FAA/Aviation Industry Agenda for
OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) 2012-04

 

October 16th and 17th, 2012

 

Tuesday, October 16th: 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM (Domestic Session)

 

Wednesday, October 17th: 9:00 AM - NOON (Joint Session)

 

Wednesday, October 17th: 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM (International Session)

 

Hosted by FAA

Heritage Center (Navy Memorial)

Washington, DC

 

Chairpersons:          

 

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

Casey Seabright, Delta, Industry Chair

Rich Yuknavich, American Airlines, Industry Vice Chair

Bob Davis, AFS-260, FAA Chair

 

International (Part 129)

Brian Miles, Emirates, Industry Chair

David Oliver, Qantas Airways Limited, Industry Vice Chair

Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-52, FAA Chair

Mike Frank, AFS-52, FAA Vice Chair

 

Transportation Division, AFS-200, Manager: Les Smith

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 (LAX IFO), Rolfe Dinwoodie and Bob Bianco (ROC and ALB IFU), Herbert H. Herzog III, W. Scott Schweizer and Patrick Crowley (ANC IFU), J.J. (MIA IFO), Nicholas Tsokris (NY IFO), and David May (SEA FSDO)

 

IATA Representative:   Jeffrey T. Miller

 

Meeting Location:

Heritage Center (Navy Memorial)

701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 2004

(phone: 202-737-2300)


 

 

 

 

OSWG Agenda

 

U.S. Domestic Session

Part 121, 135, etc.

(Operators for whom the U.S. is   The State of the Operator )  

Joint Session

Part 121, 129, 135 etc.    

(Foreign air carriers, persons, & Operators for whom the U.S. is The State of the Operator )

International Session

Part 129

(Foreign air carriers and persons)

1.   Convene Domestic Session

1.   Convene Joint Session      

1.   Convene International Session  

  2.   Chairman’s Discussion

  2. Stakeholder Survey

2. OpSpec C060

  3. OpSpec D084

  3. WebOPSS Update

  3. OpSpec B039

  4.   OpSpec C050

4. ICAO Register of AOCs

  4. OpSpec B046

  5.   OpSpec C055

5. EASA third country operators

  5. OpSpec A003

  6. OpSpec C077

  6. OpSpec A029

  6. OpSpec A001 (129.14 template)

  7.   OpSpec C054

  7. OpSpecs A003/C091

  7. OpSpec C075 (circling)

  8.   OpSpec A025

8. OpSpec D301

  8. OpSpec C054 and C051

  9.   OpSpec B343

  9. OpSpec C063

  9. OpSpecs A036 & A040

10. OpSpec D081

10. OpSpec C073

10. Part 129 Rulemaking

11. OpSpec C081

11. OpSpec AXXX

11. OpSpec C050 and C067

12. OpSpec A010

12. OpSpec C055

12. OpSpecs C056 & C057

13. OpSpec A027

13. OpSpec C300 Navaid Substitution

13. OpSpec C083

14. OpSpec B041

14.     OpSpec D095

14. OpSpecs B051 & B056

15. OpSpec A001

15. A061

15. OpSpec B031

16. OpSpecs B036/B054

16. Closing

16. OpSpec A028

17. MSPEC B054

 

17. OpSpecs B034, B035

18. C051

 

18. OpSpec D092

19. OpSpec C052 and A002  

 

19. Data Link Communications

20. Closing

 

21. OpSpec C052 and A002

 

 

22. New items, Closing

 

 

 

 

 

 

Day 1 - AFTERNOON SESSION – October 16th 2012

 

 


Convening

 

2                Chairperson’s Remarks

Roster and Roll Call/Introductions:

 

 

 


3                D084 Special Flight Permit with Continuous Authorization to Conduct Ferry Flights

 

FAA Lead: Mark Lopez AFS-330

Industry Lead: Tom Taylor/Doug Snow, FedEx Express

 

Issue Statement:

1.            Ops Spec D084 item b. does not provide wording to allow ferrying an aircraft to storage or to a place where the aircraft will be donated, scrapped, sold, etc.

2.            Ops Spec D084 item d. does not provide wording to allow ferrying to storage on the way to a repair facility to have an expired AD complied with or to a place where the aircraft will be donated, scrapped, sold, etc.

 

Background:

1.          14 CFR 21.197 Special flight permits, item (c) allows certificate holders with a D084 Ops Spec to issue a Special Flight Permit for the purpose of flying aircraft to a base where maintenance or alterations are to be performed. Item (a) (1) of the same CFR allows for Special Flight Permits, outside of the D084 Ops Spec, to be issued to a base where repairs, alterations, or maintenance are to be performed or to a point of storage. Within the D084 Ops Spec and item (c) of the CFR, the words repair and storage are left out. It could be argued that maintenance and repair are one in the same therefore the word repair was left out, therefore it could also be argued that the intent of the abbreviated verbiage in Ops Spec D084 and item (c) of the CFR is not intended to prevent moving an aircraft to storage on its way to a maintenance facility to have the required work accomplished when a maintenance slot becomes available.

2.          14 CFR 39.23 Airworthiness Directives, starts out with a question – [May I fly my aircraft to a repair facility to do the work required by an airworthiness directive?]. The answer is yes, but it also states the aircraft can be flown to a repair facility to do the work required by an Airworthiness Directive. Like stated above, there is no mention of flying the aircraft to a place of storage while awaiting a slot at a maintenance facility where the AD can be complied with.

3.           

Intended Outcome:

FEDEX Express is seeking an Ops Spec provision or CFR exemption relief.

Is it the FAA’s intent that a certificate holder with a D084 Ops Spec cannot ferry an aircraft to storage for any reason? Is it also the intent that no one, certificate holder or FAA, can issue a Special Flight Permit, with an expired AD, to a storage facility while awaiting a slot at a maintenance facility where the AD can be complied with or to a place where the aircraft will be donated, scrapped, sold, etc.?

 

-                  Need an FAA legal interpretation of items 1 and 2 above.

-                  If a FAA legal interpretation allows a certificate holder to ferry an aircraft to storage in both cases above, we would like to see the D084 Ops Spec revised with language addressing the issue of flying to storage in both cases as well as flying to a place where the aircraft will be donated, scrapped, sold, etc.

-                  If item 1 and 2 above does not allow the aircraft to be flown to storage, or flown to a place where it will donated, scrapped, sold, etc. we would like to see an exemption issued that allows it?

 

FAA reported that the rules do not allow for this type of operations due to compliance time over-runs. Possible to get an AMOC to move the aircraft from out of storage to a repair facility.

1. This may have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis due to the number of variables.

2. FAA to check into moving an non-airworthy aircraft to a place other than a maintenance or repair facility.

 

 

4                C050: Special Pilot-in-command Qualification Airports (KMMH)

 

FAA Lead: Bob Davis, AFS-260 

Industry Lead: Steve Bush, Horizon Airlines

Issue Statement:

Mammoth Yosemite; (KMMH), Mammoth Lakes Calif., an airport with scheduled 121 passenger service, located in the Eastern Sierra Nevada Mountains, has many of the attributes that would qualify it as a Special Pilot-in-Command Qualification airport; however, this airport is not included on the list maintained by AFS-200 in association with C-050.

 

Background:

FAR 121.445 and 8900.1 4-602 guidance provides that certain airports, due to characteristics such as surrounding terrain, obstructions, or complex approach or departure procedures may be designated as special airports requiring the PIC to hold special qualifications prior to landing or taking off from that airport.

An airport assessment aid is provided as part of the 8900.1 guidance to assist in determining if an airport qualifies as a Special PIC airport. When considering the assessment aid coupled with the methodology used for conducting an airport assessment, it is clear that KMMH meets the criteria threshold for listing as a special PIC Qualification airport.

Being nestled on the eastern slopes of the central High Sierra Mountains, KMMH possesses the following characteristics that have a direct effect on flight operations.

Examples below:

•                   High terrain in the immediate vicinity

•                   Limited maneuvering area

•                   Significant unlighted terrain affecting night operations

•                   Complex instrument procedures

•                   Significant winds, turbulence and windshear

•                   Unique communications and surveillance considerations

 

FAA agrees and list will be updated. Should be completed soon - FAA has taken action to update the notice.

Intended Outcome:

Add Mammoth Yosemite; (KMMH), Mammoth Lakes Calif. To the Special Pilot-In-Command Qualification list maintained by AFS-200 in association with C-050.

Action Items:

In process

Deadline UNK

 

 

                      4.a. C050: Special Pilot-in-command Qualification Airports (BAIR)

 

FAA Lead : Bob Davis, AFS-260

Industry Lead : TBD

Issue Statement:

Add Akureyri Airport, Iceland (IATA,AEY;ICAO BAIR) to the 14 CFR121.445 list.

Background:

This airport also has many of the attributes that would qualify it as a Special Pilot-in-Command Qualification airport. It is located on the Northern Icelandic coast. The airport is situated next to a river estuary with a north-south orientation (7874 ft.). There is steep terrain to the south. Bob Davis mentioned that the ILS may have as much as a five degree glideslope. The advantage of having a means of qualification for this airport is that it offers an alternative to Keflevik when that airport is affected by the occasional 40 mile an hour sea fog or volcanic ash inundation. During the last volcanic eruptions, due to favorable prevailing winds, Akureyri was unaffected. The downside is limited ramp space.

Previous Meeting Discussions: This issue was not discussed at the July meeting. Deferred

Intended Outcome:

Add Akureyri, Iceland (BAIR) to the Special Pilot-In-Command Qualification list maintained by AFS-200 related to Ops Spec C-050.

Action Items:

Above proposal is in process.

Deadline UNK

 


5                C055: Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums

 

FAA Lead: John Swigart, AFS-470

Industry Lead: Jim Winkleman, Andy Newcomer,

 

Issue Statement:

Unmonitored NAVAIDS are a problem for industry and may be having an effect on reliability of service, especially for longer haul operations.

 

Background:

Historically NAVAIDS have been monitored by FAA or entities designated by the FAA. As more responsibilities are being contracted to third parties, the ability to monitor essential NAVAIDS is no longer possible under certain circumstances. The increase in the number of unmonitored NAVAIDS is beginning to have a negative effect on providing reliable air transportation with loss of either certain alternate airport minimums or elimination of some alternate airport utilization.

 

In December 2011, a draft copy of the MITRE contractor study concerning feasibility and safety assessment of allowing alternate minimums based on GPS approaches was published. AFS-470 is reviewing the study. If it is determined that changes can be made to current policy, there will need to be harmonization between the different 14 CFR carrier types. Related guidance in the Instrument Procedures Manual and the AIM will also need to be updated. If GPS minimums are allowed, there is a possibility of two eligibility tiers for aircraft based on navigation system levels of fault detection and fault alerting. Similar RAIM prediction requirements as are in place for C300 may be required. (References TSO 196 for WAAS, TSO-129 for DME/DME updating.

Intended outcome:

Develop a solution that meets the needs of both Industry and FAA.

MITRE study to determine whether use of RNAV/GPS approaches at alternates affords an acceptable level of risk. A suggested interim mitigation strategy is issuance of alternative missed approach procedures whenever NAVAIDs go unmonitored.

 

Previous Meeting Discussions:

Refer to Discussion for Item 7 Ops Spec C300

 

Doug Snow, FEDEX Dispatch proposed allowing use of VFR weather minimums for alternate airports that only have GPS/GNSS approaches if there is an anticipated delay in final resolution of GPS use at alternate airports.

