2013 – 1 OSWG Meeting Minutes
2 Chairperson’s Remarks
Minutes: Opening remarks from Les Smith.
Minutes: D076 has been posted for comment
3 D084 Special Flight Permit with Continuous Authorization to Conduct Ferry Flights
FAA Lead: Mark Lopez AFS-330
Industry Lead: Tom Taylor/Doug Snow, FedEx Express
Issue Statement: 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.
Intended Outcome: FEDEX Express is seeking an Ops Spec provision or CFR exemption relief.
FAA reported that the rules do not allow for this type of operations due to compliance time over-runs. Possible to get an AMOC to move the aircraft from out of storage to a repair facility.
Minutes: Opening Duplicate entry
4 C050: Special Pilot-in-command Qualification Airports (KMMH)
FAA Lead: Bob Davis, AFS-260
Industry Lead: Steve Bush, Horizon Airlines
Issue Statement : Mammoth Yosemite; (KMMH), Mammoth Lakes Calif., an airport with scheduled 121 passenger service located in the Eastern Sierra Nevada Mountains, has many of the attributes that would qualify it as a Special Pilot-inCommand Qualification airport; however, this airport is not included on the list maintained by AFS-200 in association with C050
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.
FAA agrees and list will be updated. Should be completed soon - FAA has taken action to update the notice. Action Items: Will be published any day now, if not by the time of this OSWG
Minutes: Posted and will be removed from agenda.
5. C050: Special Pilot-in-command Qualification Airports (BAIR)
FAA Lead: Bob Davis, AFS-240
Industry Lead: TBD
Issue Statement: Add Akureyri Airport, Iceland (IATA,AEY;ICAO BAIR) to the 14 CFR121.445 list.
Background: This airport also has many of the attributes that would qualify it as a Special Pilot-in-Command Qualification airport. It is located on the Northern Icelandic coast. The airport is situated next to a river estuary with a north-south orientation (7874 ft.). There is steep terrain to the south. Bob Davis mentioned that the ILS may have as much as a five degree glide slope. 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.
Intended Outcome: Add Akureyri, Iceland (BAIR) to the Special Pilot-In-Command Qualification list maintained by AFS200 related to Ops Spec C-050.
Action Items: Above proposal is in process.
Minutes: Posted and will be removed from agenda. New Quito to be added.
FAA Lead: Bob Davis! Theodora Kessaris, AFS-240
Issue Statement: The FAA is proposing to revise OpSpec B342 to remove the requirement to list airplane registration numbers and ETOPS alternate airports. Airplane registration numbers are already listed in D086. Adequate Airports for ETOPS would be entered in C070 under a new category of “E” for “Adequate Airport for ETOPS”. C070 would then be revised for the addition of the new “E” category airport.
Background: AFS-220/260 is re-evaluating the need to list aircraft registration numbers in B342. D086 already contains this information, and discrepancies exist between the aircraft numbers listed in D086 and those listed in B342.
With respect to ETOPS Alternate Airports, the FAA has realized that the B342 OpSpec is somewhat inaccurate by listing ETOPS Alternate Airports. Therefore the FAA believes that listing those airports in a HQ approval OpSpec serves no purpose to the FAA or industry.
Update OpSpec B342 table 1 and remove the column for Airplane Registration No and remove Table 2 altogether.
Status: On-going discussions.
Minutes: Posted. Industry would like the new guidance to stay within the ETOPS subject matter not include other associated items like that of crew times or FIR boundary. Industry would also like to keep the alternate listing as an optional separate list.
7 C054: Special Limitations and Provisions for Instrument Approach Procedures and IFR Landing Minimums
FAA Lead: Bryant Welch AFS-410
Industry Lead: Monty Montgomery
Issue Statement: C054 needs to be more specific in its reference to “the landing field length specified for the destination airport by the appropriate Sections of the CFR”. Background: Many readers are unsure of what specific section of the CFR is being referred to, which leads to confusion. Jackson Seltzer (United) recommended standardization between C054 and other Ops Specs governing approach criteria, such as C060. Coby Johnson pledged support for harmonization guidance among Ops Specs C054, C059, and C060
Intended Outcome: (1) Industry proposed draft language for Ops Spec Paragraphs and applicable guidance adding an appropriate reference (121.1 95b) as shown below.
