FAA/Aviation Industry Notes from OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) 2012-04

 

 

Oc tobe r 16 t h a nd 17 th , 20 12

 

Tue sda y , Oc tob e r 16 th : 1: 00 P M – 5:00 P M ( Dome stic S e ssion)

 

We dn e sd ay, Oct ob e r 17 th : 9: 00 A M - NOON ( Join t S e ssion )

 

W e dne sda y , Oc tobe r 17 t h : 1: 00 PM – 5: 00 P M ( In ter n at ion al S e ssion)

 

Hoste d by FAA

He ritage C e nte r ( N av y Me morial ) 701

Pe nnsy lv ania Av e nue , N W W ashington, DC 2004 ( Phon e : 202- 737 - 2300 )

 

Ch air p er son s

 

U.S . Dome st ic ( Par t 121 , an d 135)

C a se y Se a br i g ht, De lta A ir Lines, I ndustr y C ha ir

R ic h Yukna vic h, Amer i c a n Air line s, I ndustr y Vic e C ha ir

B ob Da vis, A F S - 260, F A A C ha ir

 

In ter n at ion al ( P a r t 129)

B r ia n Mile s, Emira t e s, I n dustr y C ha ir

Da vid Oliver , Q a nta s Air wa y s L imite d, I ndustr y Vic e C ha ir

Da nuta P r onc z uk, AF S - 5 2, F AA C ha ir

Mike Fra nk, AF S - 52, F A A Vic e C ha ir

 

AF S Air T r an sp ort a t ion Division M an age r

Mr . L e s S mith

 

AF S In t e r n at ion al P r og r a m s an d

P olic y Division M an age r

Mr . J ohn B ar ba g a llo

 

IF O/I F U/SE A F S DO R e p re se n t at ives t o t h e P ar t 129 OS WG :   Da vid Kr ue g e r ( D F W I F O ), Da ve H e nthor n ( L A X I F O) , R olf e Dinwoodie a nd B ob B ia nc o ( R OC a nd A L B I F U) , Her b er t H. Her z o g II IW . S c ott S c hwe iz e r a nd P a tr ick C r owle y ( ANC I F U) , J .J . ( M I A I F O) ,  Ni c hola s Tsokr is ( NY I F O) , a nd D a vid Ma y ( S EA F S DO )

 

IAT A Re p re se n t a t ive

J effr e y T. Mille r

Future Meeting Schedule:

Domestic Sessions

February 5-6, 2013 (OSWG 2013-01)

Washington, D.C.

Domestic, Joint, and International Sessions

May 7-8, 2013 (OSWG 2013- 02)

Washington, D.C.

Domestic Sessions

August 6-7, 2013 (OSWG 2013-03)

Washington, D.C.

Domestic, Joint, and International Sessions

November 5-6, 2013 (OSWG 2013-04)

Washington, D.C.

 

 

 

 


 

 

OSWG Agenda

 

        U.S. Domestic Session                                   Joint Session                                                           International Session

            Part 121, 135, etc.                                                                           Part 121, 129, 135 etc.                                                                 Part 129

          (Operators for whom the U.S. is                       (Foreign air carriers, persons,                                 (Foreign air carriers and persons)

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

                                                                                                                                                      The State of the Operator )

 

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 ETOPS

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 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 D095

12. OpSpecs C056 & C057

13. OpSpec A027

13. OpSpec C300 Navaid Substitution

13. OpSpec C083

14. OpSpec B041

14. OpSpec C055 (Alternates)

14. OpSpecs B051 & B056

15. OpSpec A001

 

15. OpSpec B031

16. OpSpecs B036/B054

 

16. OpSpec A028

17. MSPEC B054

 

17. OpSpecs B034 & B035

18. OpSpec C051

 

18. Opspec D092

19. OpSpec D084

 

19. Data Link Communications

20. OpSpec C051

 

20. Opspec C052

21. OpSpec D084

 

21. New Items & Closing Remarks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Day 1 - AFTERNOON SESSION – 16 October 2012

 


1                Convening

 

2                Chairperson’s Remarks

Roster and Roll Call/Introductions:

Bob Davis Remarks:

-            Regarding WebOPSS, do not expect any major upgrades to the system in this current austere funding environment.

-            Answer to query about deletion of Print Date from bottom of pages. The print date was removed to eliminate confusion that frequently occurred in the past between effective date on the last page and the print date which was a variable. The related enhancement was the ability to disassociate the effective date from the FAA signature which permits variable sequencing of signatures instead of requiring FAA to sign last.

-            Ops Spec S400 CAST database test. U.S. Air and AMR Eagle have completed their portion of the test which consisted of doing an adoption analysis of three CAST safety recommendations and entering the airline adoption or rejection rational into the S400 database. American and United have not completed their analysis. There are approximately 75 published CAST recommendations. 50 or so relate specifically to operations or maintenance and about 25 relate to management.

