FAA/Aviation Industry Agenda for
OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) 2010-03

July 20 – 21, 2010

Tuesday, July 20:  1:00 PM-5:00 PM

Wednesday, July 21: 8:00 AM – NOON

 

Hosted by Southwest Airlines

El Tropicano Hotel, San Antonio, TX

 

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

 

 

Meeting Schedule:

Domestic Sessions

July 20 – 21, 2010

OSWG 2010-03

San Antonio , TX

Hosted by SWA

Domestic, Joint, and International Sessions

November 2 - 3, 2010

OSWG 2010-04

Washington , D.C.

Domestic Sessions

January 19 - 20, 2011

OSWG 2011-01

Tentative location - Dallas

Domestic, Joint, and International Sessions

April 19 – 20, 2011

OSWG 2011-02

Washington , D.C.

Note:  For the meeting in November, if possible members should stay in the Marriot hotel, Pentagon City.

 

Chairpersons:       U.S. Domestic

                              Steve Kuhar, FEDEX, Industry Chair

                              Steve Bush, Horizon Air, Industry Vice Chair

                              Bob Davis, AFS-260, FAA Chair

 

Meeting Location: El Tropicano Hotel, San Antonio

 

Table of Contents

 

Day 1                                                   Day 2

                           Topic                                          pg.     Topic                           pg.

1.  Convene                                              2

15.  Convene                             13

2.  Additional Agenda Items                  2

16.  Stakeholder Survey          13

3.  A353                                                     3

17.  B050                                   13

4.  A35X                                                     4

18.  C052                                   14

5.  S400                                                    4

19.  C060                                   16

6.  A030                                                     5

20.  D091                                   18

7.  A025                                                     5

21.  D084/D085                        19

8.  A012                                                     6

22.  D172                                   19

9.  B044                                                     7

23.  D097                                   20

10.  B343                                                  8

24.  D107/A001/B040 for 145 21

11.  C300                                                  9

25.  A061                                   21

12.  B036/B054                                       9

26.  B035                                   22

13.  B032/B034/B035/C063               11

27.  C050                                   22

14.  A003                                                12

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 span style='font-size:11.0pt' website.  For the draft template we suggest you use a recently published Change to 8900 that contains at least the 2 appendices and modify it for your proposal.

 

c. Opening remarks

 

d.  Chairperson’s discussion.

 

Theme for the meeting is communication.

 

  1. opspecs .com will be eliminated soon (end of august).
    1. All items on website will be removed

                                                                                                                            i.          Public comment capability will move to AVS (FAA branded website)

                                                                                                                        ii.          Hot link will be provided to the new website.

                                                                                                                      iii.          Kevin has taken the action to send out a notification when opspecs.com is de-commissioned.

  1. WebOPSS update:
    1. Sort functions do not work

                                                                                                                            i.          Template management

                                                                                                                        ii.          Big organizational problem

                                                                                                                      iii.          This software function must be rewritten. Currently there is no federal money available for this software work

    1. Reports that FAA would like to run are not yet working well
  1. Signature authority Certificates are going to expire but no notice was given of this
    1. FAA will take back an action item to make process more user friendly

 

2.  Additional Agenda Items:

 

2a. NEW AGENDA ITEM:  January OSWG volunteer needed.  October OSWG will be held in Washington, DC.  It will be a joint meeting with the Part 129 Foreign air carriers.

 

2b.   Follow up on FAA Action Items from OSWG 2010-02:

 

               Question:

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

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

               Answer:

From Order 8900.1, volume 3, chapter 18, section 3, OpSpec A007:

“An agent for service is a person or company designated by the operator upon whom all legal notices, processes and orders, decisions, and requirements of the Department of Transportation (DOT), FAA, and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) shall be served. Once any of these documents has been served upon the operator’s agent for service, the certificate holder cannot claim (legally) that it did not receive the documents. Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C) § 46103 requires air carriers to designate an agent for service.”

 

There is no requirement to have all the 119 principles listed.

 

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

B757 will not be called a heavy, however, when a smaller aircraft is following, ATC should add 1 mile to the 4 mile –in-trail spacing.

 

Class I vs Class II navigation:

  1. Put together a work group to workout how to redefine (AFS-400) in regard to GPS
  2. An emerging issue is some VOR’s are becoming “unmonitored”.
    1. This could be solved by using alternate missed approach procedures.
    2. Study is being conducted on the feasibility of using RNAV (non-WAAS) for alternate.
    3. Procedure developers are incorporating alternate missed approach procedures on the 8260-3s

 

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).