Status:

Open: AFS-410 is looking at possibility of using RNAV approaches for alternate minimums.

Need list of unmonitored NAVAIDS to be sent to Coby Johnson.

 

 


6                C077: Terminal Visual Flight Rules, Limitations and Provisions

 

FAA Lead: Theodora Kessaris, AFS-260

Industry Lead: Steve Bush

 

Issue Statement:

There is an apparent conflict between the Controller 7110.65 handbook guidance and Ops Spec guidance provided in C-077 regarding takeoff and climb on an IFR flight plan with a VFR/VMC restriction for 121 operations.

 

Background:

Ops Spec C077 paragraph “e” allows for an IFR departure with a VMC takeoff and climb to a specified point provided the requirements in paragraph “f” can be satisfied. The Controller handbook, 7110.65 section 7-1-2 also provides for this same type of IFR clearance, however, uses the term “VFR” instead of “VMC”.

 

This incongruence of terms used in the Ops Spec and Controller’s handbook has contributed to misunderstandings, differences in expectations between the flight crews and controllers and has contributed to avoidable delays in takeoff from uncontrolled airports.

 

Intended Outcome:

Change the term “VMC” found in paragraph “e” of Ops Spec C077 to “VFR” in order to be aligned with the term used in the Controller’s handbook.

 

Previous Meeting Discussions:

Bob Davis AFS-200/260 stated that this issue has been raised in the past and the ATC folks are unwilling to change their handbook. If any change is to take place it will likely need to be in the Ops Spec template and associated guidance.

 

One suggested solution was to call attention to the expected ATC terminology in the operator guidance.

 

Status : Open

 

 

 

6a. C077 TERMINAL VISUAL FLIGHT RULES, LIMITATIONS AND PROVISIONS.

 

FAA Lead:   TBD

Industry Lead:   TBD

 

Issue Statement:

There is an apparent conflict between the flight crew requirements to conduct a non charted visual approach and the requirements to conduct some RNAV Visual Flight Procedure (RVFP) as designed and approved.

 

Specifically, flight crew roles and responsibilities when conducting a non-charted visual approach include keeping the airport and or proceeding traffic in sight throughout the approach.

 

The way some RVFP‘s are designed, it is entirely possible to; be cleared for the approach, comply with altitudes, speeds, clearance requirements, and proceed to a point on the approach where it is physically impossible to keep the airport in sight, and not have preceding traffic to follow.

 

 

ATL RNAV Visual Rwy 26R, SEA RNAV Visuals 16R and 34L, and RSW RNAV Visual Rwy 6 are examples of procedures that illustrate the situation discussed above (copies attached)

 

All of these procedures are designed in accordance applicable FAA guidance and approved for use by AFS-400, AFS-460, etc. Each have segments 8 miles or more from the runway threshold where the physical position of the aircraft will not allow continuous sighting of the airport.

 

 

Background:

 

OpSpec C077 addresses some charted visual procedures but is silent regarding RNAV Visual procedures which are inherently another “charted” visual procedure but with differences in design and implementation from CVFP’s.

 

RVFP’s differ in that the aircraft authorized to conduct these approaches are equipped with RNAV systems capable of providing lateral, vertical, and airspeed guidance/reference and when conducting the procedure, the flightcrew must fly the procedure as provided in the database.

 

Flight Standards has provided the guidance on design and has approved these approaches to be flown as designed.

This is the guidance in FAA Order 8260.55 Special Area Navigation Visual Flight Procedures”:

 

11. Roles and Responsibilities.

 

a. Operator and Pilot.

1.            Operators must train their pilots on RVFP. This training must include RVFP phraseology, procedures, and requirements specified on any associated 8260-10 forms.

2.            The RVFP must be coded in the aircraft RNAV system database and retrievable by name (i.e., line-selectable). Pilots are not authorized to build these procedures manually.

3.            Pilots must request the RVFP on initial contact with the controlling agency, unless previously coordinated.

4.          Pilots must report the airport or preceding traffic in sight to receive clearance for an RVFP.

5.            Pilots must fly the published RVFP route and, unless otherwise cleared by ATC, comply with charted mandatory altitudes and speeds.

6.            By accepting an RVFP clearance, pilots also accept the requirements and responsibilities associated with a visual approach clearance, e.g., visibility minimums and cloud clearances.

 

 

Intended Outcome:

 

Provide a “selectable” paragraph b (2 options) to include all subparagraphs of that section.

 

Option 1 : If a certificate holder is not authorized or does not conduct RVFP’s, the selection consists of the same language that is available today.

 

Option 2: If a certificate holder is authorized and conducts RVFP’s, then the following revised text is selected which includes additional language applicable to RVFP’s. (Additions and Changes to original text are in bold font.)

 

b. Terminal arrival IFR - Visual approach, Charted Visual Flight Procedure (CVFP), or RNAV Visual Flight Procedure (RVFP).

The flightcrew may accept a visual approach, CVFP, or a RVFP provided all the following conditions exist.

 

The flightcrew may not accept a visual approach, CVFP, or RVFP unless the limitations and provisions of subparagraph f. of this operations specification are met.

 

(1)      The flight is operated and remains in Class B, C, or D airspace, within 35 miles of the destination airport in Class E airspace, or the airspace beneath the designated transition area.

 

(2)      The flight is under the control of an Air Traffic Control (ATC) facility.

 

(3)      The flightcrew must maintain the basic cloud clearance as specified in Section 91.155.

 

(4)      For a visual approach without a CVFP or RVFP - The flightcrew must be able to establish and maintain visual contact with the airport or maintain visual contact with the traffic to be followed as directed by ATC. In addition, the following provisions and weather conditions at the airport during the approach must be met:

 

(a) Reported visibility must be as specified in Section 91.155, but not lower than a visibility of three miles and reported ceiling must be 1,000 feet or greater, or

(b) When in the terminal area with the reported visibility not lower than three miles and ceiling not reported, the flightcrew may continue to a landing if the runway of intended landing is in sight and the flightcrew can maintain visual contact with the runway throughout the approach and landing, and

(c) Ceiling and cloud clearance must be as such to allow the flightcrew to maintain the minimum altitudes prescribed in Section 91.129, 91.130, or 91.131, as applicable for the airspace class in which the flight is operated

 

(5) For a CVFP - The flightcrew must be able to establish and maintain visual contact with the airport or the charted visual landmark(s) for the CVFP throughout the approach and landing. In addition, the weather conditions at the airport at the time of the approach must be reported to be at or above the weather minima established for the CVFP, but never lower than the VFR landing weather minima stated in Section 121.649 in uncontrolled airspace.

 

(6) For a RVFP – the flightcrew must be able to establish visual contact with the airport or preceding aircraft to accept clearance to conduct and RVFP. Once established on the RVFP, the flight crew must fly the published RVFP route, remain in VMC and, unless otherwise cleared by ATC, comply with charted mandatory altitudes and speeds. The weather conditions at the airport at the time of the approach must be reported to be at or above the weather minima established for the RVFP.

 

 

 

Since, as stated in FAA Order 8260.55 these procedures are not “public” in nature, approved via a process similar to that of “special” instrument approach procedures (IAP), the text should be “selectable”.

 

RVFP are not “special IAPs” by definition therefore opspecs such as C081 does not directly apply.

 

 

Status: New Agenda Item

 

7                C054: Special Limitations and Provisions for Instrument Approach Procedures and

                                    IFR Landing Minimums

 

FAA Lead: Bryant Welch AFS-410

Industry Lead : Monty Montgomery

 

Issue Statement:

C054 needs to be more specific in its reference to “the landing field length specified for the destination airport by the appropriate Sections of the CFR”.

 

Background:

Many readers are unsure of what specific section of the CFR is being referred to, which leads to confusion. Jackson Seltzer (United) recommended standardization between C054 and other Ops Specs governing approach criteria, such as C060. Suggestion by Bob Davis was for coordination with industry and participation by Bryant Welch, Gordy Rother and Jerry Ostronic

 

Coby Johnson pledged support for harmonization guidance among Ops Specs C054, C059, and C060

 

Intended Outcome:

Industry proposed draft language for Ops Spec Paragraphs and applicable guidance adding an appropriate reference (121.195b) as shown below.

 

(2) A pilot-in-command of a turbojet airplane shall not begin an instrument approach procedure when the visibility conditions are reported to be less than ¾ statute mile or RVR 4000, unless the following conditions exist:

(a) Fifteen percent additional runway length is available over the landing field length specified for the destination airport by (14 CFR) § 121.195(b).

 

UPS believes the language in b (2) (a) is still a problem for when the landing data as required by 14 CFR 121.195(b) should be applied. UPS interprets the language, as it is currently written in section b, Limitation on the Use of Landing Minimums for Turbojet Airplanes, sub-section (2), line (a), that prior to approach, the PIC must apply the 115 percent of the runway field length as defined by 14 CFR part 121.195(b).  
 
UPS recommends that the language that is currently in the draft of C060 Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations, section c, Required Field Length and Special Operational Equipment and Limitations, be used as a model for this paragraph. This clarifies exactly when the 115 percent is to be applied and when the AFM limitations should be applied (with operational procedures and consideration to aircraft equipment status).

 

Previous Meeting Discussions:

Draft Ops Spec C054 has been posted for comment. Bryant Welch was not available.

 

Status : Open

 

 

8                A025: Electronic Record Keeping Systems

 

FAA Lead : Theo Kessaris AFS-260

Industry Lead : Casey Seabright, Jim Winkelman

 

Issue Statement:

A025 has become a dumping ground for many authorizations that may not be appropriate for this paragraph or may be appropriate but are listed individually versus categorically. Many CMOs are requiring individual listing of each electronic manual instead of listing categories of manuals (e.g. Aircraft Flight Crew Operating Manuals; Maintenance manuals, engineering reference guides; AQP Training Documents, Dispatch Procedures Manuals etc.) Industry would like to form a subgroup to help write the new Ops Spec and requests a very generic high level approach to recording recordkeeping since new technology virtually requires electronic recordkeeping for many applications. The technology, stability, and reliability are no longer a new approach and should become accepted (at some level) as the norm.

 

Background

An audit of operator’s A025 show significant variability in the items placed in this paragraph.

 

Intended Outcome:

Transform A025 from being 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.

Amend A025 to include tables for specific approvals such as flight planning systems, training records repositories, and categories of electronic/digital manuals.

 

Previous Meeting Discussion.

Theo Kessaris voiced concern that there are no resources on the FAA side to work the issue. She solicited help from industry if there is a desire to make progress on this project. Industry representatives seemed amenable to forming a sub group to draft proposed changes to the Ops Spec Template, 8900.1 guidance and possibly a revision to 120-78 1 “Acceptance and Use of Electronic Signatures, Electronic Recordkeeping Systems, and Electronic Manuals”

 

Status : Open, Volunteer participants solicited. Contact Casey Seabright.

 

 

 

9                B343: Fuel Reserves for Flag and Supplemental Operations

 

FAA Lead: Gordy Rother, MSP-FSDO, Leo Hollis, AFS-220, Dave Burnham, UAL CMO/ Steve Moates AFS-220

Industry Lead(s): Steve Kuhar, Casey Seabright, Rich Yuknavich

 

Issue Statement:

Numerous carriers want to be issued this Ops Spec which allows as low as five percent enroute reserves for that percentage of the total time required to fly from the airport of departure to, and land at, the airport to which it was released. Currently only two Part 121 operators, American and United have this Ops Spec.