-             

              Casey Seabright Remarks:

-            Casey notified the FAA and industry representatives of the results of the elections for chairpersons. Chuck Schramek from Delta was elected to serve as the chairman and Andy Newcomer of UPS was elected co-chair. Chuck announced his desire to conduct FAA and industry meetings or teleconferences between the quarterly OSWG conferences in an attempt to accelerate the pace of progress on Ops Spec issues.

 


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.

 

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 a non-airworthy aircraft to a place other than a maintenance or repair facility.

Meeting Discussion

Mark Lopez (AFS-330) relayed remarks from Tim Holt. There is disagreement between the General Council Office and AFS-330. Until there is a final disposition, non standard language such as that which FEDEX currently has, may provide an interim resolution. There is a pending 8900.1 update to require a PMI review of any nonstandard language. Mark mentioned that Special Ferry permits may apply and may resolve some of these cases.

Status: Ongoing

 

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

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 C050.

Action Items:

In process

Status: CLOSED

Bob Davis reported that both Mammoth Yosemite; (KMMH), Mammoth Lakes California and Akureyri, Iceland (BAIR) would be added in the next update to the PIC Special Qualifications Airport List.

 

 


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

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 Keflavik 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 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.

Status: CLOSED

Bob Davis reported that both Mammoth Yosemite; (KMMH), Mammoth Lakes California and Akureyri, Iceland (BAIR) would be added in the next update to the PIC Special Qualifications Airport List.

 

 

 


5                C055: as it applies to ETOPS alternates

FAA Leads:   Theo Kessaris (AFS 260); Steve Motes (AFS 220) and John Swigart (AFS-470)

Industry Lead: Rich Yuknavich/ Monty Montgomery

Issue Statement:

Is it permissible to use RNAV/GPS based minimums for ETOPS enroute alternates if a carrier already has RNAV/GPS or RNAV/RNP authorization.

 

Background:

Some carriers interpreted Paragraph 303.C.(5) to mean that Ops Spec C052 authorization for RNAV/GPS approaches constituted authorization for use of the provision in that paragraph for use of GPS based enroute alternate minimums:

 

(5) ETOPS Alternate Minima. A particular airport may be considered to be an ETOPS alternate for flight planning and dispatch purposes, if the latest available forecast weather conditions from the earliest time of landing to the latest time of landing at that airport, equals or exceeds the criteria detailed in the following table. Because OpSpecs alternate weather minima standards apply to all alternates, the following criteria is recommended for a typical certificate holder’s OpSpecs. An individual certificate holder’s OpSpecs must reflect current requirements (§ 121.625). Although no consideration for the use of GPS/RNAV approaches is presented here, operators may request to receive this authorization through the FAA. This authorization would be reflected in the operator’s OpSpecs. Appropriate ETOPS alternate minima for such operations will be determined by the Director, Flight Standards Service. The airport of departure (takeoff) and the destination airport (unless used concurrently as an ETOPS alternate) are not required to meet the weather minima for ETOPS alternates as these airports are subject to other regulations (e.g., §§ 121.617, 121.621, and 121.623).

 

This issue took on increased relevance with the recent and frequent out-of -service condition of the Midway island NDB. Midway has RNAV/GPS approaches.

 

Intended outcome:

Allowance for use of RNAV/GPS approach minima at enroute alternate airports.

 

Previous Meeting Discussions:

Status: Ongoing

Steve Motes (AFS 220) and John Swigart (AFS-470) stated that those carriers who interpreted AC 120-42B Paragraph as allowing Ops Spec C052 issuance as blanket authorization to use RNAV/GPS approach minimums for ETOPS enroute alternate suitability is a wrong interpretation. Special, specific HQ FAA approval is required. Such approval will likely not be entertained until the larger issues which are subject to the ongoing MITRE Corporation study, are resolved.

 

John related that there are GPS satellite coverage issues in various parts of the world such as the Pacific and South America that make a blanket allowance for worldwide RNAV/GPS approach minimums utilization without limitations and special provisions a imprudent course of action .

 

John Swigart said if a carrier could make a case for a special allowance such as Continental did for its Micronesian Island operations then some relief may be possible. In such cases, RAIM predictions and close monitoring of inflight performance would be expected.

 

 

 

 


6                C077: Terminal Visual Flight Rules, Limitations and Provisions: CLOSED

 

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 : CLOSED – opspec amended

This conundrum was fixed in Ops Spec C077 template revision 02b 8/16/2012 by retaining the term “VFR” in the second sentence of paragraph “e”, while defining VMC in the numbered subparagraphs that follow:

 

e. Terminal departures IFR. The flight crew must comply with the departure procedures established for a particular airport by the FAA if ATC does not specify any particular departure procedure in the takeoff clearance given for that airport. The flight crew may accept an IFR clearance containing a takeoff and climb in VFR conditions out to a specified point in the clearance, if the limitations and provisions of this subparagraph and subparagraph f. of this operations specification are met.

(1) Reported weather visibility must be as specified in Section 91.155, but not lower than the visibility criteria specified in Section 121.649.

