FAA/Aviation Industry Agenda for
OpSpec Working Group (OSWG)
2012-01

January 18-19, 2012

Wednesday Jan 18th: 1:00 PM - 5:00 PM *

Thursday Jan 19th: 9:00 AM – NOON

 

 

Hosted by FAA

Navy Memorial

701 Pennsylvania Ave

Washington , D.C.

 (phone: 202-737-2300)

 

* Wed. Jan 18th, 2012 - 9:00 am - noon Industry Pre-meeting

 

 

2012 Meeting Schedule:

Domestic Sessions

January 18-19, 2012

OSWG 2012-01

Washington , D.C.

 

Joint, Domestic and International Sessions

April 17-18,  2012

OSWG 2011-02

Washington , D.C.

 

Domestic Sessions

July 17-18, 2012

OSWG 2012-03

Washington D.C

Joint, Domestic and International Sessions

October (tbd) 2012

OSWG 2012-04

Washington , D.C.

 

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

                             Casey Seabright, Delta Airlines, Industry Chair

                        Rick Yuknavitch, American Airlines, Industry Vice Chair

                        Bob Davis, AFS-260, FAA Chair

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents

 

U.S. Domestic Session                                   

Part 121, 135, etc. (Operators for whom the U.S. is The State of the Operator)         

 

Convene.

Opening remarks.

Roll call—

Chairperson’s discussion.

1.  C050:  Special Pilot-in-Command Qualification Airports.

Standing Agenda Item:

2.  Safety Enhancement S400:  CAST Safety Enhancements.

3.  C073:  IFR Approach Procedures Using Vertical Navigation

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

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

6.  B343:  Fuel Reserves for Flag and Supplemental Operations.

7. C067:  Special Airport Authorizations, Provisions, and Limitations

8.  C054:  Special Limitations and Provisions for Instrument Approach Procedures and IFR Landing Minimums

9.  C051:  Terminal Instrument Procedures

10.  A029:  Aircraft Interchange Agreement for Part 121

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

12.  C055:  Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums.

13.  C055:  Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums.

14.  Stakeholder Survey

15.  WebOPSS Update:

16.  A010:  Aviation Weather

17.  A025:  Electronic Record Keeping Systems.

18.  B036/B054:  Class II Navigation

19. C059:  Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations

20.  D084  Special Flight Permit with Continuous Authorization to Conduct Ferry Flights

21.  D081: Parts Pool Agreement Authorization

22. D301:  Aircraft Network Security Program (ANSP)

Industry lead: TBD

23:  New Business / Closing remarks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

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

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

Goals for 2012

 

Agenda:

·              Ensure there is an Industry and FAA lead for each topic

·              Additional Agenda items

 

Emphasize the updated OSWG Procedures Guide

 

Clean up Roster

 

 

Bob Davis – Opening remarks.

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

 

Status:

Continuing.

______________________________________________________________________

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

FAA Lead:  Keeton Zachary, Greg Michael

Industry Lead:  Steve Bush

Standing Agenda Item:

 

Issue statement:

S400 is a data collection tool intended to gather critical information about the voluntary implementation of Safety Enhancements.

 

Background:

These Safety Enhancements were developed by the joint government and industry Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) over the last several years.

The intent of this paragraph is to gather information on Safety Enhancement implementations only.  

Principal Inspectors should not make safety determinations from the information provided on S400.

 

Intended Outcome:

  1. Educate Safety Inspectors that completing S400 is voluntary and that no compliance determinations should be made as a result of S400.
  2. Modify WebOPSS so that information in S400 is de-identified upon entry.
  3. Ensure information in S400 is FOIA protected
  4. Eliminate the need for participation by the Principal Inspector (signature)

 

Note:  Discuss beta test program and June 20th letter to AFS-260.

 

Update: Legal Interpretation on protection of data

 

Status:

Monitor

______________________________________________________________________

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

FAA Lead :  Kel Christianson AFS-470

Industry Lead :  Joe Devito

 

Issue Statement:

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 following aircraft and procedures as specified in this operations specification.

 

Background:

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

 

Intended Outcome:

Request update from Industry Lead

 

Status:

Open

Update to be provided by Kel Christiansen and/or Joe Devito.

______________________________________________________________________

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

FAA Lead: John Swigart, AFS-470

Industry Lead(s): Rich Yuknatvich

 

Issue statement:

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

 

Background:

Request relevant background information from industry Lead.

