FAA/Aviation Industry Agenda for
OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) 2010-04

November 2 - 3, 2010

Tuesday, November 2:  1:00 PM - 5:00 PM

Wednesday, November 3: 9:00 AM – NOON – Joint Session

Wednesday, November 3: 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM – International Session

 

Hosted by FAA

Residence Inn Arlington Pentagon City

Arlington , VA

 

Tuesday, November 2, 2010—9:00 am – noon Domestic Industry Premeeting

 

 

Meeting Schedule:

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.

Domestic Sessions

July , 2011

OSWG 2011-03

TBD

 

Chairpersons:       U.S. Domestic (Part 121, and 135)

                              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 and Bryan Ashley (SFO IFO), Rolfe Dinwoodie (ROC and ALB IFU), Herbert H. Herzog III,  W. Scott Schweizer and Patrick Crowley (ANC IFU), J.J. (MIA IFO), Robert L. Jaffe (NY IFO), and David May (SEA FSDO)

 

IATA Representative:   Jeffrey T. Miller (Mrs. Rommy Ulloa attending for Jeff)

 

Meeting Location: Residence Inn Arlington Pentagon City

550 Army Navy Drive

Arlington, VA 22202

 

 

Table of Contents

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

1. Convene                                           4

18. Convene                                  17

32. Convene                                          26

2. Additional Agenda Items               4

19. Stakeholder Survey               17

33. Communication                             26

3. A061                                                  5

20. WebOPSS Update                 17

34. 129 Terms of Reference              26

4. D091                                                 6

21. FAA Draft Website                  17

35. Part 129 Rulemaking                    26

5. D084 & D085                                  7

22. ICAO Register of AOCs        17

36. 8900.1 Change                              27

6. A353                                                  8

23. B035                                         18

37. A001                                                 27

7. A35X                                                  8

24. B034/B035                              18

38. A006 & A007                                   27

8. S400                                                 8

25. Class I Navigation                 18

39. A008                                                 28

9. A030                                                  9

26. A029                                         18

40. A036 & A040                                   28

10. A023                                             10

27. C052/C053/C074/C055       19

41. D085                                                28

11. A012                                             11

28. C060                                        21

42. C080                                                29

12. B343                                             12

29. D097                                        23

43. C056 & C057                                  29

13. C300                                            13

30. D485                                        24

44. C075 & C076                                  29

14. B036 / B054                                13

31. Closing Remarks                  24

45. B051 & B056                                  30

15. B032 / B034 / C063                   14

 

46. ICAO Registry Phase I                  30

16. A003                                             14

 

47. Closing                                            30

17. C050                                            15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.        Convene .

Roll call—

a. Roster and Roll Call/Introductions:  Please initial to the left of your name when the roster comes to you and provide any corrections to the information.  A copy of this meeting’s Roster will be sent in a separate electronic file to all those on the OSWG email list. 

 

b. General Information in Regard to Agenda Items:

(1) Proposed changes to a template or to the guidance that would constitute "policy changes" to an authorizing document will generally need to be presented to the OSWG and AFS-260 in “Change” format which includes appendices containing the appropriate revision to the guidance for the OpSpec/MSpec/LOA in 8900 and a sample of the proposed Template revision and/or guidance.

 

(2) 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.

 

2.  Additional Agenda Items:

 

2a. NEW AGENDA ITEMS:  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.

Next meeting Hosted by American Airlines in Dallas – January 19 and 20 (Wednesday/Thursday).

 

2b.  OpSpec A010:  Aviation Weather.  This paragraph will be revised to add a table for Adverse Weather Systems.  The revision will be applicable to part 121 only.  Also, the 8900.1 guidance will be totally re-written to match the paragraph.

Theo provided an update:

New A-10 draft should be on FSIMS

Template is re-formatted to give more structure.

Guidance is being changed to correspond with the Spec.

 

The Draft template has been removed from FSIMS due to the group’s request to submit the template and guidance together. Therefore, the FAA will post A010 when the final changes to the template are made and the guidance is completed.  The group will be given the standard amount of time to comment on the changes at that time.

 

FAA Leads:  Theo Kessaris – AFS-260 and Leo Hollis AFS-220

 

2c.  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 public instrument flight procedure (IFP) is one that has been promulgated under 14 CFR Part 97.    Often times Special instrument flight procedures that have been authorized for multiple users have been referred to as "Public Specials".   In actuality, these are not "public" procedures although some continue to refer to them as such.  Regardless of what one elects to refer to them as, the majority of those Special IFPs that have been authorized for multiple users are maintained by the Aeronautical Products Division of Mission Support Services, formerly known as AeroNav Services or the National Flight Procedures Office.

