FAA/Aviation Industry Meeting Minutes from
Ops Spec Working Group (OSWG) 2012-02

April 17th and 18th , 2012

* Tues. Apr. 17th, 2012 - 9:00 am - noon   Domestic Industry Pre-meeting

TUESDAY, APRIL 17th : 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM – DOMESTIC SESSION

Wednesday, April 18th :  9:00 AM - NOON - Joint Session 

Wednesday, April 18th : 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM – International Session

 

Hosted by FAA

Heritage Center (Navy Memorial)

Washington , DC

 

 

Future Meeting Schedule:

Domestic Sessions

July 17-18, 2012

OSWG 2012-03

Washington , D.C.  

Domestic, Joint, and International Sessions

October 16-17,   2012

OSWG 2012-03

Washington , D.C.  

 

Chairpersons:  

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

                              Casey Seabright, Delta, Industry Chair

                              Rick Yuknavich, American Airlines, Industry Vice Chair

                              Bob Davis, AFS-260, FAA Chair

 

International (Part 129)

Brian Miles, Emirates, Industry Chair

David Oliver, Qantas Airways Limited, Industry Vice Chair

Danuta Pronczuk, AFS-52, FAA Chair

Mike Frank, AFS-52, FAA Vice Chair

 

AFS Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, Manager: Les Smith

AFS International Programs and Policy Division Manager: John Barbagallo  

 

IFO/IFU/SEA FSDO Representatives to the Part 129 OSWG:   David Krueger (DFW IFO), Dave Henthorn (LAX IFO), Rolfe Dinwoodie and Bob Bianco (ROC and ALB IFU), Herbert H. Herzog III,  W. Scott Schweizer and Patrick Crowley (ANC IFU), J.J. (MIA IFO), Robert L. Jaffe (NY IFO), and David May (SEA FSDO)

 

IATA Representative:   Jeffrey T. Miller

 

Meeting Location: Heritage Center (Navy Memorial)

701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 2004

                               (Phone: 202-737-2300)


Table of Contents

 

U.S. Domestic Session

Part 121, 135, etc.

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

Joint Session

Part 121, 129, 135 etc.

Foreign (Non U.S.)

Air Carriers & Persons

Plus

Operators for whom the

U.S. is
The State of the Operator

International Session

Part 129

Foreign (Non U.S.)

Air Carriers & Persons

 

1.   Convene                                          

1.   Convene                                      

1.   Convene                                              

2.   Chairman’s Discussion               

2.  WebOPSS Update                      

 2.  Ops Specs B034, B035,                   

3a  Ops Spec C050                             

3.  ICAO Register of AOCs             

 3.  Ops Spec D092                                  

3b.  Ops Spec C050

4.  EASA third country operators    

 4.  Ops Spec B039                                   

4.   Ops Spec A010

5.  Ops Spec A029                           

 5.  Ops Spec B046                                   

5.   Ops Spec C081

6.  Ops Specs A003/C091              

 6.  Part 129 Rulemaking                        

6.   Ops Spec C073

7.  Ops Spec D301 Update

 7.  Ops Spec  A001 (129.14 template)

7.   Ops Spec C054

8.  Ops Spec C063                          

 8.  Ops Specs  A006
       (agent for service in US)
                  

8.   Ops Spec A001                              

9.  Ops Spec C055                          

 9.   Ops Spec C054                                  

9.   Ops Spec  A025                             

10. Ops Spec C059                         

10. Ops Specs A036 & A040                  

10.  Ops Spec B343                            

11. Ops Spec C051                         

11. Ops Specs C056 & C057                

11a.  Ops Spec C300                          

12.  Ops Spec C067                        

12. Ops Specs C075                               

11b.  Ops Spec C300                          

13. Ops Spec A027                          

13. Ops Specs B051 & B056                  

12.  Ops Spec  B041                           

14.  A3XX (WSDDM)

14. Ops Spec B031                                  

13.  Ops Spec D081                            

15. Ops Spec B046

15. Ops Spec A028                                   

14.  Ops Spec D084                            

16. B046          

16. Ops Spec C060                                  

15.  Ops Specs B036/B054               

17. Closing

17. FSIMS, and faa.gov, and Federal Register subscriptions

16.  Ops Spec  A117

 

 18.  Closing

17.  NOT an Ops Spec  S400

 

 

18.  Day 1 Closing Remarks

 

 

 

U.S. Domestic Session

17 April 2012   1- 4:30pm

 

 

1.                Convening Administrative Remarks

Roster and Roll Call/Introductions:

Casey Seabright, Industry Chairperson: A copy of this meeting’s Roster will be sent in a separate electronic file to all those on the OSWG email distribution list. If you did not attend and wish to be on the roster, please contact the applicable FAA or industry chairperson.  (Default: Rich.Yuknavich@aa.com ). 

 

 

2.            Convening Chairperson’s Remarks

Bob Davis, FAA Chairperson thanked the Navy Memorial staff for their support. Bob also thanked all the out-of-towers for traveling to D.C. He mentioned that having the meetings permanently in D.C. permits more FAA headquarters. Bob recognized the increased expense to carriers and CMO/FSDO members, and hoped that participants tried to save hotel expenses by staying in Crystal City or Alexandria.

 

 


3a. C050: Special Pilot-in-command Qualification Airports (KMMH)

FAA Lead: Bob Davis, AFS-260 

Industry Lead: Steve Bush, Horizon Airlines

 Issue Statement:

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

 Background:

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

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

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

Examples below:

•      High terrain in the immediate vicinity

•      Limited maneuvering area

•      Significant unlighted terrain affecting night operations

•      Complex instrument procedures

•      Significant winds, turbulence and windshear

•      Unique communications and surveillance considerations

Meeting Discussions: Steve Bush described details of his on-site airport assessment. Please contact Steve if you have specific questions.

Intended Outcome:

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

Action Items:

In process

        

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Bob Davis

UNK

Steve Bush

 

3b. C050: Special Pilot-in-command Qualification Airports (BAIR)

FAA Lead: Bob Davis, AFS-260    Industry Lead:

 Issue Statement:

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

 Background:

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

Meeting Discussions: Steve Bush described details of his on-site airport assessment. Please contact Steve if you have specific questions.