 

Intended Outcome:

Updated guidance and template changes

Related guidance in 8260.46D was changed 09/30/11 and is posted as guidance for C063. Revised 8900.1 guidance and template changes are in process and should be posted for comment soon.

 

Status:

Update by John Swigert

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

FAA Lead :  John Swigart, AFS-470

Industry Lead :  Jim Winkleman

 

Issue Statement:

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

 

Background:

A public instrument flight procedure (IFP) is one that has been promulgated under 14 CFR Part 97.    Often times Special instrument flight procedures that have been authorized for multiple users have been referred to as "Public Specials".   In actuality, these are not "public" procedures although some 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.

 

Intended Outcome:

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

Status:

Open

AFS-470 is waiting for an interpretation from Legal.

 

Update to be provided by John Swigart.

 

 

 

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

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

Industry Lead(s):  Steve Kuhar

 

Issue Statement:

A short statement summarizing the core issue is requested from the Industry lead.

 

Background:

OpSpec B343 is a nonstandard authorization that has been granted to only a few international air carriers.  This is a performance-based authorization using fuel burn data and statistical analysis within certain criteria as justification. Although the airlines are not experiencing any problems or concerns, a single (minor) low fuel event caused the FAA some concern. Hence, for now the FAA will not consider allowing less than a 5% fuel reserve and, until recently, was not granting any new approvals.

 

FAA is working toward a PBM fuel reserves model similar to the draft ICAO Annex 6. FAA requests that carriers review and comment on Annex 6 (draft) through IATA or ATA. Once the new Annex 6 is settles/issued, B343 should be resurrected.

 

Intended Outcome:

PBM Fuel Reserves availability for US carriers

 

Status:

Monitor

Discuss whether this should be removed from agenda.

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana' Special Airport Authorizations, Provisions, and Limitations

FAA Lead:

Industry Lead(s): Jim Winkleman

 

Issue statement:

Concern that there two paragraphs (a & b) that address two different specific airport issues but a single table to list the airports.

 

Intended Outcome:

Inspector Scott Stacy requests that the issue be addressed and to consider adding a second table. The result would allow for one table for each specific issue.

 

Status:

Update

 

 

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

FAA Lead:   POC from AFS-410 TBD

Industry Lead :  John Cowan

 

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.

 

Intended Outcome:

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).

 

Status:

Open

(In coordination with B036) the review and development of new language continues and will likely take another 7-9 months (May –July 2012)

 

Update from Madison Walton

 

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

FAA Lead:  

Industry Lead:   Andy Newcomer

 

Issue Statement:

Update language in C051 due to JAR-OPS has been replaced with EU-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.

 

Intended Outcome:

Replace reference of JAR-OPS with that of EU-OPS.

 

Status:  

Open

Update from Industry Lead.

 

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

F AA Lead:   David Catey (AFS-200) for Part 121;;Larry Buehler for part 135

Industry Lead :  Rich Carpenter

 

Issue Statement:

Definition of Primary operator is not correct.

 

Background:

Authorizes part 121 certificate holders to use aircraft interchange agreements with other operators.

 

Intended Outcome:

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

 

Status:

Open

Update from FAA leads

 

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

FAA Lead:   John Swigart, AFS-470

Industry Lead:   Jim Winkleman, Rich Yuknavitch, Jackson Seltzer

 

Issue Statement:

Suitable Navaid substitution authorizations are needed in 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.

 

Intended Outcome:

Provide a mechanism to authorize navaid sub procedures that meets the needs of both Industry and FAA.

 

Status:

Open/Monitor

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

Status of Mitre study.

 

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana' Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums.

FAA Lead :   John Swigart, AFS-470

Industry Lead:   Jim Winkleman, Andy Newcomer

 

Issue Statement:

Unmonitored navaids are a problem, 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.

 

Intended outcome:

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

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

 

Status:

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

Update on Mitre study requested. What the parameters of the MITRE study are and can they be made available?

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

 

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana' Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums.

FAA Lead :   John Swigart, AFS-470

Industry Lead:   Jim Winkleman, Andy Newcomer

 

Issue Statement:

Unmonitored navaids are a problem, 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.

 

Intended outcome:

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

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

 

Status:

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

Update on Mitre study requested. What the parameters of the MITRE study are and can they be made available?

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

 

 

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

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).