Background:

Many International carriers are required to plan for less fuel reserves percentages than U.S. carriers. Many foreign carriers are allowed to use three percent reserves. This has puts U.S. carriers at an operating cost disadvantage, even though the FAA-required .ten percent reserves is only computed on those enroute flight segments that are in Class II airspace. Long flights over Class II airspace experience the biggest reserve fuel advantage. A little over ten years ago, the FAA began to level the playing field by granting, use of five percent fuel reserves to carriers that could prove their flight planning and weather prediction capabilities still provided adequate safety margins. American, United and Continental were granted B343 approval.

 

Authorization for additional carriers was halted following Congressional interest in one or two widely publicized minimum fuel declarations. However, the long term record of both American and United Airlines is very positive. For example, since May of 2004, American Airliners has flown 767,257 flights using B343 five percent planning parameters and has had only 104 of those flights burn into enroute fuel reserves. Most of these “Burn-Ins” were only a few minutes of fuel, but are reported none the less. Further approvals were also denied based on a planning reliability standard formulated by MITRE that counted fuel percentage of under-burn in the same category as over-burn. (In the case of FEDEX, over-burns this was due to due to contingency added fuel to account for frequent MD-11 tail fuel transfer failure to transfer. When transfers did occur, fuel consumption was much less than planned.)

 

More recently, further approvals are being delayed in anticipation of ICAO publication of international fuel reserve guidelines. There is a desire to ensure that U.S. policies harmonize with ICAO standards. FAA is working toward a Performance Based fuel reserves model similar to the draft ICAO Annex 6. FAA has requested that carriers review and comment on Annex 6 (draft) through IATA or ATA. Once the new Annex 6 is settles/issued, the theory is that B343 should be resurrected. A new FAA Advisory Circular is being drafted by the FAA.

 

Previous Meeting Discussions:

The majority of the industry believes that the FAA should not have issued the B343 authorization to just a few carriers, but instead to all eligible. If more carriers were issued B343 a much larger performance database would have been accumulated. FAA contends that any operator may still apply for issuance, and if the requirements are satisfied, will eventually be issued. The problem is that, in the interim the Ops Spec disparity exists.

Intended Outcome:

PBM Fuel Reserves availability for US carriers sooner than later.

 

Status: New AC being written to harmonize with ICAO

Industry SMEs should volunteer to participate in guidance drafting/review.

 

 

10        D081: Parts Pool Agreement Authorization

 

FAA Lead: TBD

Industry Lead: Mike Keller, American

 

Issue Statement:

Does D081 allow for “parts borrowing” or not?

Background:

Can the parts supplier DBA “AJ Walters” be added to the Ops Spec if possible to be able to borrow parts from them internationally? AJ Walters is a parts supplier and not an airline which seems to be the issue. AJ Walters is an associate member of the IATP as well. Some other airlines may be utilizing AJ Walters, but under what authority?

If a supplier such as “AJ Walters” is not a certificated entity then pooling under D081 would not apply.

 

Intended Outcome:

Determine if parts borrowing fall under the authority of parts pooling?

Previous Meeting Discussions:

FAA is conducting research to determine if AJ Walters may be added to Ops Spec D081. AFS-330 said that it is difficult to audit a “supplier” like “A.J. Walters.”

 

Status: Ongoing FAA research

 

11        C081: Special Non 14 CFR Part 97 Instrument Approach or Departure Procedures

 

FAA Lead: Sara Dalton/Kel Christiansen, AFS-470

Industry Lead: Jim Winkleman, Alaska Airlines

Issue Statement:

Who is responsible for maintenance, upkeep and the costs associated with Special flight Procedures (sometimes referred to as “Public Specials”).

Background:

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 in the industry continue to refer to them as such.

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.

Previous Meeting Discussions:

Still in evaluation: FAA gathering a single consolidated list of all approaches affected. No date set yet.

FAA still determining what FAA will pay for and what Industry is responsible for. Will GA operators have to share in the costs? What rule addresses the right for FAA to charge for services (8260.19??) (FAR 183 or 187??) No interpretation from FAA legal yet.

Intended Outcome:

Determine who is responsible for “Specials” or move them to the public domain.

Action Items: In process

Deadline             UNK

 

 

12        A010: Aviation Weather

 

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

Industry Lead : Casey Seabright, Delta

 

Issue Statement:

This Ops Spec/MSpec/LOA has been revised to follow the regulatory requirements of 14 CFR parts 91, Subpart K, 121, 125 and 135. A table has been added for Adverse Weather Reporting and Forecast systems, and the QICP table has been removed due to lack of regulatory requirement. Guidance in 8900.1 Volume 3 chapters 18, 25 and 26 has been updated as well. The Ops Spec /LOA is no longer mandatory for part 125 certificate holders, and part 125 Letter of Deviation Authority Holders

 

Background:

As of the last meeting in April 2012, the draft guidance was posted to the FAA draft documents website and to the OSWG (NAME WEBSITE) to allow for public comment. In addition, the documents went through formal internal FAA coordination. Both the public and FAA comment periods have closed and. The FAA received only one comment from industry which was in the form of a question regarding the removal of the QICP table from the Ops Spec. FAA internal comments are collected and organized by an internal support organization and then sent to AFS-200.

 

Previous Meeting Discussions:

Status:

Comment period is closed. Rewriting should be complete early August. Once that is accomplished, the documents will be reformatted one more time and then submitted to AFS-1 for final signature and publication. The estimated publication date is probably sometime toward the end of September or beginning of October.

Theo stressed that the FAA does not approve a weather source but rather approves a carrier to use a weather source based on that carriers’ adequacy of training, descriptions of available reports, coverage area, etc.

 

Intended Outcome :

Standardized Ops Specs authorizations for certificate holders conducting 91K, 121, and/or 135 operations that comply with the regulatory requirements of 91.1039, 121.101, 121.119, and 135.213, as applicable. ..

 

Action Items:

Final actions by FAA; certification efforts by carriers.

Comment period is closed

 

 

13        A027 Land and Hold Short Operations (LAHSO)

 

FAA Lead: Steve Moates, AFS 220

Industry Lead : Steve Kuhar

 

Issue Statement: Ops Spec and 8900.1 language are inconsistent.

 

Background : Inconsistent or conflicting language is inviting confusion.

Example: 8900 says “LAHSO is prohibited on contaminated runways”; however, the Op Spec says “LAHSO on wet runways is prohibited”. There’s a discrepancy in the windshear guidance also under LAHSO.

 

Intended Outcome:

Requesting clarification regarding this topic.

 

Previous Meeting Discussions:

Correction of text in process

 

Status : Open

 

 

14        B041 North Atlantic Operations with Two-Engine Airplanes Under Part 121

 

FAA Lead: Gordy Rother

Industry Lead: TBD

 

Issue Statement:

There is industry opinion that B041 needs to be revised greatly or actually archived.

 

The requirement to remain within 60 minutes of an adequate airport for non ETOPS two engine aircraft is a worldwide requirement, but yet we have no worldwide Ops Spec, only B041 for the North Atlantic.

 

Background:

The Ops Spec was originally developed to provide an enhance means of safely conducting non-ETOPS operations in the North Atlantic and to address the specifically challenging areas of Greenland etc. The Ops Spec adds weather minimums to the "adequate airports" outlined in 121.161. It also states the airport has to be one where you can land the aircraft safely with an engine failed. When the FAA discussed this with the AEG, their position is that the operator must evaluate the engine fail/go around case for the airports. This was further discussed with Boeing who agreed that "alternates for the purpose of ETOPS" must consider the engine fail case." Since B041 is an en route alternate like B342 without the higher weather provision this would fall into the same category. An engine failure is probably the reason you are diverting there in the first place.

The FAA is doing some historical research into this paragraph but may not yield anything other than the fact that this area has limited resources for the pilot. The requirement to have landing weather minimums can be onerous given the climate in Greenland and Iceland. The good thing is the vast majority of the aircraft meet the ETOPS requirements and these airports are rarely considered in that calculation and B041 is not a common operation.   What does not make sense to some is why this was never moved into the North Pacific/Russian airspace.

Intended Outcome:

To determine: Is the Ops Spec relevant to operations today?

If so, then expand the Ops Spec to encompass other equally challenging areas of operation.

If not, and there is an equivalent level of safety then develop a timeline to archive the Ops Spec.

Previous Meeting Discussions:

Appropriately enough, Gordy Rother was attending a North Atlantic Operations conference and was not able to attend the OSWG meetings.

Status:

Open for discussion.

 

 

15        A001 Issuance and Applicability

 

FAA Lead : Bob Davis

Industry Lead : Mike Keller

Issue statement :

The certificate holder is authorized to conduct flights under 14 CFR Part 91 for crewmember training, maintenance tests, ferrying, re-positioning, and the carriage of company officials using the applicable authorizations in these operations specifications, without obtaining a Letter of Authorization, provided the flights are not conducted for compensation or hire and no charge of any kind is made for the Conduct of the flights.

Background :

A Carrier had a flight diverted for mechanical issue. The passengers were off loaded and the aircraft was to be ferried to a major maintenance facility. The divert airport had no capability to off-load the cargo. American did not charge for the conveyance of the cargo. An inspector’s interpretation is that there was still a violation of maintenance ferry flight restrictions because a cargo fee rebate engenders good will with the customer and would likely generate future revenue.

Previous Meeting Discussions:

Bob confirmed with FAA legal that under current regulatory guidance the cargo should have been removed (Legal is apparently unwilling to move on this). The question is can some Ops Spec language be written in such a way to allow this type of contingency? Group consensus was for industry to propose language for D084. It may be possible to have success if Industry creates language that not only meets the text of the regulation and the spirit of intent as published in the federal register for the 14 CFR 91 applicable paragraphs.

Intended Outcome :

See if a remedy to this situation is possible through exemptions or Ops Spec non-standard language

Status: In process

 

 

16        B036/B054: Class II Navigation

 

FAA Lead : Madison Walton

Industry Lead: John Cowan

 

Issue Statement:

Both of these Ops Specs include the same provision in paragraph b. (4)

b. Special Limitations and Provisions . The certificate holder shall conduct all operations using multiple

LRNS in accordance with the following limitations and provisions:

(4) Prior to entering any airspace requiring the use of a long-range navigation system, the aircraft position

shall be accurately fixed using airways navigation facilities or ATC radar. After exiting this airspace, the

aircraft position shall be accurately fixed and the long-range navigation system error shall be determined

and logged in accordance with the operator's approved procedures.

Background:

Industry representatives contend that the requirement for deliberate fixing procedures have been made obsolescent by modern multi-sensor FMS navigation systems that use constant DME-DME or GPS and DME-DME fixing to update the FMS present position. Furthermore, industry contends that deliberate flyover position fixing or radar fixing is much less accurate than automatic position updating and may increase the possibility of position errors during position fixing if an unintentional position update occurs.

 

Intended Outcome:

Clarify the provision to specify that it is referring to non GPS equipped aircraft as follows:

B-036:

b. (4) Prior to entering any airspace requiring the use of a non GPS based long-range navigation system, the aircraft position shall be accurately fixed using airways navigation facilities or ATC radar. After exiting this airspace, the aircraft position shall be accurately fixed and the long-range navigation system error shall be determined and logged in accordance with the operator's approved procedures.