Intended Outcome:

Add Akureyri, Iceland (BAIR) to the Special Pilot-In-Command Qualification list maintained by AFS-200 in association with C-050.

Action Items:

Above proposal is in process. Bob Davis reminded industry reps that proposals to remove upgraded airports are also part of the Ops Spec C050 process.        

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Bob Davis

UNK

 

 

4.             A010: Aviation Weather

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

Industry Lead: Casey Seabright, Delta

Issue Statement:

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

Background:

As of the last meeting in January 2012, most of the draft guidance was e-mailed to OSWG members for review.   The guidance is still being formatted and will hopefully be ready for posting on the FAA public site on or about the time of the April 2012 OSWG meeting.  

Meeting Discussions:

Status:

If formatting isn’t complete in time for the meeting, we will email the OSWG members when we have posted everything to the public site for final comment. Bob Davis reported that the changes are in the final AFS-1 signature process.

The question was asked why a separate table item was necessary for severe weather notification and forecasting. Leo Hollis stated that the requirement is set forth in 14CFR121.101 but there has not been a tracking mechanism in the Ops Spec.

Intended Outcome: After template and guidance publication certification by POIs or dispatch inspectors should not be onerous.

Action Items:

Final actions by FAA; certification efforts by carriers. 

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Theo Kessaris;
Leo Hollis

 

 

 

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

FAA Lead: Kel Christiansen, AFS-470

Industry Lead: Jim Winkleman, Alaska Airlines

 Issue Statement:

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

 Background:

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

Meeting Discussions: 

Kel Christiansen sounded positive about a final assessment from legal soon. .

Intended Outcome:

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

Action Items:

In process

      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Kel Christiansen

UNK

Jim Winkleman

 


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

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

Meeting Discussions: 

Kel Christianson reminded those carriers with fleets NOT equipped with VNAV but using CDFA procedures (Constant Descent Final Approach) that they must still add 50 feet to the published MDA.  

Intended Outcome:

AFS 470 plans to post draft on web site for comment

Action Items:

In process      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Kel Christianson AFS-470

UNK

Joe Devito

 

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

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. Jackson Seltzer (United) recommended standardization between C054 and other Ops Specs governing approach criteria. Suggestion by Bob Davis was for coordination with industry and participation by Brant Welch, Gordy Rother and Jerry Ostronic.

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

Meeting Discussions: 

Bryant Welch stated that the proposed draft is posted on the draft document website:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/opspecs/

The changed text is as follows:

(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).

 

Bryant said he would entertain suggested language that harmonizes with recent Ops Spec C060 revision.

UPS (Steve Kuhar) 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).

Similar concerns were voiced by John Cowan of United.

Bryant Welch said he would consider all comments concerning the draft change to the Ops Spec,

 

Intended Outcome:

Remove ambiguity in the current Ops Spec concerning which CFR language is “Appropriate”.

Satisfy industry concerns about application of 14CFR121.195 (b).

Action Items:

Send comments concerning draft proposal to Bryant Welch 

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Bryant Welch

UNK

John Cowan

 

8.  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. The carrier did not charge for the convenience of the cargo. An inspectors interpretation is that there was still a violation of maintenance ferry flight restrictions because a cargo fee rebate engenders good will for the with the customer and would probably generate future revenue.  

Meeting Discussions: 

Bob Davis researching remedy. The focus now is to determine if additional or revised 8900.1 guidance will provide a solution short of CFR changes.

Intended Outcome:

Allow for some reasonable flexibility in application of the rules.

Action Items:

In process

      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Bob Davis

UNK

Mike Keller

 

9. 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 digital document or program 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.

Meeting Discussions

Mike Keller:, American: In past discussions,  requested a very generic high level approach to recording recordkeeping since new technology virtually requires electronic recordkeeping for most processes.. The technology, stability, and reliability are no longer in question and should become accepted (at some level) as the norm.

Steve Kuhar, FEDEX, suggested a separate Ops Spec for electronic manuals or allowing a general authorization for electronic manuals without requiring a specific Ops Spec listing for each new manual. Eventually all manuals will only be electronic. 

Casey Seabright, Delta, (OSWG Chair) volunteered to work with Jim Winkleman, Alaska, and Theo Kessaris to draft guidance proposals.

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.

Action Items:

Possible teleconference discussions.   

Persons Responsible

Deadline

FAA: Theo  Kessaris

UNK

Industry: Casey Seabright;
Jim Winkleman

 


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

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

Industry Lead: Steve Kuhar

Issue Statement:

Carriers which have not been issued Ops Spec B343 (All except two have not) are frustrated at the extremely slow pace of progress in expanding the option to more carriers.

 Background:

Ops Spec 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) highly publicized low fuel event caused the FAA some concern. Hence, for now the FAA will not consider allowing less than a 5% fuel reserve and, is 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.

The FAA would like to table this issue until ICAO performance parameters are agreed upon. 

Meeting Discussions: 

Steve Kuhar, FEDEX, expressed frustration at linking additional approval to a slow ICAO process.

John Cowan, United, and Rich Yuknavich, American,  asked for and received confirmation that their carrier track records using five percent authority has been excellent

Intended Outcome:

PBM Fuel Reserves availability for all US carriers

Action Items:

Review draft Annex 6 and comment through IATA or ATA.

Industry provide feedback to chairpersons on whether to temporarily table this issue.    

Persons Responsible

Deadline

FAA: Gordy Rother, Dave Burnham, Leo Hollis

UNK

Industry: Steve Kuhar,

Casey Seabright, Andy Newcomer

 

 

11a. 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 Leads :  Jim Winkleman, Rich Yuknavich, Jackson Seltzer

 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-language 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 

Meeting Discussions

See Item 11b

Intended Outcome:

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

Action Items:

Awaiting completion of FAA Ops Safety Assessment 

Persons Responsible

Deadline

John Swigart

UNK

Jim Winkleman, Rich Yuknavich, Jackson Seltzer

11b. 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 Leads :  John Cowan

 Issue Statement:

There is confusion as to if a reference in C300 to “an alternate airport” is intended to include ETOPS and Takeoff Alternates (which was never the intent).

 Background:

C300 was developed to provide standard methodology for authorizing NAVAID sub procedure for approach operations.  The current template is unclear as to the specific type of alternate airports for which its limitations apply.