(2) Reported ceiling must be 1,000 feet or greater.

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

(4) The ceiling and cloud clearance must be as such to allow the flight crew 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.

 

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

Tabled and removed from next Agenda

 

FAA Lead:   John Swigart (AFS-470)

Industry Lead: Joe Divito (JetBlue); Brian Will (American)

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 flight crew 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.

7.             

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

The flight crew 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 flight crew must maintain the basic cloud clearance as specified in Section 91.155.

 

(4)      For a visual approach without a CVFP or RVFP - The flight crew 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 flight crew may continue to a landing if the runway of intended landing is in sight and the flight crew 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 flight crew 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 flight crew 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 flight crew 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 Ops Specs such as C081 do not directly apply.

 

Discussion

John Swigart, AFS-470, stated that the 8260.54A design criteria and procedural rules governing visual approaches require that, during an RNAV visual approach, the cockpit crew must be able to simultaneously keep the runway in sight AND keep the preceding aircraft in sight. Otherwise, it is necessary for the pilot to immediately notify the airport tower for further guidance.

Status:   Tabled and removed from next Agenda

Agreement to temporarily table the issue and discuss in a different forum such as CNS Task Force or a special working group. CNS taskforce Industry Chairperson was notified (Captain Brian Will, American Airlines)

 

 

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).

 

Draft Ops Spec C054 has been posted for comment prior to the meeting.

Meeting Discussions:

Coby Johnson stated that Part 121/135 Ops Spec template changes are in process. Current language in C060 will be incorporated into other Ops Specs C054 and C059. Bryant Welch also mentioned that revised C059 will also harmonize with Ops Spec C060 by replacing the current advisory RVR visibility allowance with a no less than RVR300 for roll-out transmissometer. Current transmissometer substitution rules remain.

Status : Ongoing. Ops Spec template and 8900.1 changes are in process .

 

 


8                A025: Electronic Record Keeping Systems

 

FAA Lead : Theo Kessaris AFS-260

Industry Lead : Casey Seabright, Jim Winkelman

Issue Statement:

It appears FAA & Industry are using A025 as a catch-all for authorizations that may not be appropriate for this paragraph or may be appropriate but are listed individually versus categorically.

 

Background

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

Intended Outcome:

Potentially transform A025 from and keep it only as a depository for primarily electronic record keeping plus an optional storehouse for electronic signatures and electronic manuals.

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

 

Discussion

The impetus for more specific guidance is increasing with the expanding adoption of cockpit Electronic Flight Bags (EFBs) with increasing transition from paper manuals to purely digital format manuals. The direction of some POIs and PMIs to list every digital document individually versus by class of documents is becoming more burdensome as the number of digital document continues to multiply. The opportunity for a between OSWG meeting conference did not materialize.

 

Status: Ongoing

Volunteer participants still 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 enroute reserves as low as five percent 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 industry believes that the FAA should make every effort to provide a level playing field for the US carriers. The FAA contends that any operator may still apply for issuance, and if the requirements are satisfied, will eventually be issued.

Carriers are unable to meet requirements that do not currently exist.

Intended Outcome:

PBM Fuel Reserves availability for US carriers sooner than later.

2012-4 Meeting Discussion

FAA Officials recently participated in ICAO meetings regarding performance-based reserve fuel requirements.

Status: Ongoing. New AC being written to harmonize with ICAO

Interested Industry SMEs should volunteer through the OSWG chairpersons to participate in guidance drafting/review.

 


10        D081: Parts Pool Agreement Authorization: CLOSED

 

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.”

Discussion

Since this issue appears to be a single carrier concern, Bob Davis recommended that American Airlines coordinate directly with AFS-300 to attempt a resolution.

 

Status: CLOSED

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

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”).

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

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.

 

Discussion:

John Swigart mentioned that it is his office desire that Ops Spec C081 be used to authorize and track RNAV Visual approaches. Previously it was stated that either a Letter of Authorization or an entry in C081 be used to authorize and track RNAV Visuals. It was suggested by industry that C081 be revised to create three different tables, one for Special approaches, one for RNAV Visuals, and one for RNAV/GPS--RNP approaches.

 

Status: Ongoing.

Order 8900.1 guidance will be revised to cover tracking of RNAV Visual approach and RNP-1 SIDs/STARs.

Methods to determine and assess carrier shared financial obligations are ongoing.

 

12        A010: Aviation Weather: CLOSED

 

FAA Leads : Ms. 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

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. ..

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:

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.

Discussion:

The new Ops Spec A010 template (030) was posted on WebOPSS with a date of 10/11/2012. The deadline for revision is 2/8/20113. Links to guidance documents are posted in the “Guidance “ links on the WebOPSS page.

Status: CLOSED

 

 


13        A027: Land and Hold Short Operations (LAHSO): CLOSED

 

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 : CLOSED _____________________________________________________________________________________

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.

Discussion:

Industry still in favor of "sunsetting" B041

Status: Ongoing

FAA is studying the issue.

 

 

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.