 

B-054:

b. (4) Prior to entering any airspace requiring the use of a non GPS based LRNS, the aircraft position shall be accurately fixed using airways navigation facilities or ATC radar. After exiting this airspace, the aircraft position shall be accurately fixed and the long-range navigation system error shall be determined and logged in accordance with the operator's approved procedures.

Previous Meeting Discussions:

Some industry representatives expressed a desire to include multisensory DME-DME updating in the above verbiage and there seemed to be no FAA objections to this minor addition.

 

(4) Navigation Accuracy Checks

(a) Prior to entering any airspace requiring the use of an LRNS, for aircraft with GPS/GNSS or DME/DME automatic position updating the system must be confirmed to be functioning normally(no fault indications); for all other aircraft, the position shall be accurately fixed using airways navigation facilities or ATC radar.

(b) After exiting this airspace, the airplane position shall be accurately fixed and the LRNS error shall be determined and logged in accordance with the operator's approved procedures. An arrival gate position check satisfies this requirement. For aircraft with GPS/GNSS or DME/DME automatic position updating, no exit position fix is required unless there is an indication of FMS system malfunction.

 

Madison Walton presented draft Ops Spec B036/054 proposals.

 

Status: Paul Lepine will make available for industry review Notice 8900.B036.

 

B036/B054: Class II Navigation and Oceanic Procedures

 

FAA Lead: Madison Walton

Industry Lead: John Cowan

 

Issue Statement:

While Ops Spec B036 includes no reference to plotting or adherence to AC 90-79, the “job aid” inappropriately requires the Inspector to ensure that the procedures included in the AC are used, thus causing differing expectations.

 

Background:

Where the FAA does not desire the operator to consider GPS as an acceptable airway navigation facility, the clarifier “ground based” is used. Several readers have incorrectly interpreted this provision with the same “ground based” mind set which has led to confusion when GPS equipped aircraft are concerned. Since a job aid for an Ops Spec should not contain provisions, limitations or requirements that are not also contained in the Ops Spec, the B036 job aid should be revised to match the Ops Spec:

  1. The principal operations inspector (POI) must ensure the operator’s LRN program incorporates the practices and procedures recommended in the most recent version of Advisory Circular (AC) 90-79, Recommended Practices and Procedures for the Use of Electronic Long-Range Navigation, or the operator has approved procedures equivalent to or exceeding those in AC 90-79 or other applicable ACs.

Intended Outcome:

Update the B036 Job Aid and eventually update AC 90-79:

The Principal Operations Inspector (POI) must ensure the operator’s LRN program incorporates practices and procedures that include crosschecking to identify potential navigational errors in sufficient time to prevent deviations. Advisory Circular (AC) 90-79, Recommended Practices and Procedures for Use of Electronic Long-Range Navigation, provides examples of such procedures but does not represent the only means of compliance.

Previous Meeting Discussions:

John Cowan, the primary industry lead was not in attendance. Oceanic plotting procedures are being discussed in OSWG subgroup discussions.

 

Previously Per Mark Steinbicker

The FAA is moving forward with the navigation accuracy check issue, mindful of workload for the personnel involved. The main intent is that for whatever new guidance is created, there will be an emphasis on application of existing procedures regarding the use of GNSS/Sat-Nav for navigation (e.g., preflight/dispatch actions).

 

AFS-402 plans to start a revision of the 8900.1 in May that will address the OSA (now signed) and other SAO/Oceanic issues but don't have a revision to AC 91-70A scheduled. He does not view the AC language as a hindrance to moving forward with the alternate method and anticipates an AC revision once a number of other necessary changes are compiled (e.g., based upon updates to SAO airspace/procedures). The subject matter experts are fully engaged.

 

Status: Open

 

 

 

 

MB054 Class II Navigation Using Single Long-Range Navigation System (S-LRNS).

 

Affected CFR Parts:

91

91K

121

121/135

125

125M

129

133

135

137

141

142

145

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAA Lead:   TBD

Industry Lead: Eric McCarty

 

Issue Statement:

Management Specification MB054 c. Special Limitations & Provisions makes two references to other Management Specifications which do not currently exist.

 

Background:

 

Reference #1:

Management Specification MB054 c. Special Limitations & Provisions (1) limits the Program Manager to Class II operations within the areas authorized / referenced in management specification MB050.

 

Issue #1:

MB050 does not reference MB054.

 

Reference #2:

Management Specification MB054 c. Special Limitations & Provisions (3) directs operators using aircraft with a Single Long-Range Communication System (SLRCS) to comply with the requirements of Management Specification “B045”.

 

Issue #2:

There is no management specification B045 or MB045.

 

Intended Outcome:

 

Issue #1 Intended Outcome:

 

Option1: Update MB050 Authorized Areas of En Route Operations, Limitations and Provisions to include authorized areas for MB054.

 

~ OR ~

 

Option 2: Update Management Specification MB054 c. Special Limitations & Provisions (1) to include the defined area of operation similar to Operation Specification B054

 

B054 . Class II Navigation Using Single Long-Range Navigation System (S-LRNS)

c.            The area of operation where S-LRNS is permitted is defined by the following description and excludes all the North Atlantic (NAT)/Minimum Navigation Performance Specification (MNPS) airspace:

·                Beginning at 44°47'20" N./67°00'00" W.;

·                Hence to 39°00'00" N./67°00'00" W.;

·                Hence to 38°30'00" N./69°20'00" W.;

·                Hence to 38°00'00" N./60°00'00" W.;

·                Hence to 27°00'00" N./60°00'00" W.;

·                Hence to 27°00'00" N./58°00'00" W.;

·                Hence to 07°46'00" N./58°00'00" W.; and

·    Then northwestward along the adjacent coastline of South America, the eastern coastline of Central America, the eastern coastline of Mexico, and the southern and eastern coastlines of the United States, to the beginning point.

 

Issue #2 Intended Outcome:

 

Option1: Update Management Specification MB054 c. Special Limitations & Provisions (1) to include authorization in line with Operation Specification B045 Extended Overwater Operations Using a Single Long-Range Communication System language.

 

~ OR ~

 

Option 2: Create Management Specification MB045 . Extended Overwater Operations Using a Single Long-Range Communication System consistent with the Operation Specification B045 Extended Overwater Operations Using a Single Long-Range Communication System language.

 

 

Status: New Agenda Item

 

 

 

 

  1. Day One: Closing Remarks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Day 2 - MORNING SESSION – 16 October , 2012

 

 


1.          Convene. Opening remarks/welcome by John Barbagallo, Manager, FAA International Programs and Policy Division (AFS-50) followed by industry Chairs and attendees self introductions.

 

 

2.          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.

 

AVS

Quality Management System

QPM #

 

AFS-002-206-F1

 

 

Revision

 

0

 

Title: OpSpec Template Feedback Survey

Date: 1/18/2011

Page 1 of 1

1=Low                               2=Average                               3=High

1. What is your overall satisfaction with your interaction with FAA personnel related to OpSpec template and guidance development?

__1                         __ 2                         __ 3                       __N/A

2. What is your overall satisfaction with the template and guidance development process?

__1                                 __2                               __3                         __N/A

3. What is your overall satisfaction with the structure of the OSWG?

__1                                         __2                               __3                               __N/A

4. What is your overall satisfaction with the quarterly OSWG meetings?

__1                                         __2                               __3                               __N/A

Please provide comments for any question you marked 1 (low)

 

 

3.          WebOPSS Update:

Standing Agenda Item:

FAA Lead : Bob Davis – AFS-260

 

Brief:

·                Current status

·                Near term developments

·                Far term developments

 

Status:

Continuing

 

 

 

 

4.          ICAO Register of AOCs

 

Progress Recent Developments: International Register of AOCs. (Yuri Fattah, International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO will update the group on the full OASIS project).

 

FAA Lead : Danuta Pronczuk (AFS-52) for Part 129,

Industry Lead : Henry Defalque, International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO

 

From 2011-04 meeting:

 

a.           Late June – Pre-final Software developed
b.         Late June until mid-July – CAUC (Civil Aviation University of China) internal student to internally do beta-testing and simulate simultaneous data entering  
c.           Late July – Present the final product to Nancy Graham/ICAO
d.         August – CAUC to come to Montreal to present the final Product
                              i.         Invite Canada for 1st Beta-Testing at the same time (TC – Transport                                                                                                                                                                             Canada- is onboard)
                              ii.       Other states willing to participate: Australia, Singapore at this time.
e.         Until end of 2011 – Beta-testing with different selected States
f.           The aircraft information DB is operational since November 2010, and we hope that the Intl Registry of AOC will be operational at the end off 2011 or Q1 2012. The Civil Aviation University of China will install it on our server by mid-November... then it is internal testing and then testing by a few States (Australia, Canada, Singapore, UAE, and hopefully a European State). (Update from Henry D., provided on 10/01/2011)

 

The developers are scheduled to deliver the product in November. ICAO will then install it on its servers and open it up for beta testing to the States that have volunteered for this process. Barring any major issues, it should go live as planned. (Update from Tom Mistos, ICAO, 10-13-11).

 

The ICAO aircraft information database that will be linked to the AOC database is operational and contains aircraft from 22 States already with more pending (Update from Henry, July 2011). The aircraft registry application is slowly getting more input from States. There had been two issues holding ICAO back, a bug/issue with the Excel template upload facility and the IRCA update process (those States that will be sending their input via IRCA need to sign a release form with IRCA giving them permission to send us the State’s data). The first issue has been resolved, however IRCA is still waiting for permission from many States. (Update from Tom Mistos, ICAO, 10-13-11)

 

Status : Open

 

 

 

5.          EASA Third Country Operators – Arthur Beckland, EASA will provide an update.

 

FAA Lead : John Masters, AFS-51,

Industry Leads : Default Brian Miles Part 129 Chairman/Emirates Airlines.

 

Issue Statement :

Status Report on EASA intention to implement an assessment requirement for all Third Country Operators (for example: United, FedEx, UPS, Emirates, China Southern Airlines, ANA, Quantas,

(Non-European Union member commercial carriers.)

 

Background:

Background:

Presented by EASA representative, Arthur Beckland, a Dutch attorney who has been with EASA for six years, currently with the EASA rulemaking directorate.

The proposal for Part Third Country Operators (TCO) was first promulgated in April of 2011. When Part-TCO enters into force there will be one authorization for operations in the EU and one assessment methodology, (a validation process that aims at verifying the reliability of the originally certified information),
It is still in the prepatory process for eventual submission to the Europe
an Commission . The target date for entering into force is estimated to be towards mid/ end of 2013 or early 2014. Until then individual country national rules and ICAO rules apply. After implementation, ICAO standards will apply. However if in the future any aspect of operations are not covered by ICAO standards then EASA /EU standards will apply. After entering into force , there will be an adequate transition period ensuring that existing operations to the EU will continue without any interruption.
There may be some bilateral agreements between the EU and certain third countries (for example the US and the EU), with both parties agreeing to accept the others authorizations with no added assessments necessary.