Meeting Discussions: 

General industry satisfaction with small gain in flexibility.

Intended Outcome:

Clarify the Ops Spec reference to read “a destination alternate airport” as shown below:

 

(11) These procedures may not be used for planning purposes at a destination alternate airport unless the operator conducts these operations with RNAV equipment using WAAS as an input

Action Items:

Monitor  

Persons Responsible

Deadline

John Swigart

UNK

John Cowan

 

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

FAA Lead: Gordy Rother  Industry Lead: Steve Kuhar

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

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. 

Meeting Discussions: 

An FAA representative mentioned that Ops Spec B041 is needed if for no other reason than to keep track of how many carriers are using non-ETOPS planning for the North Atlantic. With upcoming changes in the CPCLD and ADS-B environment such carrier tracking is critical

Intended Outcome:

To determine: Is the 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.

 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.

Action Items: In process

        

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Gordy Rother

UNK

Steve Kuhar

 


13. D81:  Parts Pool Agreement Authorization

FAA Leads: TBD AFS 300

Industry Lead :  Mike Keller

 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?

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

Meeting Discussions: 

There was no AFS-300 representation at this meeting.

Rich Yuknavich, American, mentioned that, for each listed airport that is also a C050 PIC Special, they list the C050 issues and mitigation strategies, then address C081 special procedures and finally differentiate any other unique issues. This avoids confusion about which mitigation strategies apply.to which Ops Spec. Perhaps a combined Ops Spec would be work better, but it would be fairly long.

Intended Outcome:

Determine if parts borrowing falls under the authority of parts pooling.

Action Items:

Ongoing FAA Research

Persons Responsible

Deadline

 

UNK

Mike Keller;

Rich Yuknavich

 

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

FAA Leads: TBD AFS 300

Industry Lead :  Tom Taylor, FedEx Express

 Issue Statement:

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.

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:

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.

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.

Meeting Discussions

There was no AFS-300 representation at this meeting.

Rich Yuknavich, American, mentioned that, for each listed airport that is also a C050 PIC Special, they list the C050 issues and mitigation strategies, then address C081 special procedures and finally differentiate any other unique issues. This avoids confusion about which mitigation strategies apply.to which Ops Spec. Perhaps a combined Ops Spec would be work better, but it would be fairly long.

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 c 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?

Action Items:

Ongoing FAA Research

Persons Responsible

Deadline

 

UNK

Tom Taylor

Rich Yuknavich

 

15. B036/B054:  Class II Navigation

FAA Lead: Madison Walton  Industry Lead: John Cowan

 Issue Statement:

Both of these Ops Specs include the same provision in paragraph b. (4) which refers to a required gross navigation error check using an “airways navigation facility”:

 

(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.

 

GPS is understood to be an accepted “airways navigation facility” and as such, a clarification is needed to prevent misunderstandings. Additionally, 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:

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.

Meeting Discussions:  Madison Walton, presented the verbiage below as a strawman for future discussion about revisions to B036/054:

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

(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.

Meeting Discussions:

John Cowan, United,  strongly urged that the related Ops Spec Job Aids and Advisory Circulars be amended also:

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.

Meeting Discussions:

Per Mark Steinbicker, AFS-402: 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/SatNav 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.

Intended Outcome: Update Coast-out/Coast-In procedures to reflect advances in navigation systems and still account for carriers with older equipment.

Action Items:

Provide comments to FAA Leads concerning the proposed Ops Spec verbiage and related guidance suggestions. 

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Madison Walton

UNK

John Cowan

 

16.  A117 Fatigue Risk Management

FAA Lead: Dale Roberts     Industry Lead: TBD

 Issue Statement:

Ops Spec 117 will become effective concurrent with effective dates of Rulemaking. There are three associated Advisory Circulars: AC 117-3 Fitness for Duty; AC117-2 Fatigue Training, and AC 117-1 Onboard Crew rest Facilities.

 Background:

With the issuance and impending compliance date of the new regulations, it is imperative to provide guidance and implementation documents.  

Meeting Discussions:  Dale Roberts was not in attendance.

Intended Outcome:

To develop information for both industry and FAA to implement the provisions of the regulation.

Status:

AC 117 -1 Onboard Crew Rest Facilities is posted on the draft document website.

Action Items: Industry submit comments on the draft AC 117-1

        

Persons Responsible

Deadline

 

UNK

 

 

 

17. S400: CAST Safety Enhancements

FAA Lead: Bob Davis

Industry Leads: Monty Montgomery, United; Rich Yuknavich, American; Mike Davis, U.S. Airways.

 Issue Statement:

The FAA has made a financial commitment to CAST, the Commercial Aviation Safety Team program and oversight agencies would like a means of gauging the overall acceptance and success of CAST,

 Background:

Bob Davis.

S400 is not an Ops Spec. It is a document or perhaps multiple “S”-XXX documents to anonymously track carrier adoption of the voluntary Safety Enhancement recommendations of the Commercial Aviation Safety Team or CAST composed of  FAA/Military/Manufacturers/Unions/Airline Industry/Trade Groups. The WebOPSS system is being used to leverage the capabilities of the system.

Meeting Discussions:

Phase I Beta testing has been underway with U.S. Airways and United. American and American Eagle Airlines will participate in Phase II testing. Only three of the currently published 75 SEs are being used for Beat testing, two concerning Ops and one concerning maintenance. 

Intended Outcome: Identify problem areas during Beta testing.

Action Items:

Testing in  process

      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Bob Davis

UNK

Monty Montgomery, United; Rich Yuknavich, American; Mike Davis, U.S. Airways ABCDE

 

20.    Chairperson’s Closing Remarks

No substantive remarks

 


Joint, (U.S. Domestic and International), Session

April 18, 9am – 12:30pm

 

1. Convening Administrative Remarks

Roster and Roll Call/Introductions:

Casey Seabright, (U.S Domestic Industry Chairperson), and Brian Miles (International Industry Chair), provided brief opening/welcoming remarks to all attendees.  The international roster was sent around the room.

Casey Seabright,: A copy of this meeting’s Roster will be sent in a separate electronic file to all those on the OSWG email distribution list. If you did not attend and wish to be on the roster, please contact the applicable FAA or industry chairperson.  (Default: Rich.Yuknavich@aa.com). 