(2) A pilot-in-command of a turbojet airplane shall not begin an instrument approach procedure when the visibility conditions are reported to be less than 3/4 statute mile or RVR 4000, unless the following conditions exist:
(a) Fifteen percent additional runway length is available over the landing field length specified for the destination airport by (14 CFR) § 121.195(b).
UPS believes the language in b (2) (a) is still a problem for when the landing data as required by 14 CFR 121.195(b) should be applied. UPS interprets the language, as it is currently written in section b, Limitation on the Use of Landing Minimums for Turbojet Airplanes, sub-section (2), line (a), that prior to approach, the PIC must apply the 115 percent of the runway field length as defined by 14 CFR part 121.195(b). UPS recommends that the language that is currently in the draft of C060 be used as a model for this paragraph.
Status: Open – See agenda item for C059/C060 harmonization.
Minutes: Paragraph is open for comment and then will move through the FAA approval process. Will have to be published prior to revised C059 and C060 being published. Item will be closed upon publication.
8 A025: Electronic Record Keeping Systems
FAA Lead: Theo Kessaris AFS-240
Industry Lead: Casey Seabright, Jim Winkelman
Issue Statement: It appears FAA & Industry are using A025 as a catch-all for authorizations that may not be appropriate for this paragraph or may be appropriate but are listed individually versus categorically.
Background: An audit of operator’s A025 show significant variability in the items placed in this paragraph.
Intended Outcome: Potentially transform A025 from and keep it only as a depository for primarily electronic record keeping plus an optional storehouse for electronic signatures and electronic manuals.
Possibly amend A025 to include tables for specific approvals such as flight planning systems, training records repositories, and categories of electronic/digital manuals.
Discussion The impetus for more specific guidance is increasing with the expanding adoption of cockpit Electronic Flight Bags (EFBs) with increasing transition from paper manuals to purely digital format manuals. The direction of some POIs and PMIs to list every digital document individually versus by class of documents is becoming more burdensome as the number of digital document continues to multiply. The opportunity for a between OSWG meeting conference did not materialize.
Volunteer participants still solicited.
Minutes: No movement, only maintenance requirement change for part 91. Industry would like to see this paragraph back to original purpose. Item is currently on hold. Requested to keep item on agenda.
9 B343: Fuel Reserves for Flag and Supplemental Operations
FAA Lead: Gordy Rother, MSP-FSDO, Leo Hollis, AFS-220, Dave Burnham, UAL CMO/ Steve Moates AFS-220 Industry Lead(s): Steve Kuhar, Casey Seabright, Rich Yuknavich
Issue Statement : Numerous carriers want to be issued this Ops Spec which allows enroute reserves as low as five percent for that percentage of the total time required to fly from the airport of departure to, and land at, the airport to which it was released. Currently only two Part 121 operators, American and United have this Ops Spec.
Background: Many International carriers are required to plan for less fuel reserves percentages than U.S. carriers. Many foreign carriers are allowed to use three percent reserves. This has puts U.S. carriers at an operating cost disadvantage, even though the FAA-required .ten percent reserves is only computed on those enroute flight segments that are in Class II airspace. There is a desire to ensure that U.S. policies harmonize with ICAO standards. FAA is working toward a Performance Based fuel reserves model similar to the draft ICAO Annex 6. FAA has requested that carriers review and comment on Annex 6 (draft) through IATA or ATA.
Intended Outcome: PBM Fuel Reserves availability for US carriers sooner than later.
Status: Ongoing. New AC being written to harmonize with ICAO
Interested Industry SMEs should volunteer through the OSWG chairpersons to participate in guidance drafting/review.
Minutes: ICAO 6 is out and FAA is working on new Advisory Circular for Performance Based fuel loads. Close B343 from agenda and add new item of Performance Based Fuel Loads. FAA to brief ay May OSWG meeting.
10 C081: Special Non 14 CFR Part 97 Instrument Approach or Departure Procedures
FAA Lead: Sara Dalton/Kel Christiansen, AFS-470
Industry Lead : Jim Winkleman, Alaska Airlines
Issue Statement: Who is responsible for maintenance, upkeep and the costs associated with Special flight Procedures (sometimes referred to as “Public Specials”).
Background: A public instrument flight procedure (IFP) is one that has been promulgated under 14 CFR Part 97. Often times Special instrument flight procedures that have been authorized for multiple users have been referred to as "Public Specials". In actuality, these are not "public" procedures although some in the industry continue to refer to them as such. Intended Outcome: Determine who is responsible for “Specials” or move them to the public domain.