 

No answer yet.  AFS-460 deals with AVN for reimbursable agreements.

 

Which foreign approaches should be listed in C384 table 2?

 

Answer:  At this time no foreign approaches are approved, therefore no entry is authorized.  One approach has been submitted for approval.  As this approach and others receive approval they will be entered into the table as free text.  These will be specific to airport, approach and runway used.

Table was intended for future needs.


 

2c.   Use of GPS with Respect to Class I and Class II Navigation

We recommend and request that FAA work to align the concepts of Class I and Class II navigation with parallel concepts in the ICAO Annex 10 such that GPS is included as a standard radio navigation aid and thus qualifies for Class I navigation.

Due to the complexity of the issues, FAA and Industry may need to form a special work group for tackling use of GPS for Class II nav.

2d.  Add RNAV to OpSpec C055: Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums

Current Operation Specifications do not allow the use of RNAV approaches to meet IFR weather minimums at alternate airports. We request that the OSWG be tasked to modify C055 to allow the use of RNAV approaches to meet IFR alternate weather minimums and not be dependent on the planned navigational source for the destination.

As a first step, we are requesting that the FAA modify the existing Opspec to align with the Transport Canada rules. In Canada, an operator can file an RNAV alternate if a conventional navigational source is used for the destination.

Comment from AFS-470:  The FAA is having a study conducted by MITER on the feasibility of allowing filing of RNAV approach as alternate.  No conclusions have been made at this time and until the study is complete there are no plans on amending this opspec.  This study is for the use of both WAAS and the 129 box.

2e.  Operation Specification C300: Part 97 Non-Precision Instrument Approaches Using an Area Navigation System Approved for RNP Operations.

We request that emphasis be placed to allow the substitution of GPS for a ground based navaid on a non-precision approach, unless specifically prohibited by the ICAO state authority. Change title to include PANS-OPS & JAR-OPS designed procedures in order to clarify scope of authorization.

Comment from AFS-470:   At this time AFS-470 does not have any plans to change OpSpec C300.

 

3. 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.

1.            Canada will start segregating aircraft that are not equipped or approved.

a.            Canadians were more advanced with ADS-B than U.S.

b.            Reason for using EASA document is because the AC was not yet available

 

ADS-B presentation given by AFS-200.

 

 

4. OpSpec A35X, 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 briefed.  See above.

 

 

5. 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  Keeton Zachary, Greg Michael

Industry Lead:  

 

The following section of OPSS 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.  This paragraph will not show up on A004 as an optional authorization.

 

1.            Industry view is that WebOPSS is the wrong venue for S400.

a.            What is the advantage of using WebOPSS?

                                                                                                                            i.          High cost and small success of the original survey that was sent out.

                                                                                                                        ii.          WebOPSS is viewed as a highly efficient method of gathering data.

b.            What will happen when a NO is the answer since S400 is essentially a public record?

2.            FAA intends to ensure that with regard to S400, the process meets the intensions.

3.            S400 will be a mandatory template; however, it is not mandatory that it is completed.

c.            S400 will not be included on the A004.

4.            S400 will not be viewable in the field

a.            Will not be viewable by other FAA inspectors

b.            Only people  who can view an operators’ S400 is the CMO and AFS-260 (4 individuals)

c.            S400 will be FOIA exempt (hopefully).

5.            Must write 8900 guidance for the POI’s to indicate they incur no liability by the signature.

6.            FAA emphasized that the comments from industry are the ones that will truly carry weight in regard to influencing the outcome of this template.

a.            Comment in federal register FOIA exemption

7.            Even though S400 is FOIA exempt, would the info submitted also be exempt from a subpoena

a.            Answer unknown (probably not).  This is the point that needs to be hammered home in industry comments.

8.            A solution that may alleviate many of the concerns Industry and FAA is to modify webopss so that the info entered on the S400 is de-identified upon entry and eliminate the need for the POI electronic signature.

 

 

6.  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 A030 is in the initial phase of development.

Discussion:

                                                                                                                            i.          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.

 

The issues are pretty much ironed out – FAA is moving forward with the version currently on opspecs.com

 

 

7.  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 to 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

 

 

8.  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.

 

 

9.  B044, Re-Dispatch  

History: 2005-04

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead: Gordy Rother, 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 is posted on opspec.com.
  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.