 

Discussion:

No progress on this issue. However, continuing review prompted Bob Davis to remind 121 carriers about the guidance in Ops Spec A001 Paragraph “d” which lists permissible Part 91 operations and also make the point that Part 91 operations are still to be conducted under Part 121 Operations Specifications:

“d. 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.”

Status: Ongoing

 

16        B036/B054: Class II Navigation

 

FAA Lead : Madison Walton/ Greg Sparks (AFS-470) /Trent Bigler (AFS-460)

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.

 

Discussion:

At the insistence of carriers with all GPS equipage, the coast-in/coast-out Navigation Accuracy Check verbiage was changed to eliminate the provision for “DMD/DME automatic position updating”.

 

FAA briefed that the Ops Spec template tables will also include RNP 4 and RNP 10 time limits.

 

Status: Ongoing

As soon as it is available Paul Lepine will make available for industry review Notice 8900.B036.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Continuing 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.

 

Discussion:

AC91-70 and Job Aids are being revised and Notice for Ops Spec Template changes is at AFS-1.

 

Status: Ongoing

 

 

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

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.

 

Discussion:

Bob Davis stated that it is up to the POI and Carrier to associate MSPECS/Ops Specs with an area of Operations in B050.

Bob asked Monica G. to explore programing remedies.

Status: Ongoing

 

18. C051: Terminal Instrument Procedures: CLOSED revised paragraph in WebOPSS

 

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.”

Discussion:

Ops Spec C051, Table 2 lists both statute and nautical miles.

No one can remember why there is both a statute and nautical miles listing.

Request to remove statute miles listing from C051.

Unanimous industry concurrence

Status: CLOSED for part 121 revised paragraph in WebOPSS

 

 

19. 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:

3.            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.

4.            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.

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?

 

Previous Meeting Discussions:

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.

Status: Ongoing. FAA conducting research

 

 

ADDITIONAL ISSUES NOT ON THE AGENDA

 

B342 Extended Operations (ETOPS) with Two-Engine Airplanes Under Part 121

 

FAA Lead: Ms. Theo Kessaris

Industry Lead: Rich Yuknavich

Issue Statement:

There is a duplicate/redundant listing of a carrier’s aircraft approved for ETOPS in Ops Spec B342 and D086.

Background:

Ops Spec D086, Maintenance Program Authorization for Two-Engine Airplanes Used in Extended Range Operation, contains the carriers list of aircraft approved for ETOPS operations. This same ETOPS aircraft listing was added to B342 a few years ago, and whatever the rational was at the time, apparently it is no longer valid.

Intended Outcome:

Remove aircraft listing from B342.

Discussion:

Theo agreed to remove the aircraft table, and asked if any carriers objected to removal of the ETOPS alternate airport listing. Her idea is to move ETOPS alternates to Ops Spec C070 by assigning the applicable airports the code letter “E”.

Industry agreement was unanimous.

 

Status: Ongoing

_____________________________________________________________________________________

C052: Straight-in Non-Precision, APV, and Category I Precision Approach and Landing Minima – All Airports

FAA Lead: Chris Hope

Industry Lead:  
Issue Statement: RNAV /PRM may be added as a pull-down menu option in Table 1.

Background: RNAV/PRM Approach option is under review.

Intended Outcome: Table option

Discussion:

No Industry objections

Status: Ongoing

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 

C384: OPSPEC/MSPEC/LOA C384, REQUIRED NAVIGATION PERFORMANCE PROCEDURES WITH AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED.

FAA Lead:

Industry Lead: Rich Yuknavich

Issue Statement:

The revised guidance for C084 contains admonitions that POIs reevaluate carrier training scenarios and database audit processes.

Background:

C384 has been revised to harmonize with ICAO by removing acronym SAAAR and changing to AR. The terminology change is insignificant but the guidance that accompanies the change includes a strong recommendation for POIs to reexamination their carrier’s training and database audit processes. The emphasis for training is whether carriers are including sufficient simulator scenarios with degradation of navigation accuracy during the approach, and whether briefings emphasize crew situational awareness. The revised C384 (020) was issued on 10/12/2012. The deadline for approval of the revised template is 1/13/2013.

Intended Outcome:

Carriers should review the training and database audit requirements stated in AC 90-101A, Approval Guidance for RNP Procedures with AR, 2/23/11. This AC was published after many carriers already had RNAV/RNP training and audit processes in place. That training and those processes may not satisfy the requirements of the revised Advisory Circular, and Order 8900.1 guidance.

Discussion:

There was not a discussion of this issue during the meeting.

Status: Ongoing

 

A061. Use of Electronic Flight Bag

FAA Lead: Brian Hint (AFS-430)

Industry Lead: Rich Yuknavich
Issue Statement: Update on Ops Spec A016 and AC 20-159

Background: N/A

Intended Outcome: Program awareness

Discussion:

There are currently 1500 carriers with Ops Spec A061 authorization. Each month there are 150 more. With the expanding variety of hardware devices, the emphasis is on the software application authorizations. Type A is authorized for use anytime except critical phases of flight. Type B is authorized for use anytime, including critical phases of flight. Brian recommended review of recently revised AC 20-159B and submission of recommendations for next revision.