Self Introductions – all.  [ Japan Airlines (All Nippon Airways CO., LTD), Avianca – Columbia,  Antonov,  Aer Lingus, Bahamas Air, Biman Bangladesh, Air Canada, Emirates, China Southern Airlines, China Airlines, Quantas, LAN, Volga-Dnepr, Russian Air Bridge Cargo,  Delta, Fedex, United, UPS, Alaska, Net Jets, AmeriJet International, Inc., Southwest, ……..  IATA, EASA, NBAA, ALPA, Hogan and Hartson, Alford, Clausen& McDonald, LLC, FAA subject matter experts from Flight Standards divisions (AFS-50, AFS-200, AFS-300, AFS-400..), FAA legal (AGC-200), IFO/IFU representatives (Miami, NY, Anchorage, ROC and ALB)….]

 

 

2.            WebOPSS Update

FAA Lead: Bob Davis AFS-260

Next program enhancement to the WebOPSS system should be implemented no later than the end of May. There will be three new features:

1.            The effective date can be made to be different from the date on which the first digital signature was transcribed.

2.            The system will be Internet Explorer 9 compatible.

3.            There will be the capability to create a reports function output that contains all the information that the ICAO format Ops Spec synopsis contains.

 

 

3. ICAO Register of AOCs

FAA Lead: Danuta Pronczuk, Bob Davis 

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

                            Jeff Miller, Susan Pfingstler IATA

 Issue Statement:

Progress report on developments of an International Register of AOCs.
(Update for the briefing was provided/coordinated with International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO).

 Background:

From 2011-04 meeting:

a.       Late June – Pre-final Software developed

b.      Late June until mid-July – CAUC (Civil Aviation University of China)  internal student to internally do beta-testing and simulate simultaneous data entering  

c.       Late July – Present the final product to Nancy Graham/ICAO

d.      August – CAUC to come to Montreal to present the final Product

                 i.      Invite Canada for 1st Beta-Testing at the same time (TC – Transport                                                           Canada-  is onboard)

                 ii.     Other states willing to participate: Australia, Singapore at this time.

e.      Until end of 2011 – Beta-testing with different selected States

f.       The aircraft information DB is operational since November 2010, and we hope that the Intl Registry of AOC will be operational at the end of 2011 or Q1 2012. The Civil Aviation University of China will install it on our server by mid-November... then it is internal testing and then testing by a few States (Australia, Canada, Singapore, UAE, and hopefully a European State). (Update from Henry D., provided on 10/01/2011)

 

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

 

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

Meeting Discussions: 

Susan Pfingstler, IATA, provided an update to the group on the latest developments.   Testing on going.  The plan is to progressively add more member States so as not to overwhelm the system.  Brian Miles added that Emirates scheduled to have their information uploaded shortly. 

 

Henry Defalque also provided the following update via e-mail on 04 03 2012: 

 

The software application is under test by ICAO IT people and some States and should be migrated to ICAO servers by mid-April. Testing is thus on-going, including an XTML exchange system for uploads. ICAO will normally open the access to more and more States as the application is maturing with full access normally scheduled by end of summer.

The second Phase is being worked upon with IATA and ICAO developers. This will gradually accept more documents uploaded by the operator. If the document is not in English, the operator has all to gain to provide a translation in English.

 

The search engine will be developed with users’ inputs. Guessing that the documents will be held in a series of standard directories such as: Insurance, flight operations documents, …

 

Q. John Cowan, United asked what is the target date for final implementation.

A. No estimate at this time.

Intended Outcome:

Elimination of requirement to carry onboard each aircraft,  a copy of all the certificating country Operations Specifications or a synopsis of the Ops Specs in the ICAO format. 

Action Items:

In process

        

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Danuta Pronczuk, Bob Davis Monica G.

UNK

 

 

4. EASA Third Country Operators

FAA Lead: John Masters,  AFS-51, Darcy Reed, AFS-52

Industry Leads: TBD

 Issue Statement:

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

 (Non-European Union member commercial carriers.)

Background:

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

 

The proposal for one authorization for operations in the EU, one assessment methodology, (a validation process that aims at verifying the reliability of the originally certified information), was first promulgated in April of 2011.

It is still in the prepatory process for eventual submission to the European Parliament for ratification.  The target date for that is estimated to be towards the end of 2013 or early 2014. Until then individual country national rules and ICAO rules apply. After implementation, if any aspect of operations is not covered by ICAO standards then EASA standards will apply.  After ratification, there will need to be a period of harmonization with current bilateral agreements between EU and other non-EU countries.

There may be some bilateral agreements between the EU and certain third countries (for example the US and the EU), with both parties agreeing to accept the others authorizations with no added assessments necessary.

 

Arthur stated that the reason that  EASA is pursuing this assessment methodology is that they have issues with the current international assessment methodologies;

USOAP is too limited in scope

The IOSA program is limited to assessment of individual airlines and does not address the soundness of the national civil aviation authority.

 

The carrier assessment methodology is envisioned to be based on the perception of safety level and compliance fidelity.  Following is the EASA Assessment criteria:

                How capable is the State in pro-actively managing the aggregated risk of all its certified operators?

                How much credible data is available to us from that State?

                Does the EU have data that provides confidence that an operator is capable of operating in compliance with international standards?

                What is the risk exposure to EU citizens by the intended scope of operations?

 

For most carriers and countries the assessment would be little more than a desktop review. The next more involved level is detailed consultation and audits. The most demanding assessment methodology would be on-site visits by inspection teams. There may be assessment fees involved with the initial application and renewal, (flat fee estimated at $1500 euros for fast track review, or an h ourly rate). There is provision in the EU law for charging fees for such assessments.  There is also the possibility that the cost of these assessments will be born by the EU taxpayers, no cost to the third country operator.

 

Ramp inspection will continue to be performed by national aviation officials but they should use EASA checklist criteria, and not country specific audit criteria. However there is no guarantee that individual countries will not use their own inspection criteria instead of using the EASA standards.

 

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.

 

Meeting Discussions: 

 The question was asked whether the rumor that EASA would be issuing pilot licenses is true. Mr. Beckland stated that it was not true.