 

Arthur stated that the reason that EASA is pursuing the assessment methodology proposed in Part-TCO is that Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 requires that the assessment is based on a combination of different relevant sources of safety information, regarding the operator and the State of the operator, e.g. USOAP, SAFA results, Regulation (EC) No 2111/2005 (EU Safety list), complemented by IASA results and IOSA.
The carrier assessment methodology is envisioned to be based on the perception of safety level and compliance fidelity. Following is the EASA Assessment criteria:
•            
How capable is the State in pro-actively managing the aggregated risk of all its certified operators?
•            
How much credible data is available to us from that State?
•            
Does the EU have data that provides confidence that an operator is capable of operating in compliance with international standards?
•            
What is the risk exposure to EU citizens by the intended scope of operations?

For most third country operators the assessment would be little more than a desktop review. The next more involved level is detailed consultation and audits. The most demanding assessment methodology would be on-site visits by inspection teams. However, it is foreseen that only a fraction of all third country operators will be audited on-site. There may be assessment fees involved with the initial application and renewal, ( options are a flat fee estimated at $1500 euros for fast track review, or an hourly rate). There is provision in the EU law for charging fees for such assessments.  

Ramp inspection will continue to be performed by national aviation officials but they should use EASA checklist criteria, and not country specific audit criteria.

For more detailed information and status updates, Arthur recommended the following EASA website:
http:easa.europa.eu/approvals-and-standardisation/third-country-operators-authorisations/php.

 

Previous Meeting Discussion.

Update from Mike Frank, AFS-52, FAA Part 129 Vice Chair.

 

Bilateral agreement provisions being discussed at the European Union council. Methodology is issue by issue discussion basis. Current topic is pilot licensing provisions.

 

Intended Outcome : update/educate, clarify rulemaking changes, and answer questions relating to EASA third country operators.

 

Status : Expect a detailed update by Arthur Beckand, EASA, at the upcoming Joint OSWG meeting on 16-17 October 12.

 

 

 

6.          A029 Aircraft Interchange Agreement for Part 121

 

FAA Lead: Craig Botko (AFS-200) for Part 135;; Larry Buehler for part 121, Danuta Pronczuk (Part 129))

Industry Lead : Rich Carpenter for part 121 and 135.

 

Issue Statement:

Definition of Primary operator, references within the OpSpecs to other Opsepcs, and portions of inspector guidance are not correct.

 

Background:

Authorizes parts 121 , 135 and Part 129 to use aircraft interchange agreements with other operators , and foreign air carriers.

 

Previous Meeting Discussions:

Correction in process, getting close to completion.

 

Intended Outcome:

Correction to definition of primary operator to all templates (121, 129 and 135), the addition of aircraft serial number to the Part 121 template, corrections to inspector guidance.

 

 

Status: Open

 

 

7.          C091 Airplane Authorization/Operational Requirements Airplane Design

                                                        Group VI (ADG-VI) Airplanes.

 

FAA Lead : Jerry Ostronic (Part121) Danuta Pronczuk and David Henthorn (Part 129)

Industry Lead : Andy Newcomer part 121, David Oliver part 129.

 

Issue Statement:

Issues surrounding group VI aircraft operating into group V airports, specifically the B747-8 and the A-380.

Background:

Ops Spec C091 is required for anyone operating an A380. To date, only foreign air carriers were operating the A380. Foreign air carriers are already operating the B-747-8, Bob added that although no U.S. operator has a need for it currently; AFS-200 expects that to change in the future and as such will be adding this template to the Part 121 data base of available Ops Specs.

In the last Joint OSWG meeting, Danuta briefly reviewed the background on C091/the study of the group VI aircraft, (A-380 and B-747-8), operating into group V airports, issues surrounding group VI aircraft operating into group V airports, specifically the B-747-8 and the A-380. The limitations language has been agreed upon by both AFS-050 and AFS-200. After many hours of review, both divisions have agreed to keep the limitations on group VI aircraft operations into group V airports in Ops Spec C091. The existing limitations for the A-380 have been rewritten into plain language, and the B-747-8 limitations language will be added. A revised draft Ops Spec C091 is expected to be posted in the next few weeks. Limitations are based on the results of a study that was conducted – can the A-380, and B-747-8 safety operate on group V airports and under what conditions.

Previous Meeting Discussions:

Ops Spec C091 is required for anyone operating an Airbus A380, (currently in the Part 129 data base of available Ops Specs), and once the draft is rolled out it will also be required to be issued to anyone operating the B747-8.

 

Intended Outcome:

New Ops Spec language for Part 121, revised Ops Spec language for Part 129 (To incorporate the B-747-8 requirements)

 

Status: Open. Standby for review of draft documents

 

 

 

8.          D301: Aircraft Network Security Program (ANSP)

 

FAA Lead: Rochelle Brisco (AFS-360)

Industry lead: TBD

 

Issue Statement: The FAA is concerned about the cyber security vulnerabilities of avionics systems. This Ops Spec authorizes the certificate holder to operate e-Enabled aircraft that have a manufacturer's recommended network security program.

Issues

                  Avionics and passenger systems now similar to a Local Area Network (LAN).

 

                  Aircraft have the capability to reprogram flight critical avionics components wirelessly and via various data transfer mechanisms.

 

                  May result in cyber security vulnerabilities from intentional or unintentional corruption of data and/or systems critical to the safety and continued airworthiness of the airplane.

                  Credible examples of potential misuse include the potential for:

§                Malware to infect an aircraft system

§                An attacker to use onboard wireless to access aircraft system interfaces

§                Denial of service of wireless interfaces

§                Denial of service of safety critical systems

§                Misuse of personal devices that access aircraft systems

§                Misuse of off-board network connections to access aircraft system interfaces

                  Applies to aircraft operated under 14 CFR parts 121, 121/135, 125, and 129.

 

                  Necessary to verify that operators have the skills, tooling, and procedures in place to accomplish the requirements of the manufacturer’s aircraft security document.

 

                  Aircraft that require an ANSP include any aircraft produced or modified that requires the manufacturer to provide operator guidance documentation for FAA approval. The FAA requirement is in the form of Special Conditions.

§                Boeing provides this guidance in an ancillary document referred to as “Airplane Network Security Operator Guidance (ANSOG).” Airbus includes “Aircraft Information System Security” guidance in Part 6 of Aircraft Limitations Section (ALS) of the aircraft maintenance manual.

                  No longer a physical partition between avionics and passenger electronics.

                  Examples of e-Enabled aircraft: Boeing 747-800 and 787, Airbus A350 and A380, Bombardier CS100 and CS300

 

Background: FAA determined that manufacturers, carriers, and regulators were not paying enough attention to security issues in development and intended use of new systems. FAA observed that avionics evolution is away from hard-coded ROM circuit card hardware toward generic black boxes whose functions are defined by the software loaded into those boxes. The immediate concerns are with current E-enabled aircraft such as the 747-800 787 A350 and A380. However some future STC modifications may place current aircraft under Ops Spec D301 coverage. Carriers will be required to incorporate manufacturers’ security document procedures into carrier manuals. Currently, overall maintenance program manuals are accepted versus approved documents. Under Ops Spec 301 the subset of manuals applicable to avionics becomes approved publications. There are reporting requirements outlined in the draft Ops Spec.

 

Uplinked tailored arrival technology is not considered to fall under D301 guidelines.

The FAA intends to create guidelines for security provisions in the development and use of aircraft software interfaces. Encourage participation by air carrier IT and avionics departments.

Special Committee 216 has been formed. Coordinating with EUROCAE WG-72 Group.

Draft Ops Sec D301, Aircraft Network Security System, and accompanying Notice is posted on http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/opspecs/. The comment period officially ended in May 2011.

 

Intended Outcome:

Ops Spec that will require carriers to incorporate manufacturers’ security document procedures into carrier manuals. Currently, overall maintenance program manuals are accepted versus approved documents. Under Ops Spec 301 the subset of manuals applicable to avionics becomes approved publications. Reporting requirements are outlined in the draft Ops Spec.

Previous Meeting Discussions:

Rochelle announced that 8900.1 guidance and Ops Spec Template approval was signed 31 May 2012.

Some industry representatives asked why, instead of an Ops Spec directed toward operators, revisions to 14CFRPart 25 were not made to place the emphasis for compliance on the aircraft manufacturers.

As with database integrity, carriers are tasked to coordinate compliance with manufacturers who have a stack in assisting carrier compliance. Ops Spec is necessary for FAA to ensure that manufacturers provide the tools to operator for management of potentially vulnerable aircraft systems.

 

Due to unique conditions that certain 135 operators are under, they may need to coordinate directly with Chelle, AFS-330, (or Tim Shaner?) to work out specific issues (coordination early will probably be better than later).

4. This Ops Spec applies to any operator who has aircraft equipped with internet connectable systems.

Status: Open. To be retained as an open item

 

9.          C063: IFR RNAV 1 Departure Procedures (DP) and Standard Terminal Arrivals (STAR)

 

FAA Lead: John Swigart, AFS-470

Industry Lead(s): Rich Yuknavich

 

Issue statement:

Development of RNAV DPs/STARs utilizing RNP 1.0 and RF legs on fast track.

 

New Issue brought forth by Dave Oliver (Qantas) the FAA hardware and software version numbers that the FAA can approve for the A380 (and probably all other airplane types) are not kept up to date in the FAA database so can not update C063 and the FAA could not do a proper audit (even if the FAA could access the hardware/software un the first place).

 

 

Background:

The recent notice also announced the revision to all C063 templates. This is a non-mandatory revision. The current template will remain valid and will only need to be updated when one of the following occurs:

• The certificate holder/operator/program manager needs to make a change to the aircraft or systems on the template, or

• The certificate holder/operator/program manager applies for RNP 1 or TA authorization.

Previous Meeting Discussions:

RNP SIDs & STARs will have to be listed in C081 for a period of time. Industry is seeking a way to document use of all of these procedures in a single way.

 

Rich Yuknavich suggests it might be helpful to read the C063 guidance in Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Chap. 18, Sec 5 Change 188 (1/6/12) for an overview before referring to N8900.176.or the Advisory Circulars.

 

Intended Outcome:

N/A

Status: Retain as discussion item for future feedback about RNP SID or STAR procedure and TA development.

 

10.  C073: IFR Approach Procedures Using Vertical Navigation (VNAV)

 

FAA Lead: Kel Christianson AFS-470

Industry Lead : Joe Devito (part 121)

Issue Statement part 121 and 135:

The certificate holder is authorized to conduct the instrument approach procedures other than ILS, MLS, or GPS landing system (GLS) utilizing a visibility and a decision altitude/(height) [DA(H)] equal to the published visibility and minimum descent altitude (MDA) using the aircraft and procedures as specified in this operations specification.

Issue Statement part 129: Aer Lingus has IAA approval to use MDA as DA and would like the same for their USA Operation otherwise they may spend significant sums of money tailoring USA Plates etc. Currently OpSpec C073 is not an optional OpSpec for Part 129.

Part 121 and 135 Background:

Based on near-term safety benefits of using a continuously defined vertical path to the runway, and a long-term goal of simplifying approach training and qualification standards, users have indicated their intent to begin additional use of VNAV capability for instrument approaches

Previous Meeting Discussions: There is a problem with subparagraph c of the final language in the Ops Spec and N 8900.183, Ops Spec/MSpec/LOA C073, Vertical Navigation (VNAV) Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP) Using Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) as a Decision Altitude (DA)/Decision Height (DH):

c. Authorized Approaches. The certificate holder may fly all part 97 nonprecision straight-in IAPs listed as authorized in their C052, Table 1, columns 1 and 2 using an MDA as a DA/DH if the approach being flown meets one of the following requirements and its subcomponents:

(1) Serves a runway that has a published RNAV IAP (“RNAV” or “GPS” in title) with a published LNAV/VNAV DA/DH and—

(a) Has the exact published final approach course as the RNAV IAP.