Action Items: In process of matching 8900.1 Guidance to Terps Criteria
Deadline : UNK
Minutes: Alaska still working with FAA on how these procedures are to be handled. Discussion of adding RNAV visuals authorization to this paragraph. Item to be remain open.
11 A010: Aviation Weather
FAA Leads : Theo Kessaris, AFS-240 – Leo Hollis, AFS-220 Industry Lead: Casey Seabright, Delta
Issue Statement: This Ops Spec/MSpec/LOA has been revised to follow the regulatory requirements of 14 CFR parts 91, Subpart K, 121, 125 and 135. A table has been added for Adverse Weather Reporting and Forecast systems, and the QICP table has been removed due to lack of regulatory requirement. Guidance in 8900.1 Volume 3 chapters 18, 25 and 26 has been updated as well. The Ops Spec /LOA is no longer mandatory for part 125 certificate holders, and part 125 Letter of Deviation Authority Holders
Background: As of the last meeting in April 2012, the draft guidance was posted to the FAA draft documents website and to the OSWG (NAME WEBSITE) to allow for public comment. In addition, the documents went through formal internal FAA coordination. Both the public and FAA comment periods have closed and. The FAA received only one comment from industry which was in the form of a question regarding the removal of the QICP table from the Ops Spec. FAA internal comments are collected and organized by an internal support organization and then sent to AFS-200.
Intended Outcome : Standardized Ops Specs authorizations for certificate holders conducting 91K, 121, and/or 135 operations that comply with the regulatory requirements of 91.1039, 121.101, 121.119, and 135.213, as applicable. ..
Action Items: Anticipated publication is April 1st . More selectable’s added to new template
Minutes: Waiting for notice to be published.
12 B041 North Atlantic Operations with Two-Engine Airplanes Under Part 121
FAA Lead: Gordy Rother AFS-220
Industry Lead: TBD
There is industry opinion that B04 1 needs to be revised greatly or actually archived.
The requirement to remain within 60 minutes of an adequate airport for non ETOPS two engine aircraft is a worldwide requirement, but yet we have no worldwide Ops Spec, only B041 for the North Atlantic.
The Ops Spec was originally developed to provide an enhance means of safely conducting non-ETOPS operations in the North Atlantic and to address the specifically challenging areas of Greenland etc. The Ops Spec adds weather minimums to the "adequate airports" outlined in 121.161. It also states the airport has to be one where you can land the aircraft safely with an engine failed. When the FAA discussed this with the AEG, their position is that the operator must evaluate the engine fail/go around case for the airports. This was further discussed with Boeing who agreed that "alternates for the purpose of ETOPS" must consider the engine fail case." Since B041 is an en route alternate like B342 without the higher weather provision this would fall into the same category. An engine failure is probably the reason you are diverting there in the first place.
The FAA is doing some historical research into this paragraph but may not yield anything other than the fact that this area has limited resources for the pilot. The requirement to have landing weather minimums can be onerous given the climate in Greenland and Iceland. The good thing is the vast majority of the aircraft meet the ETOPS requirements and these airports are rarely considered in that calculation and B041 is not a common operation. What does not make sense to some is why this was never moved into the North Pacific/Russian airspace.
Intended Outcome: To determine: Is the Ops Spec relevant to operations today?
If so, then expand the Ops Spec to encompass other equally challenging areas of operation.
If not, and there is an equivalent level of safety then develop a timeline to archive the Ops Spec.
Industry still in favor of "sunsetting" B041
Minutes: Removed from agenda, paragraph status will remain as is.
13 B036/B054: Class II Navigation
FAA Lead : Madison Walton AFS-470 Industry Lead: John Cowan
Issue Statement: Both of these Ops Specs include the same provision in paragraph b. (4)b. Special Limitations and Provisions. The certificate holder shall conduct all operations using multiple LRNS in accordance with the following limitations and provisions:(4) Prior to entering any airspace requiring the use of a long-range navigation system, the aircraft position shall be accurately fixed using airways navigation facilities or ATC radar. After exiting this airspace, the aircraft position shall be accurately fixed and the long-range navigation system error shall be determined and logged in accordance with the operator's approved procedures.