 

The Aeronautical Products Division enters into a reimbursable agreement to develop/maintain those Special IFPs used by a single operator.  The issue concerning the appropriateness of seeking reimbursement (from operators) for Special IFPs that have been authorized for multiple users has been referred to legal.  We expect legal's response within the next 30 days.

AFS-470 is waiting for an interpretation from Legal.

 

2d.  OpSpec C077. Paragraph (b) we would like to include (RVFP's) RNAV Visual Flight Procedures. Specifically we would like to mimic (b)(5). We have encountered logistical issues from an ATC perspective that can be solved by using a land mark to obtain an approach clearance. Currently RVFP's are not considered a CVFP therefore that capability can not exist in the revised order until C077 allows it. We are working with AFS-470 to have this capability but this needs to be addressed first.  Secondly C073 we have discovered there are exceptions to the guidance afforded in paragraph c(2). VASI & PAPI are not the sole determinate for visual assessment if the others don't apply. FAA states that there are charting standards that also must indicate the 34:1 visual assessment has been conducted via a "stipple" in the profile view. They admit this is not covered in any guidance pertaining to this ops spec. The other way is to look at the 8260-3 visual assessment block to see if it had been conducted. The stipple is not consistent. Some how this needs to be clarified. We should be able to provide better guidance to flight crews when they make the decision to use DH in lieu of MDA. Although our Jepp charts help with the note in the profile view not all procedures have it but could satisfy c(2) and could cause an issue. Thanks very much. If you need more please let me know.

Joe DeVito
CAPTAIN A320
Manager Flight Standards Compliance
JetBlue Airways

AFS-470’s response:

John Swigart provided a response: AFS-470 has no plans to amend the Spec for RVFP.

RNAV visuals:

Not covered by and opspec currently covered by LOAs

      No plans to change from current methods

Formal request for a new spec for rnav visuals

Joe Devito will be Industry lead for this.

 

Jet Blue would like to reduce the visibility required to 3 mi.  The OpSpec and the order, however, do not currently support this.  The guidance allows for either “airport in sight” or “preceding traffic in sight”.  Rather than pursuing RVFPs, AFS-470 would like to make the procedures a coded RNAV instrument approach.

C-73 is being rewritten with the reference to VASI/PAPI removed.

2f.  OpSpec A317, Acceptance of Fatigue Risk Management Plan (FRMP)

Dale Roberts to brief.

Requirement is governed by Statute – not by regulation.

Law passed by Congress and trumps the normal rule making process.

       (Fallout from the Colgan accident)

       Can a field be made to indicate expiration date?

       Can a yield or stop sign be triggered?

               No, due to expiration will be different for each carrier.

Purpose of the Spec is to signify acceptance of a carriers Fatigue plan.

Since A-317 is a 300 series Spec, it requires HQ approval.

Associated guidance documents are awaiting signature.

InFo 10017 was sent out as a means to inform Industry in the quickest means possible.

The question was asked:  Why must this be an OpSpec?

       The Spec is a means by which FAA can show compliance with the statute.

2.g

A-447

A carrier may subscribe for email notification of emergency AD notes.

       See emergency AD website for email notification info.

AIR-140 needs a fax receipt of notification that the carrier has received the emergency AD.

       It seems that FAA should be able to receive notification of receipt via email.

 

 

3.  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-430, 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 the FAA draft document website.

 

·                Template and guidance should be in FAA coordination end of September.

·                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.

No further discussion.

                  Update – Currently in coordination for signature

 

 

4.  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 tim.holt@faa.gov).

¨            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

This should be removed from agenda since it has been closed.

 

5.  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.

Brief given by Tim Holt.

Language in guidance has been changed to allow the POI to place a new aircraft on OpSpec.

Should be resolved next month.

 

Status – Open

 

6. 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.

 

7. 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.

Combined with Item 6 Above.

Most outstanding issues are now resolved.

The squitter code requirement has been dropped.

Approval must be accomplished by either STC or TC.

Title of A353 above has not been changed even though the area of operations in northern Canada has been expanded.

 

8. Safety Enhancement 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 Safety Enhancement 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.

S400 is a data collection tool only.

May eventually expand to other safety projects.

Need FOIA protection before moving forward.

       WebOPSS currently does not have the ability to de-identify data upon entry.

               This will take money and time to make this change.