Brian Miles of Emirates asked what the carrier certification fees would be. No estimate.  Brian also asked if an operator has a place of business in EU would that exclude the operator from the third country requirement.  Arthur said that since it would not be the principle place of business then no, the operator would still have to comply with the third country requirements.

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

Action Items:

Monitor status.  Update at the Oct. 17th 2012 meeting.

        

Persons Responsible

Deadline

John Masters, Darcy Reed, Danuta Pronczuk

UNK

 

5.    A029:  Aircraft Interchange Agreement for Part 121

FAA Lead: David Catey (AFS-200) for Part 121; Danuta Pronczuk for Part 129; Larry Buehler for part 135

Industry Lead: Rich Carpenter

 Issue Statement:

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

 Background:

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

Meeting Discussions: 

Danuta Pronczuk: The associ ated guidance that goes with this OpSpecs has undergone significant revision.  AFS-50 is waiting on final formal coordination comments from the office of chief counsel. Final comments are expected in the next couple of weeks.   The OpSpec is expected to be rolled out before October 18th 2012.

Intended Outcome:

Correction to definition of primary operator to all templates, the addition of aircraft serial number and registration to the Part 121 template, corrections to the OpSpec references in all templates, and corrections to inspector guidance.

Action Items:

In process

      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Danuta Pronczuk (Part 129)

David Catey (Part 121)
 Larry Buehler
(Part 135)

October 18th 2012

Rich Carpenter (Part 121 and 135)

 

6.    A003/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: David Oliver (Part 129)

 Issue Statement:

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

 Background:

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

 

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 OpSpec 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 OpSpec 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.    

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

 

Intended Outcome:

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

Action Items:

In process

      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Danuta Pronczuk and David Henthorn (Part 129); Jerry Ostronic (Part 121)

October 17, 2012

Rich Carpenter (part 121); David Oliver (part 129)

 

7.    D301:  Aircraft Network Security Program (ANSP)

FAA Lead: Rochelle Brisco (AFS-360)

Industry Lead: TBD

 Issue Statement:

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

Issues

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

 

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

 

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

•      Credible examples of potential misuse include the potential for:

     Malware to infect an aircraft system

     An attacker to use onboard wireless to access aircraft system interfaces

     Denial of service of wireless interfaces

     Denial of service of safety critical systems

     Misuse of personal devices that access aircraft systems

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

•      No longer a physical partition between avionics and passenger electronics.

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

 Background:

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

 

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

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

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

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

Meeting Discussions:  Rochelle Brisco was not able to attend.
Danuta briefly reviewed the reason for the new OpSpecs, (the lack of a physical partition between avionics and passenger electronics, the ability to order parts wirelessly poses security risks), and the regu latory basis for the OpSpecs  (14 CFR 21 section 21.16, and 14 CFR part 11, section 11.19). 

 

Danuta also gave the group an update based on the latest update (April 13th) received from Rochelle.  For Part 129 significantly a correction has been made by AFS-360 clarifying that OpSpec D301 applied only to US registered aircraft.  For parts 121, 121/135,125 and 129 section 129.14, the update is as follows:  FAA formal coordination comments have been disposed of by AFS360, the document is back at AFS-140 who is working on making the changes as disposed of by AFS-360, after which time the document is expected to go for signature….The OpSpec may be expected to be rolled out before the October 17 th meeting.  Special conditions have been published in the Federal Register for the B 747-8, A-380, and B 787.  Aircraft Certifications is working on special conditions for the A-320 and G-650.

Intended Outcome:

An 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.

Action Items:

In process

        

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Rochelle Brisco

October 17th, 2012

 

 


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

FAA Lead: John Swigart, AFS-470

Industry Lead: 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

Meeting Discussions

For those carriers concerned about crews mistakenly flying a not-yet-authorized RNAV RNP-1 SID/STAR, not to worry, there are none published yet, These procedures will start out as ”private” approaches requiring an Ops Spec C081 listing. After a year of so testing the procedures will probably revert to public.

 

John recommends cross checking the AC90-105 Compliance Table for your aircraft’s RNAV RNP capabilities. GPS is required for RNP-1 approval. DME/DME systems are sometimes accurate enough but there are nav accuracy alerting issues without GPS.

Meeting Discussions: 

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.

Carriers which already have RNAV/RNP approach authorization, C384, should cite that approval in their application for RNP-1 approval.

 

Intended Outcome:

Retain as discussion item for future feedback about approval process

Action Items:

In process

      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

John Swigart

UNK

Rich Yuknavich

 

 

9. 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.

Meeting Discussions:  John Swigart FAA AFS-470

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

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

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

John mentioned that the relevant Advisory Circular 0000-00 is going to be revised to harmonize with AC120-42B ETOPS requirements .

Meeting Discussions

Several Industry representatives expressed frustration at the proliferation of unmonitored NAVAIDS which often renders reasonable distance alternate airports unusable. Additional angst is generated by the delay in authorizing what appears to be an obvious mitigation strategy: the use of RNAV/GPS or RNAV/RNP or Ops Spec C300 overlay GPS approaches.

Meeting Discussions

One suggestion advanced was the adoption of Canadian model whereby GPS approaches can be used for either destination or alternate minimums but not both.

Post Meeting Discussion

There was general industry agreement that John Swigart is a stalwart FAA professional in weathering industry displeasure at this issue which is recognized to be beyond his immediate control.

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.

Action Items: Coby Johnson AFS-410 still wants to be made aware of any unmonitored or out-of-service NAVAIDS that are impacting use of ILS approaches at destination or alternate airports. 

Persons Responsible

Deadline

John Swigart

UNK

Jim Winkleman, Andy Newcomer

 

 

10.  C059:  Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations

FAA Lead: TBD         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 flight crew 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.

    Bryant Welch stated that thought the note was more for General Aviation pilots.

Is it possible to include verbiage in future C059 and C060 allowing Part 121/135 carriers to tailor CAT II & III charts to eliminate this note?

Meeting Discussions:  This is more appropriate for the Charting Forum.

Intended Outcome: Remove the requirement for this chart notation

Action Items:

Remove this item 

        

Persons Responsible

Deadline

 

UNK

Steve Kuhar

 

11. C 051: Terminal Instrument Procedures.

FAA Lead: TBD 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. AFS 410 mentioned that a revision to this Ops Spec language is needed to update terminology PANS-OPS to EU-OPS.