Background: Industry representatives contend that the requirement for deliberate fixing procedures have been made obsolescent by modern multi-sensor FMS navigation systems that use constant DME-DME or GPS and DME-DME fixing to update the FMS present position. Furthermore, industry contends that deliberate flyover position fixing or radar fixing is much less accurate than automatic position updating and may increase the possibility of position errors during position fixing if an unintentional position update occurs.
Intended Outcome: Clarify the provision to specify that it is referring to non GPS equipped aircraft as follows: B-036:
b. (4) Prior to entering any airspace requiring the use of a non GPS based long-range navigation system, the aircraft position shall be accurately fixed using airways navigation facilities or ATC radar. After exiting this airspace, the aircraft position shall be accurately fixed and the long-range navigation system error shall be determined and logged in accordance with the operator's approved procedures.
b. (4) Prior to entering any airspace requiring the use of a non GPS based LRNS, the aircraft position shall be accurately fixed using airways navigation facilities or ATC radar. After exiting this airspace, the aircraft position shall be accurately fixed and the long-range navigation system error shall be determined and logged in accordance with the operator's approved procedures. Previous Meeting Discussions:
Some industry representatives expressed a desire to include multisensory DME-DME updating in the above verbiage and
there seemed to be no FAA objections to this minor addition.
(4) Navigation Accuracy Checks
(a) Prior to entering any airspace requiring the use of an LRNS, for aircraft with GPS/GNSS or DME/DME automatic position updating the system must be confirmed to be functioning normally(no fault indications); for all other aircraft, the position shall be accurately fixed using airways navigation facilities or ATC radar.
(b) After exiting this airspace, the airplane position shall be accurately fixed and the LRNS error shall be determined and logged in accordance with the operator's approved procedures. An arrival gate position check satisfies this requirement. For aircraft with GPS/GNSS or DME/DME automatic position updating, no exit position fix is required unless there is an indication of FMS system malfunction.
Madison Walton presented draft Ops Spec B036/054 proposals.
Status: Paul Lepine will make available for industry review Notice 8900.B036.
Minutes: M Spec for part 91 and 125 to be revised to address single long range nav. FAA to provide guidance and possible up date to paragraph that multi sensor FMS positioning using GPS or DME is satisfactory for determining navigation system accuracy.
14 D084 Special Flight Permit with Continuous Authorization to Conduct Ferry Flights
FAA Lead: Mark Lopez AFS-330
Industry Lead: Tom Taylor/Doug Snow, FedEx Express
1 Ops Spec D084 item b. does not provide wording to allow ferrying an aircraft to storage or to a place where the aircraft will be donated, scrapped, sold, etc.
2 Ops Spec D084 item d. does not provide wording to allow ferrying to storage on the way to a repair facility to have an expired AD complied with or to a place where the aircraft will be donated, scrapped, sold, etc.
1. 14 CFR 21.197 Special flight permits, item (c) allows certificate holders with a D084 Ops Spec to issue a Special Flight Permit for the purpose of flying aircraft to a base where maintenance or alterations are to be performed. Item (a) (1) of the same CFR allows for Special Flight Permits, outside of the D084 Ops Spec, to be issued to a base where repairs, alterations, or maintenance are to be performed or to a point of storage. Within the D084 Ops Spec and item (c) of the CFR, the words repair and storage are left out. It could be argued that maintenance and repair are one in the
same therefore the word repair was left out, therefore it could also be argued that the intent of the abbreviated verbiage in Ops Spec D084 and item (c) of the CFR is not intended to prevent moving an aircraft to storage on its way to a maintenance facility to have the required work accomplished when a maintenance slot becomes available.
2. 14 CFR 39.23 Airworthiness Directives, starts out with a question – [May I fly my aircraft to a repair facility to do the work required by an airworthiness directive?]. The answer is yes, but it also states the aircraft can be flown to a repair facility to do the work required by an Airworthiness Directive. Like stated above, there is no mention of flying the
aircraft to a place of storage while awaiting a slot at a maintenance facility where the AD can be complied with.
FEDEX Express is seeking an Ops Spec provision or CFR exemption relief.
Is it the FAA’s intent that a certificate holder with a D084 Ops Spec cannot ferry an aircraft to storage for any reason? Is it also the intent that no one, certificate holder or FAA, can issue a Special Flight Permit, with an expired AD, to a storage facility while awaiting a slot at a maintenance facility where the AD can be complied with or to a place where the aircraft will be donated, scrapped, sold, etc.?