Most participants present have a dim view regarding the usefulness of S400, especially when weighed against the possible liability.

Comments regarding S400 may be made on the federal register.

FAA chair for the CAST is Peggy Giligan.

 

9.  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.

 

The FAA and the Office of Chief Council are still working out some of the logistics of the OpSpec. Will provide group with an update at the meeting.

 

The FAA has decided against creating standard text based on certain nonstandard text contained in A030 paragraphs issued to specific certificate holders. This is due to possible unintended consequences relating to the requirements of 121.590 not being applicable outside of the United States.    The FAA brought their concerns to the group and it was decided that the best course of action was to withdraw the changes to A030.

 

 

10.  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.

Need help from AGC.

Work currently postponed.

When work on this is ready to begin again, Industry would like to get a subgroup together to help write the new OpSpec.

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.

 

Once AGC is able to provide their assistance, the FAA will attempt to establish a workgroup similar to the one that worked on B044 to help write OpSpec A0xx which will address electronic systems that calculate things such as fuel as a means of compliance with several regulations.  Guidance on the “clean up” of  A025 will be introduced after the creation of A0xx.

 

 

11.  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.

 

Update – The group agreed on the final version of the OpSpec during the last meeting. However, an additional limitation as been added to the paragraph based on several cases of further misapplication of the paragraph.  The additional limitation is that OpSpec will only be applicable to those airports listed in a certificate holder’s C070 as a regular, provisional or refueling airport. Although this is already a requirement of 121.631(a), several cases have recently been cited were the paragraph was being applied to alternate airports listed in C070.  The addition of the limitation will hopefully ensure continued compliance with 121.631(a).

 

A012 has completed the FAA coordination process and is now waiting for final signatures from Higher Headquarters.   Estimated publication time is the beginning of January, 2011.

 

 

12.  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.

This May come up for discussion at the Jan 2011 meeting.

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).

 

13. 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

 

Inspector guidance is in coordination.  At this time AFS-400 does not have any plans to change OpSpec C300.

Guidance went to AFS-410.

Expect inspector guidance materials soon.

Once guidance is updated all operators will have to update to the new C-300

Once guidance is updated all operators will have to update to the new C-300   

Guidance in coordination for signature

 

 

14.  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

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

·                Madison Walton Madison.walton@faa.com (should be .gov) may be contacted for discussion.

The two OpsSpecs are no longer being combined.

Move to close

 

15.  B032/B034/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 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 inspector guidance draft is updated to incorporate AC 90-100A and AC 90-105.

B035 is a separate item.

Decision has been made to not combine these three Specs.

Each will be updated individually.

B034 – complete and in Web Ops., AC90-96 is located in the FAA regulatory library - Move to Close

Replace with just C063 Agenda item

C063 – draft inspector guidance is being updated to incorporate AC 90-100A and AC 90-105 – no new update

 

16.  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 the FAA draft documents web site and it is ready for internal FAA coordination.

 

·                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?

Answer is YES.

Discussion:

1.            A003 is still being coordinated.

2.            Draft is on FAA draft documents website.

Listing seating capacities is a particular problem if there are several seating configurations authorized by STC.

This function in the OpSpec was built as one standard for everybody.

Changes are pending to remove “Approved Seats”.

       An operator is only required to list maximum number of seats.

 

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

History: Standing Agenda Item

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:   AFS-220

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 FAA draft documents 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 FAA draft document website 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:

¨            Change the Special PIC airport List in guidance subsystem in association with OpSpecs C050 and C067

¨            Change the Special PIC airport List on FSIMS (under PUBLICATIONS | OPSS DOCUMENTS):

 

http://fsims.avs.faa.gov/fsims/fsims.nsf/actpubs?openview&count=-1&RestrictToCategory=OPSS Guidance

 

CURRENT for this Agenda:  

 

Current list is dated February 26, 2010. 

 

AFS-220 is proposing to add BGBW, Narsarsuaq, Greenland.  Documents are available on FAA draft documents website.  AFS-220 to discuss.

Charts alone are not enough to make an evaluation whether an airport should be categorized as “Special”.

More data has been submitted and is on the website

       Comments due in 30 days.

