from industry.

· New templates now available on opspecs.com.

­ Updates guidance for foreign approaches

Discussion:  Cathy Majauskas, AFS-470, gave a briefing.

1. Limitations that no longer apply may be removed if the OpSpec is re-applied for.

2. Template for the 129 operators is now available.

3. Approval process (going through Next Gen and Region) is convoluted and adds time.

a. FAA’s intents to streamline this process.

 

Status:  CLOSED.

 

Closing remarks – all participants to the OSWG.

 

The following was brought from the floor by Industry:

1. OpSpec C081:  It is alleged that there is no such thing as a “public non-part 97 approach” and FAA will be seeking reimbursable agreements from operators who wish to continue using certain “Special” approach procedures.

a. FAA reps present were not able to provide an answer and will defer the question to flight standards in Oklahoma City (action item).

 

2. Is FAA planning to combine OpSpecs C358 and 384?

a. Answer:  No.

3. Which foreign approaches should be listed in C384 table 2?

a. Answer:  Unsure, FAA will get back on this (action item).

 

 

International Session

Wed., April 21

1:00 pm – 5:00 pm

 

25.  Convene.  Opening remarks by Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-52 on behalf of John Barbagallo, AFS-50 – Flight Standards vision for Part 129 OpSpecs.

 

       Less is more.  Rulemaking, the combining of OpSpecs, and the International Register of AOCs are some of the efforts currently underway to reduce the volume of OpSpecs while maintaining a high level of safety and compliance with international standards. 

 

It is great that the OSWG has such a diverse membership, to see and hear all of your thoughts/ideas, work with you.  Each one of us is unique and has something unique to add to the OSWG.  Without each one of you we would not be as successful as we are today, very pleased to see all of you here today.  I have full confidence that together, through our joint efforts and shared commitment to safety, we will continue to make strides in our effort to reduce the volume of OpSpecs while maintaining a high level of safety and compliance with international standards. 

 

 

26.  129 OSWG Terms of Reference – update.  Briefed by Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-52.

 

FAA Lead:   Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-52

Industry Lead:   Brian Miles (Emirates)

 

Background:   The 129 OSWG developed FAA/IATA “Terms of Reference (TOR) for 129 OSWG Agenda, Proposals, Review, and Industry/FAA Coordination” - guidelines and milestones for developing, reviewing, and submitting proposed OpSpecs recommendations to AFS-50.   Brian Miles, the part 129 OSWG Industry Chair submitted a request to the FAA, that at the October 2010 OSWG meeting the terms of reference be discussed.  As such, at the October 2010 OSWG meeting, the terms of reference were discussed, changes/updates were recommended and Industry leads were voted in.

 

Danuta, together with Brian, has drafted an amended Terms of Reference for 129 OSWG review.

 

Discussion:

 

 

Status: Opened, draft expected to be posted on opspecs.com shortly

 

 

27.  Part 129 rulemaking – update .  Briefed by Darcy Reed, AFS-52.

 

Background:  The two rulemaking projects underway that affect part 129 are the Part 129 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), and the Part 129 Rewrite.  

 

The primary purpose of the Part 129 NPRM is to revise the process for issuing and amending OpSpecs, while the Part 129 Rewrite is a major rulemaking effort.  FAA will consider the recommendations of the Part 129 Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) in developing the new rule. The Part 129 Rewrite is significant for the OSWG because it proposes to move some of the operational requirements now contained in OpSpecs to the new rule.  This new rule would reduce the volume of OpSpecs issued to a foreign air carrier. 

 

The Part 129 NPRM is expected to be published for comment in May, and the Part 129 Rewrite NPRM should be available late next year.

 

Discussion:

 

Post meeting developments:

o The 129 NPRM is now posted on the following website: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#home. 

o Search the site using: 2120-AJ45 (this is the Federal Registry's ID number),

o Enter “2120-AJ45” in the search area under “Enter Keyword or ID”; and

o Click on the “Search” button

o Double click on the row that says “Operations Specifications”, “RULES”, “FAA”, “FAA-2009-0140-0001”, “05/07/10”.