Status: CLOSED

 

 

WebOPSS - Ops Spec Synopsis Reports in ICAO Format

FAA Lead: Monica Grushe (AFS-260)

Industry Lead: Rich Yuknavich
Issue Statement: Report content is great but header needs to look more official to ensure foreign cockpit inspector acceptance of authenticity.

Background:

Intended Outcome: Afix the FAA crest onto the first page header

Discussion:

This was discussed at the meeting and Rich Yuknavich sent Monica a draft sample of the suggested header.

Monica agreed that the format could be changed but it may take a little time because the graphics work would need to be done by another office.

Status: Ongoing

 

 

Day One: Closing Remarks


 

 



 

Day 2 Session

October17, 2012

9:00 – 12:00

 

 

 

1.          Convene. Opening remarks/welcome by industry Chairs and self introductions by attendees. Bob Davis announced the next set of OSWG sessions –

a.            joint and international sessions scheduled for May 8th and November 6th 2013;

b.            Casey announced new domestic industry chair – Chuck Schramek (Delta Air Lines) and new domestic industry assistant chair – Andy Newcomer (UPS).   Brian Miles thanked Casey and Rich for their collaborative efforts on the OSWG. Danuta echoed Brian’s remarks and added a thank you to Bob and Paul for their continued support and work on the OSWG meetings, and process improvement.

 

Among those present were: American, Aer Lingus, Air Canada, Delta, DHL, Emirates, FedEX, LAN, Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS), Aeroflot Russian Airlines, Sky Bahamas, British Airways, Jet Airways (India) Limited, Columbia Helicopters (Peru), Avianca Airlines…, Hogan & Hartson LLP, International Air Transport Association, European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), International Air Transport Association (IATA), International Field Office(s)/Unit(s) – NY, DFW, and MIA, Aviation Groups and Trade Associations, Flight Standards organizations (International Programs and Policy Division, AFS-50, Technical Programs Branch, AFS-260, Aircraft Maintenance Division, AFS-300, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, AFS-400…).

 

 

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).

 


Notes, agendas, ICAO and EASA presentations… from previous meetings may be found at the following link: http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=Publication&doctype=OSWG

 

3.          WebOPSS Update:

Standing Agenda Item:

FAA Lead : Bob Davis – AFS-260

Brief: no major changes, existing budget only allows day to day operational maintenance of the system, waiting on new budget to see if it is sufficient to allow the addition of new features.

Status: Continuing to monitor and plan future system improvements, and continuing daily operational maintenance.

 

 

 


4.          ICAO Register of AOCs

 

Progress Recent Developments: International Register of AOCs. (Yuri Fattah, International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO updated the group on the full OASIS project). Presentation available on http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=Publication&doctype=OSWG

Refer to OSWG 2011-04 Meeting Notes for further background discussion

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

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

 

The system is operational. Press release scheduled for October 20, 2012. As of October 19th 2012 AOC data base is empty.   Canada, UAE, Singapore started entering data. ICAO is looking to see if they can relax the ICAO standard that requires that a certificated copy of the AOC be carried on board be relaxed for those operators whose information is in the ICAO data base. Yuri confirmed that only States could upload the information to the database. US domestic industry asked if this could be expanded to operators uploading information as some States have differences – a State of the operator may not require the information/or a document that another State is requiring off the operator in order for them to operate in their State. Yuri noted the comment; at this time, this feature is not available.

Status : Open

 

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

 

FAA Lead : John Masters, AFS-51, Al Peyus, AFS-52

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

 

Arthur Beckland (EASA rulemaking directorate) provided a Status Report on EASA intention to implement an assessment requirement for all Third Country Operators performing commercial air transport operations (for example: United, FedEx, UPS, Emirates, China Southern Airlines, ANA, Quantas, (Non-European Union member commercial air transport carriers.) Following are a few highlights from Arthur’s briefing:

 

Arthur’s presentation is available on http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=Publication&doctype=OSWG .

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
.

Status : Ongoing

 

 

6.          A029: Aircraft Interchange Agreement for Part 121

 

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

Industry Lead : Rich Carpenter

Issue Statement:

Definition of Primary operator is not correct.

Background:

Ops Spec A029 authorizes part 121, 135 certificate holders, and part 129 foreign air carriers to use aircraft interchange agreements with other operators or foreign air carriers.

Previous Meeting Discussions:

Correction in process, getting close to completion.