Special airport list now resides on FSIMS

 

18.  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., Nov 3

9:00 – 12:00

 

 

19.  Convene.  Introductions.

Present at the meeting, were representatives from:  Aeroflot Airlines, Air Canada, Aerosvit Airlines, Air China, Antonov Airlines, Arctic Sunwest Charters, Avianca, Aer Lingus, All Nippon Airways Co., LTD, Biman Bangladesh Airlines, British Airways, Brazil’s ANAC, CAT Aviation Ltd., Centurion Air Cargo, Condor Flugdienst, Copa Airlines, Emirates, Jet Airways (India) Limited, Korean Air, Qantas Airways Limited, RUSLAN International, Southern Airlines,  Nippon Cargo Airlines Co., Ltd., Scandinavian Airlines System, St. Barth Commuter, TAM Airlines, Tampa Cargo SA, Vaustralia,  International Air Transportation Association, Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l., Hogan and Hartson LLP, Wicks Group PLLC., National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), 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), and numerous US airlines.

 

 

20.      WebOPSS Update.   Bob Davis to brief.

Several complained of poor customer support from Team Askins.

Contact Cindy Logan with problems with Team Askins.

 

21.  FAA Website for Draft Documents and OSWG Information.

 

       See InFO 10018.  Two websites take the place of http://www.opspecs.com/:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/ contains draft documents, including Aircraft Certification documents and draft OpSpecs and guidance.

Question:  Are comments viewable?

Yes, but only if the FAA person responsible uploads the comments onto a spreadsheet and then upload the spreadsheet to the website.

Question:  If a new draft OpSpec is being created is it possible to also create the 8900 guidance at the same time?

No, they are created sequentially.  However, if the guidance were created at the same time, it may help eliminate some questions on a draft OpSpec.

 

 

Operators may subscribe on the draft opspec page to get notification of any changes to page.

       Go to http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/opspecs/index.cfm

 

http://fsims.faa.gov/PublicationForm.aspx contains information on OSWG meetings, including meeting information, agendas and meeting notes.  It also contains permanent OPSS and OSWG information, such as the Special PIC Qualification Airport list and the OSWG Procedures Guide.

Data structure at the bottom of an OpSpec does not support the intended function.

Effective date :

       A separate box is selectable for establishing an appropriate effective date.

Currently the first person to sign the Spec is the one who establishes and controls the effective date.

The Long term fix is to allow either party to set effective date.

 

 

 

22.  Progress Recent Developments: International Register of AOCs.   Danuta Pronczuk,  AFS-52,  briefed.  (Update for the briefing was provided/coordinated with Henry Defalque, International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO).  

 

Status:  Open

 

AOC International database of all international carriers:

       State of the operators send information to an ICAO database.

       System will test the database internally 1st qtr, 2011.

       System should be operational in 2 years (2012?).

       U.S. is schedule to be the last country to be added to the ICAO database.

       Question:  What would it take to change the statutory requirements to carriers to carry US OpSpecs?

The question went essentially unanswered.  Industry may need to send their comments directly to John Allen to make this a priority for those individuals who are road blocks.

 

Brian Miles (the Part 129 OSWG industry chair) started the discussion with background on the International Register of AOCs, and OpSpecs.  Casey Seabright, (the newly elected Part 121 OSWG industry vice chair), offered Delta’s experience with the various OpSpecs requirements of the different international destinations (States) to which Delta operates to.  Danuta updated the group on the latest developments to the registry of AOC’s.

 

The Civil Aviation University of China has developed the IT requirements for the Internal Register of AOCs.  Beta testing is scheduled for internal testing first quarter of 2011, with a few States being tested by the end of second quarter of 2011.  The database is expected to be operational by the end of 2012.  The International Register of AOCs is designed to be linked to the aircraft info database which is scheduled to launch in November 2010.  Canada has confirmed beta-testing participation.  Australia has been contacted with positive feedback; ICAO is waiting on confirmation of participation.  China is on the ICAO wish list as a beta-testing participant.  The US is expected to be beta-tested last; it will be tested for batch automatic upload of data.  The additional data-set (Phase II) will start once the AOC database is operational.  It takes ICAO 2 years to change an ICAO standard.  The ICAO plan is to begin the process of amending the ICAO standard for the carriage of AOC’s, once the International Registry of AOC’s is operational.   The amendment would provide a waiver to the ICAO requirement for the carriage of the AOC to those operators whose information is in the International Registry of AOC’s. 

 

 

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:   Suzette Rash, AFS-470

Industry Lead:

 

Update 9/20/10: document is in coordination.