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.”

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

Intended Outcome:

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

Action Items: Open

        

Persons Responsible

Deadline

 

UNK

Andy Newcomer

 

 

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

FAA Leads:   Gordy Rother, Scott Stacy

Industry Lead :  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.

 Background:

A survey of the issued C067s shows that there is extreme variability in the content of the Ops Spec, even among carriers using similar destination airports.

 

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.

 

Two tables may not be necessary. A single table may suffice if, for each airport, information could be inserted in horizontally rows that span the entire table/page width. With the current triple column formatting, 90% of the verbiage is contained in the last column which drives up the page count with mostly blank space on the left side of the table.

Meeting Discussions: 

There was a proposal to combine C050/C081/C067 since they all concern special situations.

Rich Yuknavich, American, mentioned that, for each listed airport that is also a C050 PIC Special, they list the C050 issues and mitigation strategies, then address C081 special procedures and finally differentiate any other unique issues. This avoids confusion about which mitigation strategies apply.to which Ops Spec. Perhaps a combined Ops Spec would be work better, but it would be fairly long.

Intended Outcome:

Provide an easy-to-use table format, and more specific guidance about content.

Action Items:

Monitor  

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Gordy Rother, Scott Stacy

 

UNK

Jim Winkleman

 

 

 

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

FAA Lead: Bob Davis

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.

Meeting Discussions: 

Status: Bob Davis: Inspector Guidance revised. Reviewing all other guidance for additional inconsistencies.  AFS 260 researching

Intended Outcome:

  Requesting clarification regarding this topic

Action Items:

In process

      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Bob Davis

UNK

Steve Kuhar

 


 

14 A3XX. 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. The A3XX indicates one approach, a “300” series,  FAA HQ approval level Ops Spec. Carriers affected would be 121, 125/135

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.

LWE, 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.

Meeting Discussions: Most of the assembled FAA inspectors did not see a need for a separate Ops Spec.

 The Air Canada representative stated that Transport Canada is enthusiastic about these devices and is deploying then rapidly.

Intended Outcome:

Either develop a new Ops Spec or develop standard, non-standard verbiage in the current deicing Ops Spec which would allow 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.

Action Items:

In process

        

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Charles (Chuck);

J Enders, Craig Botko,

Warren Underwood, James (Jim) Riley

UNK

Andy Newcomer

 


 

15. B046 Operations in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) Airspace

FAA Lead: Madison Walton

Industry Lead: Rich Yuknavich

 Issue Statement:

ICAO issued and the U.S. adopted a recurring aircraft Fleet accuracy assessment process.

Background:

REDUCED VERTICAL SEPARATION MINIMUM (RVSM) MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

 

1. The height-keeping performance of aircraft is a key element in ensuring the safe operations of RVSM airspace. The RVSM monitoring standards established in paragraph 3 are considered the minimum requirement needed to maintain the safety of operations in RVSM designated airspace. 

2.  In conjunction with internationally agreed upon changes to ICAO Annex 6, Operation of Aircraft, Parts I & II, applicable on 18 November 2010, the following standard and recommended practice was adopted by ICAO: 

Operators, that have been issued an U.S. RVSM approval, shall ensure that a minimum of two airplanes of each [RVSM] aircraft type grouping of the operator have their height-keeping performance monitored, at least once every two years or within intervals of 1,000 flight hours per airplane, whichever period is longer. If an operator aircraft type grouping consists of a single airplane, monitoring of that airplane shall be accomplished within the specified period.

RVSM LONG TERM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

1.  The Federal Aviation Administration will implement the standard above for RVSM Monitoring requirements.  Operators that have been issued an U.S. RVSM authorization will be required to conduct initial monitoring within six months of date of issue and must conduct monitoring every two years or within intervals of 1,000 flight hours per aircraft, whichever period is longer, in accordance with the aircraft categories as presented in the current version of the (North American) RVSM Minimum Monitoring Requirements chart.   

2.  The RVSM Minimum Monitoring Requirements chart is coordinated with the North American Approvals Registry and Monitoring Organization (NAARMO) and updated periodically to reflect changes in aircraft data.  The RVSM Minimum Monitoring Requirements Chart is posted to the FAA RVSM Webpage in documentation section “Monitoring Requirements/Procedures”. 

EFFECTIVE DATE

1.  The Monitoring requirements become applicable on 18 May 2011 and operators have until 18 Nov 2012 to comply. Download info and relay to your POI.. 

Meeting Discussions: 

North America RVSM Reports Website:

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/separation_standards/naarmo/rvsm_approvals/

Intended Outcome:

Carriers connected to OSWG; get connected to above site for RVSM test data.

Action Items: In process

        

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Madison Walton

UNK

Rich Yuknavich

 

14. Closing Remarks

Casey Seabright, U.S. Industry Chair, announced proposal to hold the next joint meeting on October 16-17, 2012. (Tuesday-Wednesday).  This so as not to interfere with elections.  Brian Miles, Part 129 Industry Chair, thought that the date was good, did not see any conflict for international.  No objections from the floor.  Both FAA Chairs agreed to the proposed date, to aim for October 16-17th 2012.  Bob announced the availability of the Asiatic Fleet Room for any additional discussions.  Danuta confirmed the start of the international session.   

 

 


International Session

April 18, 1:30pm – 5:00pm

 

1.             Opening Remarks

 Self introductions.

 

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

FAA Lead: Mike Frank, Rolfe Dinwoodie

Industry Lead: Capt. Harold Cardona Henao

 Issue Statement:

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

 Background:

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

Meeting Discussions: 

Reviewed revised draft OpSpec B035, (amended to incorporate RNAV below 18000 feet, rewritten to plain language…).  Once the draft B035 completes preordination it will be posted for comment, expected in the next couple of months.

 

 

 

Intended Outcome:

New revision to OpSpec B035 and the decommissioning of OpSpec B034

Action Items:

Post draft for comment, develop guidance, and initiate formal coordination.

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Mike Frank, Rolfe Dinwoodie

October 17th 2012

Capt. Harold Cardona Henao

 

3.  Ops Spec D092:  Maintenance Program Approval for U.S. Registered Airplanes

FAA Lead: Danuta Pronczuk, and Madison Walton

Industry Lead: N/A

 Issue Statement:

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

 Background:

Preliminary draft reviewed at the November 2011 OSWG meeting.