(b) Has a published glideslope (GS) or vertical descent angle (VDA) coincident with or higher than the GS on the published RNAV IAP.

(c) Is selected from a certified database and displays a final approach Flight Path Angle (FPA) that matches the GS or VDA on the published IAP to be flown.

(2) Serves a runway that has a published ILS, MLS, LPV, or RNP AR IAP and—

(a) Has the exact published final approach course as the ILS, MLS, LPV, or RNP AR IAP.

(b) Has a published GS or VDA coincident with or higher than the GS on the published ILS, MLS, LPV, or RNP AR IAP.

(c) Is selected from a certified database and displays a final approach FPA that matches the GS or VDA on the published IAP to be flown.

 

Many FMS databases do not exactly match the charted Instrument Approach Procedure glideslope or final approach courses, depending on how the FMS is programmed. This is probably an issue that would be better addressed by the FAA-Industry CNS task force.

 

Industry representatives asked for delay in the mandatory implementation date of the new template until the issue of Ops Spec language could be resolved.

Intended Outcome:

Industry representatives asked for delay in the mandatory implementation date of the new template until the issue of Ops Spec language could be resolved.

Action Items: In process

Deadline                 UNK

 

 

11.  AXX. Utilization of a Weather Support for Deicing Decision Making (WSDDM) System

 

FAA Lead: Possible: Charles (Chuck) J Enders, Craig Botko, Warren Underwood, James (Jim) Riley

Industry Lead: Andy Newcomer, UPS

 

Issue Statement:

The accumulation of ice on aircraft prior to take off has long been recognized as one of the most significant safety hazards affecting the aviation industry today. As little as 0.08 mm of ice on a wing surface can increase drag and reduce airplane lift by 25%. Acutely aware of the impacts these icing hazards can have on aviation, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) began supporting ground de–icing research at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)*

 

To further the use of these systems the FAA and US Air Carriers should develop a means of authorization to use these systems where available. WSDDM system

 

Background:

The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has been working with the FAA, airlines, and airports focused on developing two new systems in support of Ground Deicing operations. The Liquid Water Equivalent (LWE) system combines a Hotplate and GEONOR snow gauge, a Vaisala PWD–22 precipitation type sensor, a Campbell freezing rain sensor, a Vaisala WXT wind, temperature, and humidity sensor, and a Decagon Leaf Wetness Sensor to estimate a real–time liquid water equivalent precipitation rate. This rate is a critical component of the Checktime System, a UCAR patented technology for aircraft ground deicing operations, that determines when deicing/anti-icing fluids applied to aircraft are close to failure based on temperature measurements and precipitation rates that are updated every minute from the LWE system. Checktime is aircraft independent and only requires the end user to know the time that the aircraft was deiced.

Liquid Water Equivalent: Definition:

The liquid content of solid precipitation that has accumulated on the ground (snow depth). The accumulation may consist of snow, ice formed by freezing precipitation, freezing liquid precipitation, or ice formed by the refreezing of melted snow.

 

Intended Outcome:

Develop a non-standard ops spec which allows for use of these devices by interested industry participants as requested/desired by both FAA and Industry to demonstrate the system under an equivalent level of safety.

 

Previous Meeting Discussions:

FAA is working this aggressively. Current work will not affect this year’s deicing policies

FAA will not be certifying deicing providers but rather authorize an operator to utilize those providers.

 

Status: Open for discussion.

 

12.  C051: Terminal Instrument Procedures

 

FAA Lead: Chris Hope

Industry Lead: Andy Newcomer

 

Issue Statement:

Update language in C051 due to the term “EU-OPS” replacing “JAR-OPS” effective July 16, 2011

 

Background:

As per Commission Regulation (EC) No 859/2008 of August 20, 2008. See Official Journal of the European Union, September 9, 2008.

AFS 410 mentioned that a revision to this Ops Spec language is needed to update terminology JAR Ops/PANS-OPS to EU-OPS.

 

As a side note, 051 may be combined with C052 in the future.

 

Intended Outcome:

Replace references to JAR-OPS with EU-OPS.

 

Previous Meeting Discussions:

Per Industry Lead Andy Newcomer: Through discussions with the FAA, some thought should be given to removing C051 as the paragraph may not even be required anymore. If it is, the replacing JAR-Ops with EU-Ops will be no problem. The FAA may consider expanding it to include MIPS (Military Instrument Procedure Standard) and some langue to include “Any approach procedure approved by AFS-400.”

 

Status: Open, corrections should be published soon.

 

 

13.  C300: Part 97 NDB, NDB/DME, VOR, and VOR/DME Instrument Approach Procedures Using
                            Substitute Means of Navigation

 

 

FAA Lead: John Swigart, AFS-470

Industry Lead: Jim Winkleman, Rich Yuknavich

 

Issue Statement part 121:

Suitable NAVAID substitution authorizations are needed by operators in certain circumstances or areas of the world.

 

Issue Statement part 129: OpSpec C300 is not an optional OpSpec for part 129. Cathay Pacific Airways has requested that the FAA expand on the FAAs thinking and development work in this area.

 

Background part 121:

C300 was developed to provide standard methodology for authorizing NAVAID sub procedure for approach operations. The current template does not necessarily meet the needs of all operators or provide the latitude necessary for certain circumstances.

John Swiggart AFS-470 briefed that there are no plans to make any immediate changes to the Ops Spec, but AFS-470 would entertain submission of non-standard language for special cases. John suggested that carriers, especially those without Ops Spec C300 make maximum use of the provisions outlined in AC90-107 for RNAV substitution. Depending on the final analysis of the MITRE study AFS-470 may first allow use of C300 for alternate approaches

 

Previous Meeting Discussions:

A study to access the safety risk of allowing use of RNAV approaches for alternate airport approach minimums was conducted for the FAA by MITRE Corporation. The initial report was found to be deficient and an addendum study was conducted. The final report should be delivered to HQ FAA around the end of July. Industry representatives expressed a desire to have the final report analysis made public so that industry experiences with GPS could be added to the MIITRE results.

 

Industry representatives raised the possibility of harmonizing U.S. alternate minimums policy with Canadian CARs:

3.14.1 Alternate Aerodrome Weather Minima Requirements

Authorized weather minima for alternate aerodromes are to be determined using the information presented in the tables below. The “Alternate Weather Minima Requirements” table presented in the CAP GEN (reproduced below) applies to all approach charts, except where use as an alternate is not authorized on the chart. The minima derived for an alternate aerodrome shall be consistent with aircraft performance, navigation-equipment limitations, functioning navigation aids, type of weather forecast and runway to be used.

 

Pilots can take credit for a GNSS approach at an alternate aerodrome, provided that the planned destination aerodrome is served by a functioning traditional approach aid; and the pilot verifies that the integrity, provided by RAIM or WAAS (wide area augmentation system), and that is required for a lateral navigation (LNAV) approach, is expected to be available at the planned alternate aerodrome at the expected time of arrival at the alternate, as explained in COM 3.16.12. Note that if credit is taken for a GNSS approach at an alternate aerodrome to fulfill the legal requirements for flight planning, no part of the approach at the destination may rely on GNSS. Otherwise, when determining alternate aerodrome weather minima requirements, the pilot shall only take credit for functioning traditional aids at that aerodrome.

 

If credit is being taken for a GNSS-based approach at the alternate, the published LNAV minima are the lowest landing limits for which credit may be taken when determining alternate weather minima requirements. No credit may be taken for lateral navigation / vertical navigation (LNAV/VNAV) or localizer performance with vertical guidance (LPV) minima.

 

Pilots may take credit for the use of GNSS in lieu of traditional ground-based NAVAIDs at a filed alternate aerodrome, as per COM 3.16.9 and COM 3.16.12.

 

Doug Snow, FEDEX Dispatch proposed allowing use of VFR weather minimums for alternate airports that only have GPS/GNSS approaches if there is an anticipated delay in final resolution of GPS use at alternate airports.

 

 

 

Intended Outcome:

Provide a mechanism to authorize use of NAVAID substitution or mitigation procedures that meet the needs of both Industry and FAA, especially for alternate airport minimums.

 

Status: Open/Monitor

Update from AFS-470, Jim Winkleman, Rich Yuknavich.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14.  D095. Minimum Equipment List (MEL) Authorizations

 

FAA Lead : Gregory Janosik

Industry Lead : Mike Keller/Rich Yuknavich

 

Issue Statement:

Ops Spec D095 Maximum times between deferral and repair are not the same as stated in MMEL Policy letter 25 January 2012. The Ops Spec language for Category A items does not specifically state that the day the malfunction is recorded is excluded in counting maximum numbers of days as does the MMEL Policy Letter and as do Ops Spec D095 paragraphs b(2), (3) and (4):

 

Backgorund

 

D095 Verbiage:

b. Maximum Times Between Deferral and Repair. Except as provided in subparagraph d, the

      certificate holder shall have items repaired within the time intervals specified for the categories of

      items listed below:

(1)    Category A. Items in this category shall be repaired within the time interval specified in the

(2)    remarks column of the certificate holder's approved MEL.

 

MMEL Policy Letter Revision 17 20Jan2011:

22. Repair Intervals: All users of an MEL approved under 14 CFR 121, 125, 129 and 135 must effect

repairs of inoperative systems or components, deferred in accordance with the MEL, at or prior to the

repair times established by the following letter designators. 14 CFR 91 MEL users do not need to

comply with the repair categories, but shall comply with any provisos defining a repair interval (flights,

flight legs, cycles, hours, etc). The letter designators are inserted adjacent to Column 2.

 

Category A . Items in this category shall be repaired within the time interval specified in the remarks

column of the operator's approved MEL. For time intervals specified in “calendar days” or "flight days,"

the day the malfunction was recorded in the aircraft maintenance record/logbook is excluded. For all

other time intervals (flights, flight legs, cycles, hours, etc), repair tracking begins at the point when the

malfunction is deferred in accordance with the operator's approved MEL.

 

Intended Outcome:

Change Ops Spec D095 Paragraph b(1) verbiage and in the interim specifically address the Category A disparity in a revised MMEL Policy Letter...

Previous Meeting Discussions:

Update given by AFS-240

Briefed new Ops Spec language that was resulted by the MMEL Policy Letter 25. New Ops Spec template adds language. New draft should be available soon (Six months??) Guidance is drafted and due to go through the coordination process. Some duplicate language has been removed. The term “maximum” has been removed from the template to take away the ambiguity that it introduced. Each repair category may be extended one time. A one line sentence may be added telling operators they may request a second extension through the POI. If another extension is needed, the POI may issue a new extension for as long at deemed appropriate (POI is given this authority through the guidance documents). The revision may be issued as a non-mandatory Ops Spec change in order to allow the new template to be available sooner than when the new guidance is available.

Status : Open, monitor Updates.

 

 

16. C055: Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums.

 

FAA Lead:  John Swigart,

Industry Lead:  Jim Winkleman, Andy Newcomer

 

Issue Statement: Unmonitored NAVAIDS are a problem for industry and may be having an effect on reliability of service, especially for longer haul operations.