Currently in coordination (AFS0140) to allow Q-routes in Alaska Airlines

Gulf of Mexico is not in B-35

No new update

 

 

24.  Industry concerns regarding Class I navigation:

  1. An emerging issue is some VORs 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

 

 

25.  A029, Aircraft Interchange Agreement for Part 121, 135, and 129

History: 2010-04

Database:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

 

X

X

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead :  Danuta Pronczuk (AFS-052) for Part 129 and Ricky Chitwood (AFS-220) for Part 121

Industry Lead: 

 

No changes to the OpSpec from what was briefed in April for Part 129.  Background may be found in the April 2010 notes.

 

Steve Kuhar, (the Part 121 and 135 industry OSWG chair), asked if there was industry interest in taking the lead for Part 121.  It was noted that there were no operators in the room that were party to an interchange and so as such no one volunteered.  

Danuta briefed the change for Part 121 and 135.  Namely, the definition of primary operator was corrected by Ricky, (AFS-220), to “the operator that would normally operate the aircraft if an interchange agreement were not in effect”.   The reference to D085 was also corrected.  The new verbiage is as follows:  “for US registered aircraft, the registration numbers of the aircraft to be used in the interchange agreement shall also be identified in paragraph D085”.  A change for which the posted OpSpec was not amended at time of meeting but one that Ricky was planning on making was the addition of a column for “aircraft serial #” and “aircraft registration” (both of which are already incorporated in the Part 129 template). 

 

Status: Open.

Main problem is that the definition of primary operator was incorrect.

This will be fixed in new spec.

At 140 for coordination

Ricky.chitwood@faa.gov is the FAA point of contact for A-029, for US operators operating under Part 121.

 

 

26.  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.

 

Question / comments from industry:

 

The current template in WebOpss is in conflict with the 8900.1 Vol 3, chap 18, which is in conflict with Notice 8900.117, which is in conflict with AC120-42B.  This started in the AC that air carriers can substitute 700 meters for 800 meters for to the visibility for foreign airports. The notice says you can use it but it is only tied in with the one useable authorized Category III ILS IAP. The template says you can use it but only if reported. What do they mean by reported. Finally, the 8900 does not mention anything on this.  This needs to be cleaned up.

Suggestion to 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 MITRE on the feasibility of allowing filing of RNAV approach as alternate (with TSO-C129 equipment).  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 RAIM prediction and the TSO-C129 equipment at destination and alternate.

  1. C052 draft is in coordination.
  2. Should be signed in June 2010.
  3. 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.
  1. 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.

 

 

 

OpsSpec and Notices awaiting signature – move to close this section

 

 

27.  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.

 

 

28.  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.            Published in N 8900.130, August 2, 2010.

2.            The new template has 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.

Presentation on Aging Aircraft Rules was given by Fred Sobeck.

The presentation will be place on FSIMS opspec website.

New D-97 is active and now available.

       Includes all FAR regulatory requirements

       Spec must be repopulated when activated for the first time (will not auto populate)

 

 

29.  D485 , Aging Airplane Inspection and Records Review

U.S – registered operated under Part 129 – update.  To be briefed by Rusty Jones, AFS-320.

 

FAA Lead:  Rusty Jones (AFS-320), George Bean (AFS-52), Fred Sobeck (AFS-320),

Industry Lead:

 

Background for Part 129 may be found in the April 2010 notes.  The draft Part 129 OpSpec is posted for public comment, at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/129opspecs/ with a comment due date of November 9th, 2010. 

 

New development - Rusty Jones will brief the group on the history and future of the OpSpec for Part 129 and Part 121.

 

Status:  Open

Presentation given by Rusty Jones.

Data collection mandated by congress

Comments on how to streamline the process may be sent to Rusty Jones

Month and year is adequate regarding dates.

 

30.  Closing remarks – all participants to the OSWG.

 

Industry Discussion 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.

Steve Bush is the new Industry chair.

Casey Seabright is the new Industry Co-Chair.

2.            Exemptions.

a.            ATA exemptions work good with a few problems 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.

Question:  Is there a way to sort exemptions by expiration date?

         Will be looked at to see if the interface can be changed.

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.

No Update:

5.            A031 Contract training centers.

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

                                                                                                                            i.          This may not be practical with part 91K fractional ownership or part 135s.

b.            142 requires that instructors remain familiar with the air carrier’s procedures 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.

This rule has been in place for a long time and is not a new policy.

 

Additional Subjects:

C-074 1400 RVR authorizations will be placed in C-052 as a selectable.

When new C-052 is available, C-074 will be archived.

 

 

Hold-Over tables

It would be helpful if the new Hold over tables were distributed on time.

In general, Industry believes that delay of configuration until end of the runway is not a good idea.