- Need an FAA legal interpretation of items 1 and 2 above.
- If a FAA legal interpretation allows a certificate holder to ferry an aircraft to storage in both cases above, we would like to see the D084 Ops Spec revised with language addressing the issue of flying to storage in both cases as well as flying to a place where the aircraft will be donated, scrapped, sold, etc.
- If item 1 and 2 above does not allow the aircraft to be flown to storage, or flown to a place where it will donated, scrapped, sold, etc. we would like to see an exemption issued that allows it?
Status: Ongoing. FAA conducting research
Minutes: Mark Lopez to provide draft for the next OSWG meeting.
15 C052: Straight-in Non-Precision, APV, and Category I Precision Approach and Landing Minima – All Airports
FAA Lead: Chris Hope AFS-410
Issue Statement: RNAV /PRM may be added as a pull-down menu option in Table 1. Background: RNAV/PRM Approach option is under review.
Intended Outcome: Table option
Discussion: No Industry objections
Minutes: FAA to update table in C052. Item to be left open for next meeting .
16 Update to AC 120-27 Weight and Balance
FAA Lead: AFS-220 Adam Giraldes
Issue Statement: Updates are coming to the weight and balance figures used in AC 120-27 Aircraft weight and balance controls.
Minutes: FAA not ready to present at this time. Will be presenting at the May OSWG meeting.
17 Exemptions – Open Discussion
5549 Section 121.652 (a) and (c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) to the extent necessary to allow airlines of ATA and
other qualified Part 121 certificate holders to substitute
crosswind component and braking action restriction, along with a requirement to utilize automatic landing and approach coupler (ALAC) equipment
Minutes: Industry noted of quality control in which old conditions and limitations which retired where brought back into the document.
10690 Atropine Exemption
Minutes: Industry was concern withed the conditions and limitations being narrowly written which will not allow a different means of compliance.
Day One: Closing Remarks
Day 2 Session
2. Stakeholder Survey The FAA has asked each meeting participant to fill out an OSWG Customer Survey. Results of previous survey will be available at the next OSWG meeting.
3. WebOPSS Update: Standing Agenda Item:
FAA Lead : Monica Grusche – AFS-260
· Current status
· Near term developments
· Far term developments
Minutes: Industry concerned with the use of a discussion board for comments of draft paragraphs. Notice of webopps when down for maintenance.
WebOPSS - Ops Spec Synopsis Reports in ICAO Format
FAA Lead: Monica Grushe Ehrett AFS-260
Industry Lead: Rich Yuknavich
Issue Statement: Report content is great but header needs to look more official to ensure foreign cockpit inspector acceptance of authenticity.
Intended Outcome: Afix the FAA crest onto the first page header
Discussion: This was discussed at the meeting and Rich Yuknavich sent Monica a draft sample of the suggested header. Monica agreed that the format could be changed but it may take a little time because the graphics work would need to be done by another office.
Minutes: Will add logo to ICAO ops specs.
4. ICAO Register of AOCs –
Progress Recent Developments: International Register of AOCs. (Update for the briefing was provided/coordinated with International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO).
FAA Lead : Danuta Pronczuk (AFS-52) for Part 129,
Industry Lead: Henry Defalque , International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO
Status: This item is being tabled till the Joint OSWG session in May.
Minutes: Tabled to the May OSWG meeting.
5. A029 Aircraft Interchange Agreement for Part 121
FAA Lead: Craig Botko AFS-200
Industry Lead: Rich Carpenter
Issue Statement : Definition of Primary operator is not correct.
Background: Ops Spec A029 authorizes part 121 certificate holders to use aircraft interchange agreements with other operators.
Intended Outcome : Correction to definition of primary operator, and the addition of aircraft serial number to the Part 121 template
Status : Open
Minutes: Still awaiting guidance, changes will include adding serial and registration numbers to the table.
5. Harminization of OpSpecs C059 and C060
C059, Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations
FAA Lead: Bryant Welch – AFS-410
Industry Lead: Andy Newcomer – UPS
Question of why C059 does not have a statement like that of C060, subparagraph f. (5) – “Once established on the final approach segment, all CATIII operations, except as specified in subparagraph g.(6) below, may continue if any RVR report decreases below the authorized minima.”