Meeting Discussions: 

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

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

 

 

Intended Outcome:

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

Action Items:

In process

      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Danuta Pronczuk, and Madison Walton

October 17th, 2012

 

 


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

FAA Lead: Madison Walton and Danuta Pronczuk

Industry Lead: Brian Miles

 Issue Statement:

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

 Background:

At the November 2011 OSWG meeting reviewed the proposed change and regulatory references.

Meeting Discussions: 

 

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

 

 

Intended Outcome:

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

Status: Open

Action Items: In process

      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Madison Walton and Danuta Pronczuk

October 17th, 2012

Brian Miles

 

5.   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

Industry Lead: Brian Miles

 Issue Statement:

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

 Background:

Reviewed regulatory references and the Ops Spec at the November OSWG meeting.  (Majority of the Ops Spec covered by part 91, FAA AC 91-85 and JAA TGL 6).

 

Meeting Discussions: 

Elements of the altitude measurement systems are not part of the certification standards.  They are covered in the current edition of AC 91-85 and JAA Temporary Guidance Leaflet (TGL) 6.  A reference to that effect was made in the draft A003.  The OpSpec will be decommissioned at the same time as B046 is decommissioned and D092 is rolled out.

 

 

Intended Outcome:

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

Status:  Open

Action Items: In process

      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Madison Walton, Danuta Pronczuk, Herb Herzog

UNK

Brian Miles

 


 

6.  Part 129 Rulemaking - Update

FAA Lead: Darcy Reed, Lorna John  

Industry Lead: Brian Miles

 Issue Statement:

Industry proposed dual delivery on agent for service

 

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

Action Items:

In process

      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Darcy Reed, Lorna John

UNK

 

 

7.  Ops Spec A001 Issuance and Applicability

FAA Lead: Danuta Pronczuk

Industry Lead:

 Issue Statement:

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

 

 Background:

Last revision to the template was in May of 2003.

 

Meeting Discussions: 

 

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

 

Intended Outcome:

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

   Status:   Open

Action Items: In process

      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Danuta Pronczuk

October 17th, 2012

 

 

 

 


8.  Ops Spec A006.  Foreign Air Carrier's Personnel, Designated Agent, and Other Persons

FAA Leads: David Henthorn, Mike Frank

Industry Leads: Jonathan Echmalian and Brian Miles

 Issue Statement:

Issue Statement:  is there a need to have so many individuals listed in the A006?  Can we downsize?  The ICAO AOC (Annex 6, 4.2.1.5 references the layout of Appendix 6, paragraph 2), has the operators telephone, fax, e-mail as well as operational points of contact (contact details include the telephone and fax number, including country code and e-mail (if available) at which operational management can be contacted without undue delay for issues related to flight operations, airworthiness, flight and cabin crew competency, dangerous goods and other matter, as appropriate.)  Director of quality assurance in guidance but missing from the selectable for FAA Recognized Position Title in Edit personnel in WebOPSS.

 Background:

Last reviewed at the November 2011 OSWG meeting.

Meeting Discussions:

 

Director of quality assurance was added to the selectable for FAA Recognized Position Title in Edit personnel in WebOPSS.   The form and manner in which application is made requires the POI to obtain from the applicant for US issued Opspecs all the personel currently captured in OpSpec A006.  Yes, at this time, we need to list of those individuals.  The decision was made based on 129.7, Annex 6, Part I, ICAO document 8335 (Chapter 3, 3.1.2 f)), and field input.

 

 

Intended Outcome:

Intended Outcome:  Review downsize proposal for the new A006 and coordinate the addition of director of quality assurance to the selectable for FAA Recognized Position Title in Edit personnel in WebOPSS.

Status:  Closed

Action Items: Closed

      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

David Henthorn, Mike Frank

Closed

 

 

9.  Ops Spec C054:  Special Limitations and Provisions for
                                Instrument Approach Procedures and IFR Landing Minimums

FAA Leads: Danuta Pronczuk, Bryant Welch

Industry Lead:

 Issue Statement:

Issue Statement: Can we decommission?  Is it adequately covered by regulation?

 Background:

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

Meeting Discussions:

 

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

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

Chapter 7, 7.2. 

 

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

 

 

Intended Outcome:

Intended Outcome:  Decommissioning of Ops Spec.  Need industry lead.

Status: Open

Action Items: In process

      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Danuta Pronczuk, Bryant Welch

October 17, 2012

 

 


 

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

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

Industry Leads: Eva Stahlemar and Brian Miles

 Issue Statement:

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

 Background:

Background:  Reviewed the decommissioning of Ops Spec A040 and the draft revised Ops Spec A036 at the November 2011 OSWG.  FAA agreed to hold off on the release of the new A036… pending further review.

Meeting Discussions: 

 

Upon further review the international programs and policy division together with the flight technologies and procedures division has determined that TCAS requirements were not unique to US airspace.  The Annex 6 standard and US regulations, (Part 91 and 129), covered the TCAS requirements, the previously experienced TCAS address code issues were at less then 1% (based on a study by Lincoln Labs).  Formal coordination is in process to decommission both OpSpec A036 and A040.

 

 

Intended Outcome:

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

Status:  Open

Action Items: In process       

Persons Responsible

Deadline

David Henthorn, Danuta Pronczuk, Roger Sultan and Wayne Gallo

October 17th, 2012

Eva Stahlemar and Brian Miles

 

11.  Ops Specs C056 and C057:  IFR Takeoff minimums all U.S. Airports and
                                                       Alternate Airports for Departure

FAA Lead: Danuta Pronczuk (AFS-52) and Bryant Welch (AFS-410)

Industry Lead:  John Conlon

 Issue Statement:

Issue Statement:  Combine the two Ops Specs and update.  New questions:  Is it takeoff run or should it be takeoff roll?  Visible centerline lights – is it the entire runway?  Operative runway edge lights at night for the 1000/1000/1000, INFO 07009 recommends them, should the Ops Spec as well?  Is it certificated seats or actual?  Small aircraft 100 hour PIC requirement questioned.