      Risk of takeoff with flaps not set correctly is greater than the risk of having contamination present on the flaps.

      Mandated security issues related with keeping the cockpit door locked is a big issue regarding the requirement to inspect the wings.

      There has been minimal industry participation in making policy.

This stuff is coordinated at the FAA Tech center and AFS-200.

New material is what delayed the HOTs and made them too late to be incorporated in a timely manner.

Need to improve how quickly this info gets completed.

Next year the HOTs should be in the handbook.

 


 

International Session

Wed., November 3rd

1:00 pm – 5:00 pm

 

31.  Convene. 

 

Brian Miles, the Part 129 OSWG industry chair, and David Oliver, the Part 129 OSWG industry vice chair expressed their apologies for not being able to attend the last OSWG meeting due to the Volcano eruption. 

 

 

32. Communications – briefed by Brian Miles (Emirates).

 

Brian requested that when personnel at the IFOs/IFUs change that the air carriers be updated, specifically at issue was the NY IFU.  Brian’s concerns were as follows:

 

1, No notification of the change from an IFO to an IFU which resulted in a number of operators having to query the legal status of the Ops Specs;

2. No notification of the change in the office manager;

3. No notification of the change in the assistant office manager; and

4. No notification in the change of POI (for Emirates)

 

Brian also noted the inconsistency in communications between the JFK office and the offices of the FAA in both SFO and ANC where they make positive pro-active notification to their Part 129 Operators.

 

 Robert L.Jaffe (representing the NY IFO) responded: 

 

 

Status:  closed   

 

 

33.  129 OSWG Terms of Reference – Briefed by Danuta Pronczuk, (AFS-52).

 

FAA Lead:   Danuta Pronczuk, (AFS-52)

Industry Lead:   Brian Miles (Emirates)

 

Danuta introduced Mike Frank, (AFS-52), as the new FAA vice chair, (International, part 129 OSWG).  This change to the terms of reference was being made by AFS-050 so as to assure continuity, seamless operation in case of the unexpected/emergencies.  Danuta took the IOU to coordinate the posting of the amended Terms of Reference, (addition of the FAA vice Chair),  on FSIMS at http://fsims.faa.gov/, (see Nov 2010 OSWG agenda for details). 

 

Status: Opened

 

 

34.  Part 129 rulemakings – update briefed by Marlene Livack, AFS-52 (PowerPoint presentation provided by Darcy Reed, AFS-52).

 

The FAA is preparing the final 129 Operations Specifications rule for publication in the federal register, planned for April 2011.

 

Background on the two rulemakings may be found in the April 2010 notes, and the Nov 2010 agenda posted on FSIMS at http://fsims.faa.gov/ .  Once on the FSIMS website select “Publications” then “Operations Specifications Working Group”.  The April 2010 joint session notes are under the heading of “OSWG 2010-02 Notes – OSWG Second Quarter 2010 Notes”, and the Nov 2010 agenda is under the heading of OSWG 2010-04 Agenda -- OSWG Fourth Quarter 2010 Agenda.  The PowerPoint presentation that was reviewed at the November 2010 meeting is under the heading of OSWG 2010-04 Presentations – Part 129 Rulemakings.

 

Status: Open

 

 

35.  FAA Order 8900.1 international guidance Danuta Pronczuk, (AFS-52), briefed, as coordinated with Dr. Gary Layton, AFS-052

 

FAA Lead:  Dr. Gary Layton, AFS-052

 

Dr. Gary Layton, AFS-052, was in the process of disposing FAA comments to FAA Order 8900.1 international guidance on OpSpecs.  The changes are expected to be in the handbook by the time of next meeting.  The FAA Order 8900.1 international guidance is important to industry as it provides further detail on OpSpecs that an operator may be interested in obtaining from the FAA.   

 

Status: Open.

 

 

36.  A001.   Issuance and Applicability, and Reports - 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) for scheduled airports, and Brian Miles (Emirates) for nonscheduled flight notification method.

 

Background may be found in the April 2010 notes.  The OpSpec with a summary of changes, and the associated draft inspector guidance may be viewed at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/129opspecs/Public Comments are due on November 9th, 2010 

 

The OSWG feedback to the FAA proposed nonscheduled flight notification method was that:

·                the proposed 72 hr notification requirement would place the nonscheduled operators at a significant economic disadvantage;

·                impractical as a practice as many nonscheduled flights are last minute;

·                no such reporting requirements are necessary for American operators coming to Switzerland or Europe;

·                if the US maintain the 72 hr notification requirement a “quid pro quo” situation where other authorities will do the same may occur;

·                should not be required to provide notification any longer than 1 hour prior to departure, which corresponds to U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s crew manifest advance transmission requirement under 19 CFR sections 122.49b and 122.75b;

·                no deadline other then prior to departure;

·                retain the existing provision.