 



 

Day 2 Session

January 19, 2012

9:00 – 12:00

 

 

 

Convene. 

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

Standing Agenda Item:

FAA Lead :  Bob Davis – AFS-260

 

Brief:

·                Current status

·                Near term developments

·                Far term developments

 

Status:

Continuing

 

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

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

Industry Lead : Casey Seabright, Delta

 

Issue Statement:

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

 

Background:

 

Status:

Update: Draft A010 revision has cleared legal and is being reviewed internally by the Document Control Board (DCB). It is anticipated that OpSpec templates, 5 sections of guidance and a Notice will be posted on the public website sometime the week of 9 January.

 

 

span class=Heading1Char A025:  Electronic Record Keeping Systems.

FAA Lead:  Theo Kessaris AFS-260

Industry Lead:  Casey Seabright, Jim Winkelman

 

Issue Statement :

A025 has become a dumping ground for many authorizations that may not be appropriate for this paragraph.

 

Background :

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

 

Intended Outcome :

Transform A025 from being a dumping ground and keep it only as a depository for primarily electronic record keeping plus an optional storehouse for electronic signatures and electronic manuals.

Amend A025 to include tables for specific approvals such as flight planning systems, training records repositories and other electronic/software applications.

Status :

On Hold

Note: Industry would like to form a subgroup to help write the new OpSpec and

requests a very generic high level approach to recording recordkeeping since new technology virtually requires electronic recordkeeping for many applications. The technology, stability, and reliability are no longer a new approach and should become accepted (at some level) as the norm.

 

Update from Theo Kessaris

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

FAA Lead: Madison Walton

Industry Lead:   John Cowan

 

Issue Statement:

Both of these OpSpecs include the same provision in paragraph b. (4) which refers to a required gross navigation error check using an “airways navigation facility”.  GPS is understood to be an accepted “airways navigation facility” and as such, a clarification is needed to prevent misunderstandings. Additionally, while OpSpec 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 OpSpec should not contain provisions, limitations or requirements that are not also contained in the OpSpec, the B036 job aid should be revised to match the OpSpec:

  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:

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.

 

Job aid:

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.

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.

 

Status: Open

Update on Proposed Language (John Cowan)

Update from FAA on Operational Safety Assessment and harmonization issues relating to coast in/coast out nav accuracy checks and plotting.

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

FAA Lead:  

Industry Lead:   Steve Kuhar

 

Issue Statement:

The charting requirement to have the statement “Category II ILS – Special Aircrew & Aircraft Certification Required" is superfluous and unneeded.

 

Background:

If it is critical to alert a flightcrew that the approach chart is to be used only by special aircrew why not also alert the pilot that “only instrument rated pilots are authorized”, or for that matter “only used by licensed pilots”. This is an unreasonable charting requirement which only serves to clutter the chart.

 

Intended Outcome:

Remove the requirement for this chart notation.

 

Status:   Update

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

 

FAA Lead:  

Industry Lead:   Tom Taylor, FedEx Express

 

Issue Statement:

1.          OpSpec 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.          OpSpec 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 OpSpec 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 OpSpec, to be issued to a base where repairs, alterations, or maintenance are to be performed or to a point of storage.  Within the D084 OpSpec 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 OpSpec 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:

Is it the FAA’s intent that a certificate holder with a D084 OpSpec 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 OpSpec 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?

 

Status:   NEW Agenda Item

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana' Parts Pool Agreement Authorization

 

Issue Statement:

Does D081 allow for “parts borrowing” or not?

 

Background:

Can “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?

 

Intended Outcome:

Does parts borrowing fall under the authority of parts pooling?

 

Status:

Industry requests an update

 

 

span class=Heading1Char

FAA Lead: Rochelle Brisco (AFS-360)

span style='font-family:Verdana'

 

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:

OpSpec that will require c arriers 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.

 

Status: Open

 

Update from AFS-360

 

span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Verdana'

 

 

Mike Keller

a.)      A001: When an AC has to divert to an offline station due to say weather and an overspeed inspection required to be accomplished before going back into revenue service, the cargo has to be unloaded. When that station does not have the equipment to remove the cargo and AC is safe for flight allowing it to be ferried with cargo should be allowed.

 

 

-                A027:  There appears to be differences in the 8900 guidance for LAHSO verses what A027 states.  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.  Requesting clarification regarding this topic.

 

______________________________________________________________________