Intended Outcome:

Correction to definition of primary operator, and the addition of aircraft serial number to the Part 121 template

Discussion

Danuta briefly reviewed the issues, goal, and updated the group on status of the change. Namely, AFS-50 continues to meet and work with the office of chief counsel, AFS-300 and AFS-200 to dispose of the FAA internal formal coordination comments relating to the inspector guidance associated with the OpSpec change. Issue: more guidance clarification was necessary then previously existed, in particular reference maintenance program, MEL, ETOPS when the interchange is between a US operator and a foreign air carrier. The additional guidance does not change the policy or cause any further changes to the draft OpSpecs

Status:   Ongoing

Template is being revised to enable documentation of U.S. or Foreign Ownership.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 

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:

It is necessary for carriers to analyze and coordinate with airports prior to operating Group VI aircraft 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.

Discussion:

Danuta briefly reviewed the issues, goal, and updated the group on status of the change. Namely, the OpSpec, and the associated inspector guidance was drafted, and informal FAA coordination had been initiated. In the process of this informal coordination, the following issue was raised. The existing limitation in OpSpec C091 states in part:  

For runways with a threshold elevation greater than 4,000 ft. MSL the hold short lines or hold position must be expanded outward from the 280 ft. point by 1 ft. for every 100 ft.     the runway threshold elevation is above sea level.

The issue with the above limitation is that the AC airport design criterion starts adding the 1 foot per 100 feet at 0 MSL. For example:   if using the AC criteria for runways with a threshold of 3000 ft MSL the hold short lines or hold position must be expanded outward to 310 feet = 280+ 30. If using the OpSpec criteria for that same scenario the hold short lines or hold position must be at 180 feet. For example:   if using the AC criteria for runways with a threshold of 3000 ft MSL the hold short lines or hold position must be expanded outward to 310 feet = 280+ 30. If using the OpSpec criteria for that same scenario the hold short lines or hold position must be at 180 feet. AFS-50 continues to meet and discuss with airports and subject matter experts in AFS-400, AFS-200… to settle the issue.

Status: Ongoing. Standby for review of draft documents

 

 

8.          D301: Aircraft Network Security Program (ANSP): CLOSED

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 14CFR Part 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).

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

Discussion: Mark Lopez reviewed intent of OpSpec and provided a status update. Atlas Air (121 operator, flies for DHL) has the OpSpec for their 747-8. United has applied for the OpSpec for their 787.   Danuta confirmed that the OpSpec only applies to part 129 for those foreign air carriers or persons who have US registered aircraft.   Currently, AFS-300 experiencing no significant issues with processing the OpSpecs requests, no significant issues were brought forth by industry.

Status: CLOSED

 

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.

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

Discussion:

John Swigart (AFS-470) mentioned that the Advisory Circular 90-105 1/23/2009 is still a valid reference.

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 Divito

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:

No equivalent part 129 OpSpec, Aer Lingus authorized by their CAA to use MDA as a DA requested the same for their US operations.

Background part 121 and 135:

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. A C073 OpSpec for part 129.

 

  Discussion:

Kel Christiansen relayed that revision to the part 121 template and guidance are in process to accommodate the realities of differences in Charting/FMS displays/database programming. Kel reviewed the 121 OpSpec to clarify what the OpSpec is for some of the part 129 foreign air carriers who were not as familiar with the authorization, confirmed that Part 129 stakeholders are requesting it and took IOU to work on an equivalent draft for part 129. .

 

Status: Ongoing. Current mandatory revision to part 121 template implementation date is 2/28/2013. More to come on the Part 129 draft at May OSWG meeting.

 


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: Ongoing. Monitoring development and open for discussion.

 

 

12.  D095. Minimum Equipment List (MEL) Authorizations

FAA Lead : TBD

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):

Background

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.

Discussion:

Bob Davis (AFS-200/260) A D095 template change and accompanying Order 8900.1 guidance change is in process and will be in final coordination phase soon.

Status : Ongoing.

 

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:

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

 

Background:

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 Swigart 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.

 

Discussion:

 

Part 129: John briefed no other State to his knowledge has approved this type of procedure, which would involve training and fly ability. [OpSpec C-300 is for substitution in final approach segment when that navaid is out of service [D1] ]. 

 

Part 129 Status: Closed

 

Part 121 Refer to discussion under nest issue Ops Spec C055

 

 

 


14.  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:

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.

 

Discussion:

John Swigart: The revised MITRE study is completed, and the results will be published in an upcoming Federal Register.

The reason for the publications is that the study may have a significant impact on policy development. The MITRE study may result in provisions for use of RNAV/GPS approach minimums in the Continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii. It may not apply to all areas of the world due to concerns about significant gaps in satellite coverage in other parts of the world.

 

Until it is determined whether policy changes are forthcoming, AFS-470 recommends maximum use of AC90-107 NAVAID substitution provisions as outlined in the AIM Paragraph 1-2-3.

 

Status: Ongoing

 

 

15.  Joint Session Closing Remarks

 

 

Day 2 - AFTERNOON INTERNATIONAL 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

Bryant Welch reviewed the proposed change, draft OpSpecs, and the final rule – removal of definition of Cat IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc. The FAA still using the same definitions, they are just not going to be defined in the FAA’s regulations. In the future, expect the NOS Charts to depict only one minima for Cat III.