The FAA took that IOU to review the proposal and extend the comment period for OpSpec A001.

 

Status:  Open.

 

 

37.  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), Mike Frank (FAA – AFS-52)

Industry Lead:  Jonathan Echmalian (representing various airlines)

 

Background may be found in the April 2010 notes. 

 

The draft OpSpec has been posted for public comment with a comment due date of February 1, 2010.  The FAA briefed that in the process of informal FAA review, the FAA received a new recommendation.  Namely, to have a point of contact listed for the receipt of  SAFO, and InFO information in the OpSpecs.  The OSWG feedback was that there is no regulatory requirement/no response needed on the part of the operator’s in response to SAFO’s and InFO’s, therefore no need to add this information to OpSpecs.

 

A post meeting proposal was to provide a link to where operators can go to in order to subscribe to the information (SAFO’s and InFO’s).  Another change since the April 2010 OSWG was the clarification to the draft guidance that in the absence of a management representative within the U.S. a management representative outside the U.S. needs to be listed in the section for “operations representative”.

 

Status:  Open.

 

 

38.  A008 - Operational Control, Aeronautical Weather, and Airport Data - the combining of OpSpec A008, A009, and A010 into one OpSpec was briefed by David Henthorn, FAA - SFO IFO.

 

FAA Lead:   David Henthorn (FAA - SFO IFO)

Industry Lead:  Brian Miles

 

The OpSpec change is being processed; ICAO references were added as informational notes in the OpSpec for added reference. Dave took the opportunity to solicit feedback on a proposal to make OpSpec changes on a biannual basis, except when critical to do otherwise.  What this would do is minimize an operator accidentally missing an OpSpec change and cut down on the workload on the FAA inspectors.  For example if the biannual changes, (except when critical to do otherwise), were due May 29th and November 30th both the operator and the inspector would know to verify WebOPSS in May and November to see if there was any changes that affected them.

 

The proposal was viewed favorably, with a comment that to rollout on a schedule would be even better.  Danuta did not think that option was possible; however she took the IOU to look into it.  All dates were viewed as good dates except for September (by the IFO/IFU reps.)     

 

Status:  Open.

 

 

39.  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 may be found in the April 2010 notes.  The draft Part 129 OpSpec and its associated guidance have been posted for public comment, at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/129opspecs/ with a due date of February 1, 2010.  The only additional change since the April 2010 meeting is the frequencies addition as informational notes in the OpSpec.

 

Status:  Open.

 

 

40.  D085. The incorporation of OpSpec D072 into D085. Briefed by George Bean, AFS-52.

 

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

Industry Lead:

 

Background may be found in the April 2010 notes.  The OpSpec with its associated guidance has been forwarded to AFS-140 for formatting in preparation to formal coordination, no public comments were received; the new template is expected to be out by the time of next biannual meeting.

 

Status:  Open.

 

 

41.  C080 Terminal Area IFR Operations in Class G Airspace and at Airports without an Operating Control Tower.  The combined C080 with C064 was briefed by Danuta Pronczuk, (AFS-52).

 

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

Industry Lead:  Brian Miles (Emirates)

 

Background may be found in the April 2010 notes and in the November 2010 agenda.  The draft Part 129 OpSpec has been posted for public comment, with a comment due date of February 1, 2010, at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/129opspecs/ .   Paragraph a and b of the new draft would be issued to operators conducting either or both scheduled and nonscheduled operations.  Scheduled operators would also be issued paragraph c.

 

Status:  Open.

 

 

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

 

FAA Lead:  Danuta Pronczuk (AFS-52)

Industry Lead:  John Conlon (British Airways)

 

Background may be found in the April 2010 notes.  Continuing to research (TERPS (§97.20 (a), FAA Order 8260.3, § 91.177)

 

Status: Open.

 

 

43.  C075 and C076 – Category I IFR Landing Minimums – combined circling maneuvers and contact approaches at U.S. Airports.  Briefed by Danuta Pronczuk, FAA – AFS-52.