Minutes: Paragraph is open for comment and then will move through the FAA approval process. Industry requested that in table 2, under the RVR 1600 row, that “NA” in the mid and roll out columns be changed to “NR” for not required.
C060, Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations
FAA Lead: Bryant Welch – AFS-410
Industry Lead: Mindy Waham – Alaska / Andy Newcomer - UPS
Question on table 4 of the paragraph. Not up to date with current aircraft and airline authorizations as per on line AFS-400 list.
Update of upcoming paragraph revision
Minutes: Paragraph is open for comment and then will move through the FAA approval process.
7. C091: Airplane Authorization/Operational Requirements Airplane Design Group VI (ADG-VI) Airplanes.
FAA Lead : Jerry Ostronic (Part121) Danuta Pronczuk and David Henthorn (Part 129)
Issue Statement: It is necessary for carriers to analyze and coordinate with airports prior to operating Group VI aircraft into group V airports, specifically the B747-8 and the A-380.
Background: Ops Spec C091 is required for anyone operating an A380. To date, only foreign air carriers were operating the A380. Foreign air carriers are already operating the B-747-8, Bob added that although no U.S. operator has a need for it currently; AFS-200 expects that to change in the future and as such will be adding this template to the Part 121 data base of available Ops Specs.
In the last Joint OSWG meeting, Danuta briefly reviewed the background on C091/the study of the group VI aircraft, (A-380 and B-747-8), operating into group V airports, issues surrounding group VI aircraft operating into group V airports, specifically the B-747-8 and the A-380. The limitations language has been agreed upon by both AFS-050 and AFS-200. After many hours of review, both divisions have agreed to keep the limitations on group VI aircraft operations into group V airports in Ops Spec C09 1. The existing limitations for the A-380 have been rewritten into plain language, and the B-747-8 limitations language will be added. A revised draft Ops Spec C09 1 is expected to be posted in the next few weeks. Limitations are based on the results of a study that was conducted – can the A-380 and B-747-8 safety operate on group V airports and under what conditions.
Discussion: Danuta briefly reviewed the issues, goal, and updated the group on status of the change. Namely, the OpSpec, and the associated inspector guidance was drafted, and informal FAA coordination had been initiated. In the process of this informal coordination, the following issue was raised. The existing limitation in OpSpec C091 states in part:
For runways with a threshold elevation greater than 4,000 ft. MSL the hold short lines or hold position must be expanded outward from the 280 ft. point by 1 ft. for every 100 ft. the runway threshold elevation is above sea level.
The issue with the above limitation is that the AC airport design criterion starts adding the 1 foot per 100 feet at 0 MSL. For example: if using the AC criteria for runways with a threshold of 3000 ft MSL the hold short lines or hold position must be expanded outward to 310 feet = 280+ 30. If using the OpSpec criteria for that same scenario the hold short lines or hold position must be at 180 feet. For example: if using the AC criteria for runways with a threshold of 3000 ft MSL the hold short lines or hold position must be expanded outward to 310 feet = 280+ 30. If using the OpSpec criteria for that same scenario the hold short lines or hold position must be at 180 feet. AFS-50 continues to meet and discuss with airports and subject matter experts in AFS-400, AFS-200... to settle the issue.
Status: Ongoing. Standby for review of draft documents
Minutes : Draft is out for comment.
8. C063: IFR RNAV 1 Departure Procedures (DP) and Standard Terminal Arrivals (STAR)
FAA Lead: John Swigart, AFS-470
Industry Lead(s): Rich Yuknavich
Issue statement: Development of RNAV DPs/STARs utilizing RNP 1.0 and RF legs on fast track.
Background: The recent notice also announced the revision to all C063 templates. This is a non-mandatory revision. The current template will remain valid and will only need to be updated when one of the following occurs:
· The certificate holder/operator/program manager needs to make a change to the aircraft or systems on the template, or
· The certificate holder/operator/program manager applies for RNP 1 or TA authorization.
Intended Outcome: N/A
John Swigart (AFS-470) mentioned that the Advisory Circular 90-105 1/23/2009 is still a valid reference. Status: John Swigart to provide update
Minutes: Item complete and to be removed from agenda. See C081 (item 10 on day 1 for RNAV visuals)
9. C073: IFR Approach Procedures Using Vertical Navigation (VNAV)
FAA Lead : Kel Christianson AFS-470
Industry Lead: Joe Divito
The certificate holder is authorized to conduct the instrument approach procedures other than ILS, MLS, or GPS landing system (GLS) utilizing a visibility and a decision altitude/(height) [DA(H)] equal to the published visibility and minimum descent altitude (MDA) using the aircraft and procedures as specified in this operations specification..