 

 

10.  OpSpec B343, Fuel Reserves for Flag and Supplemental Operations

History: 2005-04

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead: Gordy Rother, 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 by the FAA 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).

 

 

11. 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

 

The question regarding C300 has been answered at the previous OSWG.  Inspector guidance is being worked on.  Draft anticipated to be presented to DCB by end of July.

 

 

12.  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: Suzette Rash, AFS-470, Mark Fox, AFS-410 (Madison Walton will brief at OSWG)

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

·                B036 is for class II navigation using multiple long range systems.

·                B054 is for class II operations using a single long range system.

·                Objective is to combine all Class II navigation into one 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.

1.            Progress on this is moving forward.

2.            There were no significant details reported at this meeting.

3.            Madison Walton span style='color:windowtext' may be contacted for discussion.

a.            An open invitation was given to operators for submitting alternative plotting procedures to bring their ideas to the next meeting.

 

 

13.  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: Suzette Rash, 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.

 

Text below in blue will be removed from the minutes as the FAA no longer intends to combine these 3 opspecs.

 

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.

 

AFS-470 is evaluating but has no plans on combining in the near term. 

B034 is complete, waiting on change to AC 90-96 to be published currently at tech-writers.

C063 draft is done and we are incorporating AC 90-105.

B035 is a separate item.

 

 

14.  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:  Paul Lepine, 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.            A003 is still being coordinated through AFS-140. It is a very lengthy process that is hopefully almost complete

2.            Draft is on opspecs.com.

 


 



 

Wed., July 21

8:00 – 12:00

 

 

15.  Convene.  Introductions.

 

 

16.  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.

 

 

17.  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: 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.

 

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.

 

Status:  Published as Change 97.

 

CLOSED.

 

 

18.  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: 

  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”

 

1.            New OpSpec C052 has completed coordination

2.            Expected to be available end of July or August.

 

 

19.  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.

 

1.            Not much progress to report since last meeting.

2.            Mark Fox gave a presentation discussing autoland and HUD to touchdown ops – available on OpSpecs.com.

3.            There is a Public website available to determine the classification of any given ILS.

a.            http://avnwww.jccbi.gov/pls/datasheet_prd/PRO_ilsperform_rpt

4.            It was pointed out that the Guidance documents do not match opspec (Tables)

a.            FAA intends to revise tables so that it is possible to list controlling RVR correctly.

5.            Since lower minimums through HUD may be extended to certain runways with ILS glideslope greater than 3.0 degrees, operators May need to update their HUD AFM supplements to allow AIII approach operations up to 3.1 degrees.

a.            Demonstrations to the POI should not be required once the AFM supplement is updated.

 

 

20.  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.

 

1.            FAA has committed to communicate better.

a.            Consistent AFS-300 participation is critical for working “D” series OpSpecs.

2.            FAA needs to alert operators if there is a mandatory change.

a.            Principle applies to all opspecs.

b.            Question was raised whether it is possible to use the InFO System for informing changes on webOPSS.

 

Moved to close

 

 

21.  D084 and D085 and Special Flight Authorizations.

History: 2009-02

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:  Ken Kerzner, AFS-300

Industry Lead:  

 

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

1.            Guidance is being rewritten (AFS-140) to make it clear that an aircraft may be placed on opspecs prior to taking position of it or receiving it.

a.            May use D084, continuous ferry permit.

b.            Applies to new aircraft.

                                                                                                                            i.          Aircraft should be placed on D085.

                                                                                                                        ii.          Fly aircraft to maintenance base.

                                                                                                                      iii.          Conduct conformity inspection.

 

 

22.  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, AFS-300

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 EWIS ICAs are now being published by TC holders electronically.

2.            ADs have no effect on this OpSpec

3.            STCs must take into account EAPAS rules

4.            Reason for this OpSpec as stated by FAA is to approve the incorporation of inspections and procedures for the EWIS into the operator’s maintenance program.

5.            Question from Industry:

a.            Is there a regulation that clearly defines the need for this OpSpec? Answer §121.1111 (b) states that after March 10, 2011, no certificate holder may operate an airplane identified in paragraph (a) unless the maintenance program for that airplane includes inspections and procedures for the EWIS.

6.            The regulation requires that there is a specific approval of the operator’s EWIS maintenance program changes.