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

 

Danuta updated no change, still planning to decommission, waiting on completion of OpSpec A003 so that all changes can be processed together, less overall work for the inspectors and foreign air carriers. Inspector guidance and relevant job aid (D092) drafted.

 

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

 

Danuta updated no change, still planning to decommission, waiting on completion of OpSpec A003 so that all changes can be processed together, less overall work for the inspectors and foreign air carriers. Inspector guidance and relevant job aid (D092) drafted.

 

Status: Open

 

 

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

 

FAA Lead: Danuta Pronczuk, Madison Walton, Mike Frank

 

Industry Lead: Brian Miles

 

Danuta reviewed the new draft for incorporating OpSpecs: A014, B031 and C080; expects to have a draft for OSWG review by next meeting; iniated review with office of chief counsel, and AFS-400. The proposed draft will eliminated a significant number of cross referencing between OpSpecs and as such clarify the limitations to IFR and VFR enroute, correct the issues with B031.

Status: Open

 

 

6. OpSpec A001 (129.14): Issuance and Applicability

 

FAA Lead: Danuta Pronczuk

 

Danuta reviewed the change since last meeting. Namely: Removed the requirement to carry on board U.S. issued OpSpecs to 129.14. It is the State of the Operator’s responsibility to issue AOC and associated OpSpec to be carried on board. (See ICAO Annex 6, 4.2.1 and Appendix 6).

                      Note: foreign air carriers or persons must continue to comply with the part 129                     section 129.14 requirements.

Danuta also reviewed a new proposal submitted to AFS-50 and requested OSWG feedback - Add responsible FSDO/IFO/IFU details to include office name, addresses and principal inspectors (PI) details. Feedback from the floor was to go ahead and add as proposed. Danuta took IOU to incorporate as recommended and post the OpSpec for comment within the next few weeks at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/129opspecs/

Status: Open

 

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

 

FAA Lead: Danuta Pronczuk, Robert Jaffee, Mike Frank

 

Industry Lead:  

 

Danuta briefly reviewed the issue, and provided a status update. AFS-50 has not received any safety study to indicate a need for further review. Danuta checked with the OSWG to see if anyone had conducted any studies in this area that would require further review, still had any concerns that were not resolved. With no objections from the floor, Danuta moved the item to close.

 

Status: Closed

 

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, Chris Hope

 

Chris updated the group on the change to C051:

·              Removed nautical miles from table two

·              Added 1400 feet to 450 meters RVR conversion

·              Added the following language revised from C054:

                    No pilot may continue an approach past the final approach fix (FAF) or where a final approach fix is not used, begin the final approach segment of an instrument approach if the reported weather is below landing minimums. If the pilot has passed the FAF or begun the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure and then receives a weather report indicating below-minimum conditions the pilot may continue the approach to minimums.

 

Danuta added that the reason the language was necessary was because those are the requirements prescribed by the Adminstrator for U.S. air carriers and it differs from the ICAO Annex 6 standard. The ICAO standard (Annex 6 part I, 4.4.1) uses 1000 feet AGL to determine if a non precision approach can be continued.  

Look for posting for public comment expected in the next couple of weeks at: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/129opspecs/ .

 

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

 

Danuta checked to see if there were any problems, questions or concerns with the decommissioning or processing the change. No new issues. Agenda item was closed.

 

Status: Closed

 

10. Part 129 Rulemaking - Update

 

FAA Lead: Lorna John, Mike Frank, Danuta Pronczuk

 

Industry Lead: Brian Miles

 

No changes in status, except that Mike Frank is the FAA lead with Danuta as his backup.

 

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

 

 

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: John Conlon

 

Gordy reviewed the OpSpecs proposed change. 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. An example of an airport with a special airport Authorization (C050) is San Francisco. Gordy already completed a first draft of the combined OpSpec. John Conlon volunteered to be industry lead. Danuta took IOU to review/work with Gory the draft that Gordy put together for Part 121, to tailor it to Part 129. Expect to have the draft of the combined OpSpec at the next OSWG meeting.

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

 

Chris reviewed the OpSpec changes: new minima, terminology…. Significantly, since last meeting added 300/300/300 with HUD (same limitations as those imposed on US domestic air carriers), inspector guidance has been precoordinated between AFS-50 and AFS-400. John Conlon added that he reviewed the revised draft and it looked good from the industry perspective.

 

Look for the updated draft to be posted for comment in the next couple of weeks at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/129opspecs/

 

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:  

 

Danuta presented new draft language :

·              addition of aircraft while the foreing air carrier’s State has been assessed by the FAA as Category 2 – not meeting the minimum ICAO standards. [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].

·              Deleted redundancies,

·              added plain language.

 

Look for the updated draft to be posted for comment in the coming weeks at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/129opspecs/

 

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

 

Danuta checked to see if there were any problems, questions or conserns with the non mandatory changes. No new issues. Agenda item was closed.