 

FAA Lead:  David Krueger (FAA - DFW IFO), Mike Frank, (AFS-52)

Industry Lead:  David Oliver (Qantas Airways Limited)

 

Background may be found in the April 2010 notes and November 2010 agenda.  The draft Part 129 OpSpec has been posted for public comment, at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/129opspecs/ with a due date of February 1, 2010.  

 

The OSWG feedback was that it is clear, to each operator, that at no time can an operator go below the State of the Operator minimum so no need to add that statement to the OpSpec.  Danuta noted that FAA Order 8260, specifically table 3-9, is enforceable on each operator via §97.20 (a).  Section 97.20 is enforceable on each operator via §91.177, (speed categories are covered by §97.3).  The difference between the table and what is in TERPS was the HAA and visibility in statute miles for speed category “E” aircraft.  Since the table, except for speed category “E” would never be lower then what is on the published circling landing minimum, and there are currently no Part 129 operators using civilian aircraft in speed category “E” serving to airports that are military and public with a published speed category “E”, it was agreed by the OSWG that the table serves no useful value and as such recommended to take it out of the OpSpec.   

 

A question from the floor was as follows:  are there any Part 129 operators still doing contact approaches?   If none then the recommendation was to take the contact approach piece out.  Danuta took the IOU to verify.  Post meeting verification shows 17 Part 129 operators are still conducting contact approaches. 

 

Status: Open.

 

 

44.  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 may be found in the April 2010 notes.  Needs further research, for the interim the plan is to correct the B050 reference in the B051 and the B056 OpSpecs.  (OpSpec B050 no longer exists for Part 129 operators; the geographical areas of operation are now in OpSpec A001 ). 

 

Status: Open.

 

 

45. A review of the ICAO registry phase I information and how it correlates to OpSpecs (Dave Henthorn, FAA-SFO IFO and Ms. Rommy Ulloa, IATA presented)

 

FAA LeadDanuta Pronczuk, (AFS-052), and Dave Henthorn, (FAA - SFO IFO)

Industry Lead: 

 

Discussed – would it be more demanding or less demanding, from the Industry perspective, if we changed the FAA issued OpSpec format to that of ICAO which goes by aircraft make model series?  (See International Civil Aviation Organization Annex 6 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Part 1, (International Commercial Air Transport – Aeroplanes), Appendix 6, paragraph 3, (Operations specifications for each aircraft model).

Ms. Rommy Ulloa, IATA, made a short presentation of the ICAO database.  The following ICAO database presentations have been uploaded to FSIMS underPublications”, “Operations Safety System (OPSS) Documents”, “Operations Specifications Working Group:

·                OSWG 2010-04 Presentations - ICAO database administrator login;

·                OSWG 2010-04 Presentations - ICAO database search; and

·                OSWG 2010-04 Presentations - ICAO database upload AOC.

 

 

Status: open.

 

 

46.  New business.

 

o              B034 and B035

o              Industry Lead: Capt. Harold Cardona Henao, (Avianca)

o              FAA Lead: Rolfe Dinwoodie

o              B031

o              Industry Lead:  Jorge I. Londono A., (Tampa Cargo S.A.)

o              FAA Lead: Rolfe Dinwoodie

o              Brian Milles (Emirates) has volunteered to be the industry lead once the 129 NPRM becomes a final rule.

 

 

47.  Brainstorming session and closing remarks – all participants to the OSWG.

 

Brian Miles, as industry chair, said that he had received a proposal, and was looking for OSWG feedback as to if the OSWG wants to switch from two OSWG meetings a year to meeting  once a year for a two day session.  The OSWG  feedback was that once a year is too long to stay on top of changes, and so, as such, it was decided to continue, as in the past, with the biannual meetings. 

 

A proposal from the floor was to do away with the joint (domestic and international) session.  This led into a discussion with mixed feedback received from the floor, some of which was in favor and some against the joint sessions.  The chairs took the IOU to work harder on coordinating items of joint interest.   The next joint and international session is scheduled for April 20th 2011 , in Washington DC.

 

If there is anyone interested in hosting the Nov 2011 OSWG session then please advise Danuta at Danuta.Pronczuk@faa.gov.

 

Thank you expressed by all participants for another successful OSWG meeting, the exchange of thoughts and ideas, the discussions, the opportunity to be heard.  Danuta closed the Nov 2010 session with:

·                a recognition to Bob Davis, the U.S. Domestic OSWG FAA Chair, for his support and efforts in support of the International Programs and Policy Division (AFS-50), and the Part 129 OSWG; and

·                thank you, (to everyone), for coming!  Hope to see you all in April, at the next OSWG session.