 

Background: Historically NAVAIDS have been monitored by FAA or entities designated by the FAA. As more responsibilities are being contracted to third parties, the ability to monitor essential NAVAIDS is no longer possible under certain circumstances. The increase in the number of unmonitored NAVAIDS is beginning to have a negative effect on providing reliable air transportation.

AFS-410 is looking at possibility of using RNAV approaches for alternates.

In December 2011, a draft copy of the MITRE contractor study concerning feasibility and safety assessment of allowing alternate minimums based on GPS approaches was published. AFS-470 is reviewing the study. If it is determined that changes can be made to current policy, there will need to be harmonization between the different 14 CFR carrier types. Related guidance in the Instrument Procedures Manual and the AIM will also need to be updated. If GPS minimums are allowed, there is a possibility of two eligibility tiers for aircraft based on navigation system levels of fault detection and fault alerting. Similar RAIM prediction requirements as are in place for C300 may be required. (References TSO 196 for WAAS, TSO-129 for DME/DME updating.

The addendum to the original January MITRE study report is to be received on 18 April which will aid in completion of the FAA Ops Safety Assessment of this issue.

John mentioned that the relevant Advisory Circular 0000-00 is going to be revised to harmonize with AC120-42B ETOPS requirements . Several Industry representatives expressed frustration at the proliferation of unmonitored NAVAIDS which often renders reasonable distance alternate airports unusable. Additional angst is generated by the delay in authorizing what appears to be an obvious mitigation strategy: the use of RNAV/GPS or RNAV/RNP or Ops Spec C300 overlay GPS approaches. One suggestion advanced was the adoption of Canadian model whereby GPS approaches can be used for either destination or alternate minimums but not both.

 

Intended Outcome:

 

Develop a solution that meets the needs of both Industry and FAA.

Mitre study to determine whether use of RNAV/GPS approaches at alternates affords an acceptable level of risk. A suggested interim mitigation strategy such as issuance of alternative missed approach procedures whenever NAVAIDs go unmonitored.

15.  A601 Electronic Flight Bag

 

FAA Ricky Chitwood / Brian Hint

 

16.  Closing Remarks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Day 2 - AFTERNOON SESSION – October 17th 2012

 

 


1. Convene.

Self Introductions all attendees.

 

 

 


2. C060 Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations - U.S. Airports

 

FAA Lead: Chris Hope, Bryan Welch, Mike Frank

Industry Lead: David Oliver

 

Issue Statement: OpSpec needs to be updated. FAA direct final rule – removal of definition of Cat IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc.

 

Background: OpSpec has not been revised since 2003. The 121 template already updated. Last meeting the comment period for the direct final rule was extended.

 

Intended Outcome: Update OpSpec, bring awareness to direct final rule, future changes to approach plates relating thereto.

 

Status: Open

 

 

 

3. B039: Operations in North Atlantic Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications (NAT/MNPS) Airspace with U.S. Registered Airplanes

 

FAA Lead:  Madison Walton, Danuta Pronczuk, Mike Frank

 

Industry Lead:  Brian Miles

 

 

Issue Statement: Can we decommission? Is subparagraph b (4) is part of aircraft certification and therefore not necessary to be carried over to D092 as selectable text.

 

 

Background: At the November 2011 OSWG meeting reviewed the proposed change and regulatory references. Subparagraph b (4) is not part of aircraft certification, needs/was carried over to D092 as selectable text. The revised A003 takes out the B039 and MNPS references. Reason – MNPS is outside the U.S., we do not issue OpSpec A003 to Part 129 section 129.14, our responsibility is in ensuring continuous airworthiness.

 

Intended Outcome: Decommission and incorporate navigation equipment and restrictions (entire NAT/MNPS, routes published in the U.S. International Flight Information manual as Special Contingency Routings,…) into D092, revise A003.

 

Status: Open

 

 

 

4. B046: Operations in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) Airspace of the United States and Operations in RVSM Airspace by U.S. Registered Aircraft.

 

FAA Lead:  Madison Walton, Danuta Pronczuk, Herb Herzog, Mike Frank

 

Industry Lead:  Brian Miles

 

Issue Statement: Can we decommission? Are the elements of the independent altitude measurement system unique to US airspace? (Covered by AC 91-85; is it in the AIP?). Are they part of aircraft certification standards (Part 23 and Part 25), and therefore not necessary to be carried over to A003 as selectable text when decommissioning Ops Spec B046?

 

 

Background: Reviewed regulatory references and the Ops Spec at the November OSWG meeting. (Majority of the Ops Spec covered by part 91, FAA AC 91-85 and JAA TGL 6). Elements of the altitude measurement systems are not part of the certification standards. They are covered in the current edition of AC 91-85 and JAA Temporary Guidance Leaflet (TGL) 6. A reference to that effect was made in the draft A003. The OpSpec will be decommissioned at the same time as B046 is decommissioned and D092 is rolled out.

 

Intended Outcome:

Settle the question of the elements of the altitude measurement systems; amend A003 and decommission B046

 

Status: Open

 

 

 

5. A003: Aircraft Authorization for Operations to the United States

 

FAA Lead: Danuta Pronczuk, Madison Walton, Mike Frank

 

Industry Lead: Brian Miles

 

Issue Statement: Need to revise to go along with the decommissioning of B046 and B039, relates to changes to D092 and B031.

 

Background: Last update to OpSpec in 2005. Language covered by regulation deleted. References to B046, B039, MNPS deleted from table, added limitations relating to information in the table.

 

Intended outcome: mandatory revision to A003 that goes along with the decommissioning of OpSpecs B046, B039 and possible A014 and B031. The change also must go with the mandatory revision to D092.

 

Status: Open

 

 

 

 

6. OpSpec A001 (129.14): Issuance and Applicability

 

FAA Lead:  Danuta Pronczuk

 

Industry Lead:  Need to revise the A001 part 129, section 129.14 template to incorporate in a standardized manner the new agent for service in the US rulemaking requirement, as well as review the template for outdated information…

 

 

Issue Statement: Last revision to the template was in May of 2003, need to standardize agent for service information. Do we need to also add responsible office and PI information?

 

 

Background: Danuta reviewed revised draft which adds agent for service in the U.S. in the same format as OpSpec A006 for foreign air carriers that are operating to the U.S., deletes 9 subparagraphs (redundant covered by D085), and replaces “operator” with “person” (terminology used in the Part 129 regulation).

 

Intended Outcome:

Intended Outcome: Revise A001 for 129.14, (foreign air carriers and persons who operate US registered aircraft only outside the US).

 

Status: Open

 

 

 

 

7. C075: Circling Maneuvers and/or Contact Approaches at U.S. Airports

 

FAA Lead:  Danuta Pronczuk, Robert Jaffee, Mike Frank

 

Industry Lead: 

 

Issue Statement: Is it risky for large aircraft to conduct circling to land below 1000 and 3? Has anyone conducted any risk analysis?   Can we move to close?

 

 

Background: Ops Spec last reviewed at the November 2011 OSWG meeting, (incorporated contact approaches – decommissioned C076). Rich (Part 121, US domestic industry) confirmed that most US air carriers to his knowledge limit circling in large aircraft due to the wide spread availability of ILS, a lack of need to circle. Mike pointed out training cost as a factor in the lack of authorizations to circle for US large aircraft. Rich agreed. Aer Lingus brought up the fact that they have been denied the authorization by NY to circle, need it to get in to JFK, have been authorized by their CAA, and spent money on pilot training. Rob Jaffee, (NY IFO) took the matter into a side bar, where the issue was resolved. For the immediate future AFS-50 will work with NY on nonstandard text appropriate to the Aer Lingus situation. No risk analysis from the floor.

 

Intended Outcome:  Obtain risk analysis data on large aircraft circling below 1000 and 3.

 

Status: Open

 

 

 

 

 

8. C054 [ Special Limitations and Provisions for Instrument Approach Procedures and IFR Landing Minimums] and C051: Terminal Instrument Procedures: 14 CFR Part 129

 

FAA Lead: Bryant Welch, Danuta Pronczuk, Mike Frank

 

Industry Lead: 

 

Issue Statement: Issue Statement: Can we decommission C054? Is it adequately covered by regulation? Deteriorating weather decision making - Continue approach to MDA or go missed decision making on nonprecision ICAO standard (1000 feet AGL) vs. US regulations (FAF or if a FAF does not exist then the start of the final approach segment). Approved source of weather.

 

 

Background: There are 422 foreign air carriers who are currently issued Ops Spec C054.

Preliminary review appears that we can proceed and decommission. Reviewed the following Annex 6, Part I references, that together with 14 CFR Part 129 Section 129.5 support decommissioning:

Chapter 4, 4.1.2, 4.4.1.3, 4.2.8.2 b); and

Chapter 7, 7.2.

Question from the floor, does the additional 15 % in the revised Part 121 template (C054) also apply to dry runways? Danuta took IOU to review with Bryant. The additional 15 % in Annex 6 only applies to wet or contaminated runways.

 

Intended Outcome: Decommissioning of Ops Spec C054; relevant information move to OpSpec C051. Need industry lead.

 

Status: Open

 

 

 

9. A036 and A040: Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), and Aircraft Radio Equipment

 

FAA Lead:  David Henthorn (LAX IFO), Danuta Pronczuk (AFS-52), Roger Sultan and Wayne Gallo (AFS-430)

 

Industry Lead:  Eva Stahlemar and Brian Miles

 

 

Issue Statement: Issue Statement: Industry proposed that the new A036 be issued only to IASA Category II countries, that TCAS requirements are not unique to US airspace. Proposal from the floor to hold off on issuing the new A036 until the issue is reviewed.

 

 

Background: Background: Reviewed the decommissioning of Ops Spec A040 and the draft revised Ops Spec A036 at the November 2011 OSWG. FAA agreed to hold off on the release of the new A036… pending further review. Upon further review the international programs and policy division together with the flight technologies and procedures division has determined that TCAS requirements were not unique to US airspace. The Annex 6 standard and US regulations, (Part 91 and 129), covered the TCAS requirements, the previously experienced TCAS address code issues were at less then 1% (based on a study by Lincoln Labs). Formal coordination is in process to decommission both OpSpec A036 and A040.

 

Intended Outcome:

Intended Outcome: Decommission draft Ops Spec A036 for foreign air carriers from IASA Category I; close agenda item.

 

Status: OpSpecs Decommissioned

 

 

 

 

10. Part 129 Rulemaking - Update

 

FAA Lead:  Lorna John, Mike Frank, Danuta Pronczuk

 

Industry Lead:  Brian Miles

 

 

Issue Statement: Industry proposed dual delivery on agent for service.  

 

 

Background: a complete rewrite of Part 129 initiated, Aviation Rulemaking Committee completed its recommendations. Industry request for dual delivery on agent for service noted.

 

Intended Outcome: regulatory language not expected to change which is presently contained in OpSpec to be moved to the part 129 regulation allowing for a significant reduction in OpSpecs.

 

Status: Rulemaking is currently on hold due to other priorities. FAA internal rulemaking team continuous to meet. No dual delivery at this time. Only the US agent for service in the US must be listed in OpSpecs.

 

 

 

11. OpSpec C050 [ Special Pilot In- Command Qualification Airport List], and C067 [ Special Airplane Authorizations, Provisions, and Limitations for Certain Airports ] : Special Airport Authorizations, Provisions, and Limitations

 

FAA Lead: Gordy Rother, Mike Frank, Danuta Pronczuk

 

Industry Lead: 

 

Issue Statement: Can we combine since they are related? If you have C067 you must be issued C050.