§ This will open the document so that you can read it

§ To submit comment(s) click on the “Submit Comment”

· Once you have filled out all the information and typed up your comment(s) click on the “Submit” button

o All comments will be addressed within 90 days after the comment period closes.  The comment period closes on August 10, 2010

 

Status: Open

 

 

28.  FAA Order 8900.1 international guidance – update.   Briefed by Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-052

 

FAA Lead:  Dr. Gary Layton, AFS-052

 

Background:  In February 2009 the International Programs and Policy Division (AFS-50) chartered a working group to review all guidance documents relating to International Aviation with Dr. Gary Layton as the groups chair.  The group’s mission was to update all guidance documents within FAA Order 8900.1 that relate to foreign air carrier operation within the US.  This review was set out in three stages. 

In September 2009, the group completed its final review stage and in October 2009 submitted its recommendations to AFS-50.  Subsequently Dr. Gary Layton presented the changes to the Document Control Board (DCB) and then to AFS-140 for formatting in preparation for formal coordination.

 

Discussion:

 

o AIP manual

 

 

Status: Opened – documents have been formatted by AFS-140 and are undergoing final review by AFS-50 in preparation for formal coordination.

 

 

29.  A001/C070.  Airports Authorized for Scheduled Operation - Incorporation of Airport list into OpSpec A001.  Briefed by Patrick Crowley, FAA - ANC IFU.

 

FAA Lead: Patrick Crowley (FAA – ANC IFU)

Industry Lead: Jacques Malot (Air France)

 

Background:  Current language in 14 CFR §129.11(a) states, in part, that “Operation Specifications shall include’ … ‘airports to be used” and as such C070 was created.  Several years ago, at the recommendation of the OSWG C070 was archived and the requirement was incorporated into A001.  In 2009 the incorporation has been noted as ineffective and brought back to the attention of the October 2009 OSWG.

The FAA noted that the key concerns with the ineffectiveness of incorporation of C070 into A001 and the reason for revisiting the issue were as follows:

o Surveillance  -  An inspector conducting a surveillance activity at an airport needs to have the ability to readily verify if an aircraft that he/she sees flying in and does not recognize is authorized to operate into the airport at which he/she is conducting surveillance; and

o Safety Oversight responsibility – even though the DOT may grant open skies to a Part 129 under which the DOT authorizes the carrier to fly to any US airport that the carriers CAA has authorized it to fly to, the safety oversight responsibility over that carrier still remains with the FAA

 

The OSWG at the October 2009 meeting voted in Patrick Crowley (FAA – ANC IFU) and Jacques Malot (Air France) to take the lead at looking at alternatives to the reinstatement of C070.  Pat together with Jacques has coordinated an alternative to the reinstatement of C070 for OSWG review– namely a draft A001 which incorporates a list of airports to be used into A001.

 

Discussion:

 

Status:  Opened, expect to be posted on opspecs.com shortly

 

 

 

30.  A006 and A007 – the combining of Foreign Air Carrier Management Personnel and other Other Designated Persons into one OpSpec.   Briefed by David Henthorn, FAA - SFO IFO.

 

FAA Lead:   David Henthorn (FAA - SFO IFO)

Industry Lead:  Jonathan Echmalian (representing various airlines)

 

Background:  At the October 2009 OSWG meeting Dave Henthorn presented to the OSWG the FAA’s proposal of combining OpSpec A006 with A007, in an effort to reduce the volume of OpSpecs that are issued and where safety would not be sacrificed.  Industry and FAA leads were voted in by the OSWG.

 

A draft combined OpSpec has been prepared for OSWG review.

 

Discussion:

 

Status:  Opened, expected to be posted on opspecs.com shortly

 

 

31.  A008, A009, and A010 - the combining of operational control, airport and weather aeronautical data into one OpSpec.  Briefed by David Henthorn, FAA - SFO IFO.