 Background:

Reviewed revised draft C056 which incorporated Ops Spec C057. 
New questions (see issue statement above)

Meeting Discussions: 

 

The international programs and policy division and the flight technologies and procedures division, has reviewed the issues brought forth at the November 2012 meeting, and on behalf of both Bryant and herself Danuta briefed as follows:

  • Takeoff roll;
  • Certificated seats;
  • Need to see enouph centerline lights to see maintain centerline.  Required runway length for your aircraft, the greater of accelerate stop, accelerate go and normal takeoff to 35 feet.  Annex 4 (Charts), Annex 14 (Airports), Annex 6, and terps.  Annex 6, part I: 
    1. No aeroplane should commence a take-off at a mass which exceeds the mass at which, in accordance with the minimum distances for take-off scheduled in the flight manual, compliance with 4.3.1 to 4.3.3 inclusive is shown.
    2. 4.3.1 The take-off run required should not exceed the take-off run available.
    3. 4.3.2 The accelerate-stop distance required should not exceed the accelerate-stop distance available.
    4. 4.3.3 The take-off distance required should not exceed the takeoff distance available
  • Deleted the 100hr PIC requirements based on 129.5, Annex 6 Part I, 4.2.8.2 and 9.3.

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

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

 

Intended Outcome:

Decommission C057 and revise C056

Status: open

Action Items: In process

      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Danuta Pronczuk and Bryant Welch

October 17th, 2012

John Conlon

 


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

FAA Lead: Danuta Pronczuk, Robert Jaffee

Industry Lead:

 Issue Statement:

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

 Background:

Ops Spec last reviewed at the November 2011 OSWG meeting, (incorporated contact approaches – decommissioned C076).

Meeting Discussions: 

 

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

 

 

Intended Outcome:

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

Status:  Open

Action Items: In process

      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Danuta Pronczuk,

UNK

Robert Jaffee

 

13.  B051 and B056:  Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Limitations and Provisions – Airplanes and Helicopters

FAA Leads: Scott Switzer and Danuta Pronczuk

Industry Lead: John Conlon

 Issue Statement:

Issue Statement:  Can we combine the two Ops Specs; need to update references – SFAR 71, B050…

 Background:

Reviewed at the November 2011 OSWG meeting.  

Meeting Discussions:

 

Danuta briefly reviewed the issues.  Nonmandatory revisions to both OpSpecs have been submitted for processing.  Expected to be out in the next 1-2 weeks.

 

 

Intended Outcome:  Coordinate an editorial update to Ops Specs B051 and B056

Status:  Open

Action Items: In process

      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Scott Switzer and Danuta Pronczuk

October 17th , 2012

John Conlon

 


14.  B031.  IFR En Route Limitations and Provisions

FAA Leads: Rolfe Dinwoodie and Danuta Pronczuk

Industry Lead: Jorge I. Londono

 Issue Statement:

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

 Background:

Last reviewed at the November 2011 OSWG meeting.

Meeting Discussions:

 

Danuta briefed the draft change.  Incorporation of B031 into A003, (this cuts down on 6 references to other OpSpecs which helps to understand the limitations more readily, and eliminates the VFR issue), and the accompanying decommissioning of A014.  A limitation would be added to subparagraph b of OpSpec A003 when a foreign air carrier is not authorized to operate IFR en route in class G (uncontrolled) airspace.  The new text is still being finalized; expected to be posted for comment in the next couple of months.

 

 

Intended Outcome:

Either revise the current B031 or incorporate the limitations to A003.

Status:  Open

Action Items: In process

      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Rolfe Dinwoodie and Danuta Pronczuk

October 17th, 2012

Jorge I. Londono

 

15.  Ops Spec A028:  Aircraft Wet Lease Arrangements

FAA Lead: Danuta Pronczuk

Industry Lead:  Brian Miles

 Issue Statement:

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

 Background:

 Reviewed proposal at the November 2011 OSWG meeting

Meeting Discussions: 

 

Replaced airworthiness control with maintenance control and posted the updated draft for comment at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/129opspecs/

Comments due 07/09/2012.

 

 

Intended Outcome:  Revise Ops Spec A028

Status:  Open

Action Items: In process

      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Danuta Pronczuk

UNK

  Brian Miles

 


16.  Ops Spec C060.  Category III Instrument Approach and
                                   Landing Operations – U.S. Airports

FAA Lead:  Mike Frank, Bryant Welch

Industry Lead: David Oliver

 Issue Statement:

Ops Spec has not been revised since 2003; need to be updated, recent revision to the Part 121 template.

 Background:

Briefed at the joint session at the November 2011 OSWG meeting.

 

Meeting Discussions:

 

Reviewed draft template.  (Template still in draft.)

 

Intended Outcome:

Revise the template as appropriate.

  Status:  Open

Action Items: In process

      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Mike Frank,
Bryant Welch

UNK

David Oliver

 

17.  FSIMS, FAA.gov, and Federal Register subscriptions

FAA Lead: Danuta Pronczuk

Industry Lead: N/A

 Issue Statement: Some industry members said that they did not know how to subscribe for information that would help and alert them of information that could have an impact on their operation in the U.S. (for example rulemaking changes, draft OpSpecs ….)

 

 Background:

At the November 2012 meeting a request was made by industry for a handout with directions on how to subscribe to FSIMS, FAA.gov, and the Federal Register. 

Meeting Discussions: 

 

Handouts with directions on how to subscribe to FSIMS, faa.gov, and the Federal Register were provided to industry attendees as requested.

Danuta made a short demonstration of how to subscribe to faa.gov, and pointed out the directions for the remaining websites to include OpSpecs for comment.  Action item was closed.

 

 

Intended Outcome:  Handout to industry with direction on how to subscribe to FSIMS, faa.gov, and the Federal Register.

 

Action Items: Closed

      

Persons Responsible

Deadline

Danuta Pronczuk

April 18th 2012

 

 

 

 

18. Closing Remarks

FAA Lead: Danuta Pronczuk

 

Need an Industry Lead on combining C050, (Special Pilot In- Command Qualification Airport List), and C067, (Special Airplane Authorizations, Provisions, and Limitations for Certain Airports).  Final questions.  Danuta thanked all attendees for their contributions and closed the meeting with a reminder that the next joint session is scheduled for October 17th 2012.