 

a. §121.1111 (e) states “The EWIS maintenance program changes identified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section and any later EWIS revisions must be submitted to the Principal Inspector for review and approval.” 

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

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

When the rule specifically states that maintenance program changes and any later revisions must be submitted to the Principal Inspector for review and approval the operations specification is the approval method Flight Standards uses. 

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

NOTE: D172 will be cancelled and the authorization will be included in the new D097.

 

 

23.  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

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.

4.  Presentation given by Fred Sobeck, AFS-320.

5.  D097 is intended to consolidate aging aircraft OpSpecs.

6.  PI should select approval block then insert data and sign implementation dates.

Notes:

1.  The approval date is the date of the initial approval of the maintenance program.  If subsequent changes are made to the program, the applicable approval is managed through the maintenance program and does not require a subsequent change to the OpSpec.

2.  The Only thing that would cause the OpSpec to need to be updated is if there is a change that requires approval from the ACO which then in turn requires an approval from the principal.

7.  Once D097 is approved all other affected “D” opspecs will need to be archived.

8.  The Group (FAA and Industry) appears to be very happy with the way this OpSpec has worked out and is a good example of cooperative work of the OSWG.

 


 

24.  D107, A001, B050 for Part 145 Repair Stations .

History: 2010-02

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

FAA Lead:   Thomas Damour, AFS-300

Industry Lead:

 

Non-mandatory revisions.  AFS-300 to brief.

 

New non mandatory OpSpecs for domestic and foreign repair stations.

 

 

25.  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.  Previously, only Class 3 EFB were required to be listed in Table 1 of A061.  In the new revision, Class 1 EFBs installed with Type "B" software and all Class 2 EFB are also required to be listed in Table 1 of 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).  Due to the increase in the complexity and use of Class 1 and Class 2 EFB, this data will provide a method to locate operators authorized for use of a specific make, model, and software type for operational or reliability reasons. 

 

The final version is on OpSpecs.com.

 

·                Template and guidance should be in FAA coordination soon.

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

 

1.            Industry believes that Class II units may turn into a major maintenance headache to maintain currency of the OpSpec.

2.            Currently in internal coordination.

 

 

26.  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:   Suzette Rash, AFS-470

Industry Lead:

 

Update 7/6/10: Templates for all 14 CFR Parts have been updated along with guidance and a notice.  They are anticipated to be submitted to the DCB and then out for coordination by the end of July.

 

Template and guidance is scheduled for Document Control Board coordination in August

 

 

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

History: Standing Agenda Item

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:   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, 2010.  

No additions

 

 

28.  Closing remarks – all participants to the OSWG.

 

Additional items:

1.            Discussion of nominations of new Industry chair and co-chair

a.            Nominations (and election?) in November.

b.            New people fill positions in January.

2.            Exemptions.

a.            ATA exemptions work good with a few problem regarding renewal dates.

b.            Expiration dates for carrier owned exemptions are a continuing problem.

c.            Paul Lepine took an action to look into this and see where the problem resides.

d.            The FAA Office of Rulemaking is the keeper of all exemptions.

3.            Involvement of NextGen in every 300 series opspecs.

4.            B055 com equipment for north polar ops.

a.            Comm requirements for polar operations?

                                                                                                                            i.          121.351 is the governing reg.

b.            Suggestions:

                                                                                                                            i.          Remove paragraphs from the Spec

                                                                                                                        ii.          Replace paragraph and only reference the governing FAR.

                                                                                                                      iii.          Reference the applicable AC.

1.            Problem with referencing an AC in an opspec is that by doing so the AC then becomes regulatory. 

a.            This is why language may be extracted from an AC used and is preferable to referencing the AC number.

c.            FAA will go to headquarters to research how the current language came into being.

d.            If only editorial change is needed with no change to guidance the turn around can be accomplished relatively quickly (avoids AFS-140).

5.            A031 Contract training centers.

a.            Access of contract training employees must have access to an operator’s aircraft.

                                                                                                                            i.          This is often not practical with part 91K fractional ownership or part 135s.

b.            142 requires that instructors remain current on the aircraft types for which they provide instruction.  This is intended to be an observation of an actual flight and not necessarily handling the controls.

6.            A-999 update

a.            Answer to foreign regulators who want to see the operators opspecs:

                                                                                                                            i.          You are aware of the ICAO requirement for carrying opspecs on board however, FAA filed a difference which was accepted by ICAO projected date of compliance with ICAO requirements is Jan 1, 2012