 

FAA Lead:   David Henthorn (FAA - SFO IFO)

Industry Lead:  Brian Miles

 

Background:  At the October 2009 OSWG meeting Dave Henthorn presented to the OSWG the FAA’s proposal of combining OpSpec A008, together with OpSpecs A009 and A010, in an effort to reduce the volume of OpSpecs that are issued and where safety would not be sacrificed.  Industry and FAA leads were voted in by the OSWG.

 

A draft combined OpSpec has been prepared for OSWG review.

 

Discussion:

 

Status:  Opened, expected to be posted opspecs.com shortly

 

 

32.  A029  Aircraft Interchange Arrangements – redefining of Primary Operator. Briefed by Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-52.

 

FAA Lead:   Danuta Pronczuk and Jacques Astre (AFS-52)

Industry Lead: 

 

Background:  In 2009 David Henthorn brought into question the accuracy of the definition of primary operator within OpSpec A029.   Upon further review, it was determined that the OpSpec could be further amended by removing guidance information out of the OpSpec and into FAA Order 8900.1.

 

A draft OpSpec has been prepared for OSWG review. 

 

Discussion:

 

Status:  Opened, published on opspecs.com

 

 

33.  A036 and A040 – the combining of the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) OpSpec together with Aircraft Radio Equipment.  Briefed by David Henthorn, FAA - SFO IFO.

 

FAA Lead:   David Henthorn (FAA - SFO IFO)

Industry Lead:  Eva Stahlemar (Scandinavian Airlines System)

 

Background:  in an effort to reduce the volume of OpSpecs that are issued, and where safety would not be sacrificed, the FAA, at the October 2009 OSWG meeting, presented to the OSWG, its proposal to combine OpSpec A036 and A040.  Industry and FAA leads were voted in by the OSWG.

 

A draft OpSpec has been prepared for OSWG review. 

 

Discussion:

 

Status:  Opened, published on opspecs.com for comment

 

 

34.  D085. The incorporation of OpSpec D072 into D085. Briefed by Darcy Reed, AFS-52.

 

FAA Lead:  George Bean (AFS-50), Fred Sobeck (AFS-300)

Industry Lead:

 

Background:  in an effort to reduce the volume of OpSpecs that are issued, and where safety would not be sacrificed, the FAA, at the October 2009 OSWG meeting, presented to the OSWG, its proposal to combine OpSpec D085 with D072.  George Bean accepted the lead and as such has prepared and coordinated a combined D085 which incorporates D072 into D085 with Fred Sobeck.

 

The draft D085 is ready for OSWG review. 

Discussion/Change:

 

Status:  Opened

 

35.  D485 , Aging Airplane Inspection and Records Review

U.S – registered operated under Part 129 – update.  Briefed by Darcy Reed, AFS-052.

 

FAA Lead:  George Bean (AFS-52), Fred Sobeck (AFS-300)

Industry Lead:

 

Background:  at the October 2009 OSWG meeting the FAA presented to the OSWG its proposal to update D485.  George Bean accepted the lead and drafted an updated D485.  The new D485 removes guidance material from the OpSpec and moves it into Order 8900.1.  Once finalized, any future change to the old D485 would require the old D485 to be archived and the new D485 to be issued. 

 

Discussion:

 

 

Status:  Opened

 

 

36.  C080 and C064 Terminal Area IFR Operations in Class G Airspace and at Airports without an Operating Control Tower.  Briefed by Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-52.

 

FAA Lead:  Rolfe Dinwoodie (ROC and ALB IFU), Danuta Pronczuk (AFS-52)

Industry Lead:  Brian Miles (Emirates)

 

Background:  in an effort to reduce the volume of OpSpecs that are issued, and where safety would not be sacrificed, the FAA, at the October 2009 OSWG meeting, presented to the OSWG, its proposal to combine OpSpecs C080 and C064.  The OSWG agreed to take on the proposal, Industry and FAA leads were voted in.