 

Status: Closed

 

 

15. OpSpec B031: IFR En Route Limitations and Provisions

 

FAA Lead: Rolfe Dinwoodie, Danuta Pronczuk, Mike Frank

 

Industry Lead:   Jorge I. Londono

 

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 for some 60 foreign air carriers that are not authorized IFR enroute), and the accompanying decommissioning of A014. Meetings with the chief counsel had been initiated, and continuing. Danuta expects to finalize the draft in the next couple of months.

 

Status: Open

 

 

16. OpSpec A028: Aircraft Wet Lease Arrangements

 

FAA Lead: Danuta Pronczuk

 

Industry Lead: Brian Miles

 

Put the processing of the change on hold until OpSpec A029 is finished processing, and the provision of aircraft with crew guidance is out to prevent any confusion in inspector guidance, specifically version control. No adverse comments on the draft OpSpec posted for comment.

 

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

 

Mike reviewed as follows:  Ops Spec B034 does not apply to part 129, needs to be decommissioned. (B034 designed for US operators operating in Europe). Ops Spec B035 needs further review. RNAV below 18000 feet not addressed in B035. Reviewing to see if we need Q – route identified?

 

OpSpec Change goes together with the proposed D092 draft change.

 

Status: Open

 

 

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

 

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

 

Industry Lead:  

 

Danuta reviewed the revised draft, additional edits since last meeting, gave credit to Michael for his research into last meetings proposal, update to last column, and coming up with a single word (Maintenance) to automatically load aircraft M/M/S, Registration, and serial numbers into the table without interfering with other templates.  

To go along with new ICAO terminology, see Annex 6, navigation specification rephrased the heading for the last two columns to: For requiring a lateral navigation specifications. Also rephrased the last column in the OpSpec to: Performance specification, again this to go along with the new ICAO terminology.

ICAO has multiple references to maintenance program and continuous airworthiness. The FAA uses the term CAMP – Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program.   To rename the OpSpec as proposed could create confusion with CAMP and give the impression that the OpSpec was only for dry leased aircraft that are U.S. registered. The FAA is looking at the following title: “Continuous Airworthiness – Maintenance Program – U.S. Registered Airplanes.”

In coordination with Madison the associated inspector guidance and OpSpec job aids have also been drafted. The updated drafts are expected to be posted for comment in the next couple of weeks at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/129opspecs/

Status: Open

 

 

19. Data Link Communications

FAA Lead: Trent Bigler

Industry Lead: Brian Miles and David Oliver

Trent briefed the group on the OpSpec the FAA currently issues on Data Link Communications. Currently there is no OpSpec for Part 129. Trials are underway for Data Link Communication over US airspace. Michael clarified that for US registered aircraft pending results of the trials; data link over US airspace there may be a need to amend D OpSpecs as they relate to the maintenance program and data link communications.   (References to 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 reference any future changes).

AFS-400 is aware that AC is out of date, will update as appropriate. References to 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.     (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: John Blair, Chris Hope

Industry Lead:

Chris updated the work group on 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.   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. No specific date, for about three months in mid-year 2013. Questions from the floor on the specific date of closure. Chris took IOU, no exact date, expected after the new year. Question from Brian, part 129 chair – is the FAA going to publish a Notice to inform the 129s about the RNAV PRM changes to the OpSpecs so that the word gets out. Chris replied – Yes, a notice has been drafted.

 

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.

Post meeting update from John Notice announcing the change was put into coordination the week of 10/23/2012. The implementation is planned for June 2012. As far as getting the word out (in addition to the Notice), AFS-400 is briefing at:

SFO delay forum –done

October OSWG – done

Aeronautical Charting forum – done (10/24/2012)

Communication Navigation and Surveillance Task Force (CNS) – November 2012

Updating the AIM and Instrument Procedures Handbook. Future updates to AIP and the FAA PRM website.

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

Jeff Miller IATA brought up request for more standardization quicker turnarounds of OpSpecs request. Danuta reminded the work group to review 129.11 (d) which states in part that:

·              a foreign air carrier or foreign person must file an application to amend its operations specification …at least 90 days before the date proposed by the applicant for the amendment to become effective in cases of mergers, acquisition of airline operational assets….

·              at least 30 days before the date proposed by the applicant for the amendment to become effective in all other cases.

JJ stated that applications can not be processed without all the information provided. Danuta also asked that air carriers when adding an aircraft …provide the office with as much advanced notice as possible and not wait until the last minute to help with expeditious processing of requests, and make sure that air carriers are trained on and have the digital signature for WebOPSS. Mike also stated that OpSPecs that require headquarters approval take longer to process.

 

Comment from the floor – RNP AR approval takes a long time. Question from the floor – RNP AR:

·              What is the process – Chris Hope took the IOU to research;

·              When does a special nonpublic become public? Chris Hope briefed that some specials will never be public due to the number or the nature of TERPS waivers. Chris will do further research and brief the group at the next OSWG on specials converting to public approaches

 

Air India recommended that the FAA combine OpSpec for Cat 2 and Cat3. Chris Hope responded that AFS-400 would consider combining the two OpSpecs.