Intended Outcome: Industry representatives asked for delay in the mandatory implementation date of the new template until the issue of Ops Spec language could be resolved. A C073 OpSpec for part 129. Kel Christianson to provide update.
Minutes: The corrected paragraph should be published in a month.
10. AXX. Utilization of a Weather Support for Deicing Decision Making (WSDDM) System
FAA Lead: Possible: Charles (Chuck) J Enders, Craig Botko, Warren Underwood, James (Jim) Riley
Industry Lead: Andy Newcomer, UPS
Issue Statement: The accumulation of ice on aircraft prior to take off has long been recognized as one of the most significant safety hazards affecting the aviation industry today. As little as 0.08 mm of ice on a wing surface can increase drag and reduce airplane lift by 25%. Acutely aware of the impacts these icing hazards can have on aviation, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) began supporting ground de–icing research at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)* Background: The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has been working with the FAA, airlines, and airports focused on developing two new systems in support of Ground Deicing operations. The Liquid Water Equivalent (LWE) system combines a Hotplate and GEONOR snow gauge, a Vaisala PWD–22 precipitation type sensor, a Campbell freezing rain sensor, a Vaisala WXT wind, temperature, and humidity sensor, and a Decagon Leaf Wetness Sensor to estimate a real– time liquid water equivalent precipitation rate. This rate is a critical component of the Checktime System, a UCAR patented technology for aircraft ground deicing operations, that determines when deicing/anti-icing fluids applied to aircraft are close to failure based on temperature measurements and precipitation rates that are updated every minute from the LWE system. Checktime is aircraft independent and only requires the end user to know the time that the aircraft was deiced.
Liquid Water Equivalent: Definition:
The liquid content of solid precipitation that has accumulated on the ground (snow depth). The accumulation may consist of snow, ice formed by freezing precipitation, freezing liquid precipitation, or ice formed by the refreezing of melted snow. Intended Outcome: Develop a non ‐ standard ops spec which allows for use of these devices by interested industry participants as requested/desired by both FAA and Industry to demonstrate the system under an equivalent level of safety. Status: Ongoing. Monitoring development and open for discussion.
Minutes: Item has been assigned a real title of “A323 Hold Over Time Determination System” and guidance will be available by the end of August 2013.
11. D095. Minimum Equipment List (MEL) Authorizations
FAA Lead : Greg Janosik AFS-240
Industry Lead : Mike Keller/Rich Yuknavich
Ops Spec D095 Maximum times between deferral and repair are not the same as stated in MMEL Policy letter 25 January 2012. The Ops Spec language for Category A items does not specifically state that the day the malfunction is recorded is excluded in counting maximum numbers of days as does the MMEL Policy Letter and as do Ops Spec D095 paragraphs b(2), (3) and (4):
Intended Outcome: Change Ops Spec D095 Paragraph b(1) verbiage and in the interim specifically address the Category A disparity in a revised MMEL Policy Letter...
Discussion: Bob Davis (AFS-200/260) A D095 template change and accompanying Order 8900.1 guidance change is in process and will be in final coordination phase soon.
Status : Ongoing.
Minutes: Clarification of extension language and of the repair category A. The 8900.1 guidance is currently going through the FAA approval process. Item to remain open until published.
12. C300: Part 97 NDB, NDB/DME, VOR, and VOR/DME Instrument Approach Procedures Using Substitute Means of Navigation
FAA Lead: John Swigart, AFS-470
Industry Lead: Jim Winkleman, Rich Yuknavich
Issue Statement : Suitable NAVAID substitution authorizations are needed by operators in certain circumstances or areas of the world.
Background: C300 was developed to provide standard methodology for authorizing NAVAID sub procedure for approach operations. The current template does not necessarily meet the needs of all operators or provide the latitude necessary for certain circumstances.