 

A draft combined OpSpec is ready for OSWG review.

 

Discussion: 

 

Status:  Opened, expected to be posted on opspec.com shortly

 

 

37.  C056 and C057 – IFR Takeoff minimums all U.S. Airports and Alternate Airports for Departure – combined small and large .   Briefed by Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-052.

 

FAA LeadMary Barker (NY FSDO)

Industry Lead:  John Conlon (British Airways)

 

Background:  in an effort to reduce the volume of OpSpecs that are issued, and where safety would not be sacrificed, the FAA, at the October 2009 OSWG meeting, presented to the OSWG, its proposal to combine OpSpecs C056 and C057.  The OSWG agreed to take on the proposal, Industry and FAA leads were voted in.

 

A draft of how the two OpSpecs can be combined has been prepared for OSWG review.

 

Discussion:

 

Status: Opened

 

 

38.  C075 and C076 – Category I IFR Landing Minimums – combined circling maneuvers and contact approaches at U.S. Airports.  Briefed by David Krueger, FAA - DFW IFO.

 

FAA Lead:  David Krueger (FAA - DFW IFO)

Industry Lead:  David Oliver (Quantas Airways Limited)

 

Background:  in an effort to reduce the volume of OpSpecs that are issued, and where safety would not be sacrificed, the FAA, at the October 2009 OSWG meeting, presented to the OSWG, its proposal to combine OpSpecs C075 and C076.  The OSWG agreed to take on the proposal, Industry and FAA leads were voted in.

 

A draft of how the two OpSpecs can be combined has been prepared for OSWG review.

 

Discussion:

 

Status: Opened, expected to be posted on opspecs.com shortly

 

 

39.  B051 and B056 – Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Limitations and Provisions – Airplanes and Helicopters.  Briefed by Scott Schweizer, FAA - ANC IFU.

 

FAA Lead:  Scott Schweizer (ANC IFU).

Industry Lead:  John Conlon (British Airways)

 

Background:  in an effort to reduce the volume of OpSpecs that are issued, and where safety would not be sacrificed, the FAA, at the October 2009 OSWG meeting, presented to the OSWG, its proposal to combine OpSpecs B051 and B056.  The OSWG agreed to take on the proposal, Industry and FAA leads were voted in.

 

A draft of how the two OpSpecs can be combined has been prepared for OSWG review.

 

Discussion:

 

Status: Opened

 

 

40.  C381.  John Swigart (AFS-400) will take questions.

 

Questions addressed from the group.

 

Status:  Closed.

 

41.  AC 90-105 Approval Guidance for RNP.   John Swigart (AFS-400) will take questions.

 

John reviewed the Approval process for RNP and addressed questions from group.

 

Status:  Closed

 

42.  New OpSpec request:  C073 Nonprecision approaches using VNAV and DA (H) in lieu of MDA (H).  Briefed by John Swigart, AFS-400

 

John Swigart conducted a sidebar with Air Canada, after which he briefed the OSWG.  The OSWG concurred no need for C-073 and as such the request was dropped.  

 

Status:  Closed

 

43.  New business.

o Safety Management System and Part 129 – raised by Air Canada

o Dr. Gary Layton, AFS-52 took comments and brought the OSWG up to speed on agency action/progress

o A review of the ICAO registry phase I information and how it correlates to OpSpecs

o Need an Industry Lead

o Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-052, and Dave Henthorn, FAA - SFO IFO will be the FAA Leads

 

 

44.  Closing remarks – all participants to the OSWG.

 

THANK YOU to all of the industry and FAA representatives for the excellent comments/discussion; we would not be as successful as we are without each and every one of us. 

Our Deep sympathy with those affected/who could not make it in due to the Volcano eruption.   We look forward to continuing our progress/discussions and seeing each other at the next meeting.