 

Background: Need industry lead. OpSpec C067 is used to authorize special airport operations if the airport has special requirements beyond the PIC qualification requirements of C050 and to establish the requirements for the use of certificated U.S. land airports and any authorization to use uncertificated U.S. land airports.   OpSpec C050 must also be issued for “special PIC qualification airports” authorization. OpSpec C081 must also be issued for airport/runways where specific “Special” terminal instrument procedures are authorized for the foreign air carrier.

 

Status: Open

 

 

 

 

12. OpSpec C056 and C057: IFR Takeoff Minimums – Airplanes

 

FAA Lead:  Bryant Welch (AFS-410), Chris Hope (AFS-410), Danuta Pronczuk (AFS-52) and Mike Frank (AFS-52)

 

 

Industry Lead:  John Conlon

 

 

Issue Statement: Combine the two Ops Specs and update. Add 500/500/500 and 300/300/300, add clarity to authorized minimums.

 

 

Background: Previous discussions: Is it takeoff run or should it be takeoff roll? Visible centerline lights – is it the entire runway? Operative runway edge lights at night for the 1000/1000/1000, INFO 07009 recommends them, should the Ops Spec as well? Is it certificated seats or actual? Small aircraft 100 hour PIC requirement questioned. The international programs and policy division and the flight technologies and procedures division, has reviewed the issues brought forth at the November 2012 meeting, briefed as follows:

· Takeoff roll;

· Certificated seats;

· Need to see enough centerline lights to see maintain centerline. Required runway length for your aircraft, the greater of accelerate stop, accelerate go and normal takeoff to 35 feet. Annex 4 (Charts), Annex 14 (Airports), Annex 6, and terps. Annex 6, part I:

                                              No aeroplane should commence a take-off at a mass which exceeds the mass at which, in accordance with the minimum distances for take-off scheduled in the flight manual, compliance with 4.3.1 to 4.3.3 inclusive is shown.

                                              4.3.1 The take-off run required should not exceed the take-off run available.

                                              4.3.2 The accelerate-stop distance required should not exceed the accelerate-stop distance available.

                                              4.3.3 The take-off distance required should not exceed the takeoff distance available

                                              · Deleted the 100hr PIC requirements based on 129.5, Annex 6 Part I, 4.2.8.2 and 9.3.

 

Changed to serviceable HIRL or CL (current OpSpecs uses the term “operative”). Reason: HIRL could be operational but not at the required level of see them – airports use the not serviceable terminology (see page 106 table A-8 of AC 150/5340-26B). Rob Jaffee added that if Notamed the terminology used would be not in service. A request was made to define serviceable in guidance and a job aid. Danuta took IOU. Posted the updated draft for comment at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/129opspecs/

Comments due 07/11/2012. AFS-50 and AFS-410 are still looking at adding 300/300/300.

 

Intended Outcome:

Decommission C057 and revise C056 (update, add 500/500/500 and 300/300/300)

 

Status: Open

 

 

 

13. OpSpec C083: IASA Category 2 Special Operational Restrictions- Scheduled and Non-Scheduled Operations, Additional Aircraft and Special Authorizations

 

FAA Lead: Danuta Pronczuk

 

Industry Lead: 

 

Issue Statement: paragraph on additional aircraft needs additional clarity. [Same make model series and configuration of aircraft typically for inspection, maintenance or alterations – may be added with written approval of the AFS-50 division manager]. Delete redundancies, add plain language.

 

Background: OpSpec has not been revised since 2005.

 

Intended Outcome: Update OpSpec C083, add clarity on addition of aircraft

 

Status: Open

 

 

 

 

14. OpSpecs B051 [large] and B056 [small and helicopters]: Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Limitations and Provisions – Airplanes and Helicopters

 

FAA Lead:  Scott Switzer and Danuta Pronczuk

 

Industry Lead:  John Conlon

 

 

Issue Statement: Can we move the item to close?

 

 

Background: Can we combine the two Ops Specs; need to update references – SFAR 71, B050… Reviewed at the November 2011 OSWG meeting. Nonmandatory revisions to both OpSpecs have been submitted for processing.

 

Intended Outcome: Coordinate an editorial update to each OpSpecs.

 

Status: updated OpSpecs have been rolled out

 

 

15. OpSpec B031: IFR En Route Limitations and Provisions

 

FAA Lead:  Rolfe Dinwoodie, Danuta Pronczuk, Mike Frank

 

Industry Lead:  Jorge I. Londono

 

 

Issue Statement: The VFR and IFR requirements are mixed and so give the incorrect impression to those who are authorized only for VFR that they are also authorized for IFR en route.

 

 

Background: Last reviewed at the November 2011 OSWG meeting. Danuta briefed the draft change. Incorporation of B031 into A003, (this cuts down on 6 references to other OpSpecs which helps to understand the limitations more readily, and eliminates the VFR issue), and the accompanying decommissioning of A014. A limitation would be added to subparagraph b of OpSpec A003 when a foreign air carrier is not authorized to operate IFR en route in class G (uncontrolled) airspace. The new text is still being finalized.

 

Intended Outcome :   Either revise the current B031 or incorporate the limitations to A003.

 

Status: Open

 

 

 

16. OpSpec A028: Aircraft Wet Lease Arrangements

 

FAA Lead: Danuta Pronczuk

 

Industry Lead: Brian Miles

 

Issue Statement: Proposed to replace airworthiness control with maintenance control. Primary operator terminology in wet lease and interchange (same terminology different meaning – operational control and maintenance control does not shift based on who is operating the aircraft in a wet lease, in an interchange the operational control shifts with the operator who is operating the aircraft).

 

 

Background: Reviewed proposal at the November 2011 OSWG meeting.   Replaced airworthiness control with maintenance control and posted the updated draft for comment at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/129opspecs/

Comments due 07/09/2012.

 

Status: Open

 

 

 

17. OpSpec B034 and B035: IFR Class I En Route Navigation Using Area Navigation Systems and Class I Navigation in the U.S. Class A Airspace Using Area or Long-Range Navigation Systems

 

FAA Lead:  Mike Frank, Rolfe Dinwoodie

 

Industry Lead:  Capt. Harold Cardona Henao

 

Issue Statement: Ops Spec B034 does not apply to part 129, needs to be decommissioned. Ops Spec B035 needs further review. RNAV below 18000 feet not addressed in B035. Do we need Q – route identified?

 

 

Background: B034 designed for US operators operating in Europe. Last meeting decided to decommission B034.

 

Intended Outcome: New revision to OpSpec B035 and the decommissioning of OpSpec B034

 

 

Status: Open

 

 

 

18. OpSpec D092: Maintenance Program Approval for U.S. Registered Airplanes

 

FAA Lead:  Danuta Pronczuk, Madison Walton, and Mike Frank

 

Industry Lead: 

 

Issue Statement: Maintenance function relating to MNPS and RNP needs to be covered in D Ops Specs. Need to also cover B-RNAV and P-RNAV for US registered aircraft.

 

 

Background: Danuta and Madison reviewed draft OpSpec D092 changes since last meeting. The updated draft was posted for comment at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/129opspecs/

Comments due 07/11/2012. Proposal from the floor to rename the OpSpec from “Maintenance Program – U.S. Registered Airplanes” to “Continuous Airworthiness Program – U.S. registered (dry lease)”. Reason = annex 8, continuous airworthiness, and to prevent any confusion if the U.S. registered aircraft was operated under a wet lease agreement. Danuta took IOU to review proposal.

 

Intended Outcome:

Revision to go along with: the revision to B035, and the decommissioning of B034, B039, and B046.

 

Status: Open

 

 

 

19. Data Link Communications

 

FAA Lead: Trent Bigler

Industry Lead: Brian Miles and David Oliver

 

Issue Statement: what is the methodology of obtaining the appropriate OpSpecs or amendment to an existing OpSpecs. AC is out of date, references the issuance of OpSpecs or an amendment to existing OpSpecs for data link communications prior to the foreign air carrier operating a data link communication-equipped aircraft in domestic U.S. airspace. The Fans Operations Manual (FOM) was replaced by Global Operational Data Link Document [GOLD] over a year ago.

 

Background: (GOLD is the source document for Controler Pilot Data Link Communication (CPDLC) and ADS-C. OpSpec A056 issued to US operators covers ADS-C (oceanic, US operators going to Europe).     OpSpec A353 issued to US operators covers ADS-B (Gulf of Mexico, Hudson Bay, Greenland and Island)

 

Status: Open

 

 

20. OpSpec C052 (Straight-in Non-Precision, APV, and Category I Precision Approach and Landing Minima – All U.S. Airports) and A002 (Definitions and Abbreviations)

 

FAA Lead: Chris Hope, Bryant Welch

Industry Lead:

 

Issue Statement: For about three months in mid-year 2103, the FAA will render the LDA for runway 28L and the ILS for runway 28L OTS at SFO for runway construction. The loss of these navigation aids will eliminate the ability for SFO to conduct PRM approaches during Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approach (SOIA) operations. The FAA plans to publish RNAV (GPS) PRM procedures prior to this navigation aid shutdown that overlay the OTS approach courses so that SOIA can be conducted during the construction period. After the construction is complete, the RNAV (GPS) PRM approaches will be available in the event of an unplanned loss of a ground based navigation aid, or as an alternate method for conducting a SOIA approach when cleared to do so by ATC. The changes in OPS SPECS to include RNAV (GPS) PRM are applicable to operations where closely spaced approaches are conducted, and where RNAV (GPS) PRM approaches are published.  

 

 

Background: new item.

Intended Outcome:   Operators who have C052 authorization to conduct both, PRM and APV RNAV (GPS) approaches are authorized to conduct RNAV (GPS) PRM approaches without the need for OpSpec modification. However, if operators wish include RNAV (GPS) PRM (combined) as an additional approach type, it is available in, Table 1, “Approaches With Vertical Guidance (APV)” column. If RNAV (GPS) PRM is selected in C052, then A002 must also be reissued to contain the definition for RNAV (GPS) PRM.

OpSpec A002: Added the following RNAV (GPS) PRM definition:

RNAV (GPS) PRM: Simultaneous independent close parallel ILS PRM approaches are conducted to runways spaced between 4299 ft. and 3000 ft. apart. One ILS PRM and one LDA PRM approach are used to conduct Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches (SOIA) to runways spaced less than 3000 ft. and at least 750 ft. apart. RNAV (GPS) PRM approaches may be substituted for one or both of the ILS PRM approaches, or in the case of SOIA, for either or both of the ILS PRM and LDA PRM approaches. The pilot may elect to fly the RNAV (GPS) PRM approach in lieu of either the ILS PRM and LDA PRM approach. The RNAV (GPS) PRM approach plate contains all of the appropriate procedural notes found on an ILS PRM or LDA PRM approach plate. All simultaneous close parallel approaches to runways less than 4300 include PRM in the approach name. Between 4299 feet and 3600 feet spacing, PRM or other high update rate surveillance system to monitor the NTZ is not required.  

 

OpSpec C052: Amended 8900.1 guidance to include RNAV (GPS) PRM approaches and added a non-mandatory RNAV (GPS) PRM selectable to the OpSpec.

Status: Open

 

 

 

New Items

 

Carriage of AOCs – would the FAA agree to foreign aircraft carrying ICAO standardized AOCs as soft copy on EFB?

 

Closing Remarks