John Swigart AFS-470 briefed that there are no plans to make any immediate changes to the Ops Spec, but AFS-470 would entertain submission of non-standard language for special cases. John suggested that carriers, especially those without Ops Spec C300 make maximum use of the provisions outlined in AC90- 107 for RNAV substitution. Depending on the final analysis of the MITRE study AFS-470 may first allow use of C300 for alternate approaches
Previous Meeting Discussions: Awaiting results of Mitre study. John Swigart to brief
Industry representatives raised the possibility of harmonizing U.S. alternate minimums policy with Canadian CARs: Doug Snow, FEDEX Dispatch proposed allowing use of VFR weather minimums for alternate airports that only have GPS/GNSS approaches if there is an anticipated delay in final resolution of GPS use at alternate airports.
Intended Outcome: Provide a mechanism to authorize use of NAVAID substitution or mitigation procedures that meet the needs of both Industry and FAA, especially for alternate airport minimums.
Minutes: C300 is open to new applicants. C300 to apply to alternate planning purposes as well.
13. C055: Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums
FAA Lead: John Swigart, AFS-470
Industry Lead: Jim Winkleman, Andy Newcomer,
Issue Statement: Unmonitored NAVAIDS are a problem for industry and may be having an effect on reliability of service, especially for longer haul operations.
Background: Historically NAVAIDS have been monitored by FAA or entities designated by the FAA. As more
responsibilities are being contracted to third parties, the ability to monitor essential NAVAIDS is no longer possible under certain circumstances. The increase in the number of unmonitored NAVAIDS is beginning to have a negative effect on providing reliable air transportation with loss of either certain alternate airport minimums or elimination of some alternate airport utilization.
In December 2011, a draft copy of the MITRE contractor study concerning feasibility and safety assessment of allowing alternate minimums based on GPS approaches was published. AFS-470 is reviewing the study. If it is determined that changes can be made to current policy, there will need to be harmonization between the different 14 CFR carrier types. Related guidance in the Instrument Procedures Manual and the AIM will also need to be updated. If GPS minimums are allowed, there is a possibility of two eligibility tiers for aircraft based on navigation system levels of fault detection and fault alerting.
Similar RAIM prediction requirements as are in place for C300 may be required. (References TSO 196 for WAAS, TSO-129 for DME/DME updating.
Intended outcome: Develop a solution that meets the needs of both Industry and FAA. MITRE study to determine whether use of RNAV/GPS approaches at alternates affords an acceptable level of risk. A suggested interim mitigation strategy is issuance of alternative missed approach procedures whenever NAVAIDs go unmonitored.
Previous Meeting Discussions: Doug Snow, FEDEX Dispatch proposed allowing use of VFR weather minimums for alternate airports that only have GPS/GNSS approaches if there is an anticipated delay in final resolution of GPS use at alternate airports.
Discussion: John Swigart: The revised MITRE study is completed, and the results will be published in an upcoming Federal Register.
The reason for the publications is that the study may have a significant impact on policy development. The MITRE study may result in provisions for use of RNAV/GPS approach minimums in the Continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii. It may not apply to all areas of the world due to concerns about significant gaps in satellite coverage in other parts of the world.
Until it is determined whether policy changes are forthcoming, AFS-470 recommends maximum use of AC90- 107 NAVAID substitution provisions as outlined in the AIM Paragraph 1-2-3.
Minutes: FAA MITRE study supports the use of RVAV for either destination or alternate airport planning purposes. FAA will be issuing an a Notice to Airman Publication with updated guidance and amend relevant C055 and all other publications related to this subject.
14. D097, Aging Aircraft Programs
FAA Lead: Mark Lopez, AFS-330
Industry Lead: Mike Keller , American Airlines
Issue Statement: Create a standard for industry and field offices with guidance
Minutes: Request of template standard entries. Plan is to rework 8900 guidance. Mark Lopez and Mike Keller request industry input on the entries of D097
15. D485, Aging Airplane Inspection and Records Review
FAA Lead: Mark Lopez, AFS-330
Industry Lead: Mike Keller , American Airlines
Issue statement: Clarification of issuance of D458 with Field Offices and carriers
Minutes: Industry request interpretation of guidance when aircraft is to be added.
16 Minutes: Air Ambulance and Air Tour to submit quarterly reports – noted
17 Minutes: Draft notice of MMEL relief of nose gear steering systems (rudder pedal / tiller bar. Effect CRJ operators
18 Minutes: Revision of M Spec D076 Short Time Escalation out for comment in mid February.
16. Closing Remarks