Meeting Minutes FAA/Aviation Industry

OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) 2004-03

July 20 (Tuesday, 1 pm-5 pm)/21 (Wednesday, 8:30-noon), 2004

Radisson Cincinnati Riverfront Hotel

668 West Fifth Street

Covington , Kentucky 41011

 (859)-491-8600 or (859)-491-1200

Hosted by Comair, Richard Marcotte


July 20-21, 2004

COMAIR – Cincinnati (CVG)

October 19-20, 2004

DELTA-Atlanta , GA

January 18-19, 2005

SWA--Dallas, TX

April 26-27, 2005

FAA-Washington , DC

July, 26-27, 2005

United – Denver, CO


Chairpersons:      Casey Seabright, NWA, Industry Chair

John Cowan, UAL, Industry Vice Chair

Connie Streeter, FAA Chair

1.  Convene :



Mike Piper, Director of Operations for Comair gave the group a warm welcome…and the meeting went well despite the fire in the hotel on the 18th floor the morning of the 20th.

§                Roll call—There were 34 total in attendance:

1. 17 participants were from the Industry; 17 participants were from the FAA

2. The roster is sent in a separate electronic file to all on the OSWG email list

§                Review October 2004, January 2005, April 2005, July 2005 meeting locations—See the table above.  If there are errors or changes, please contact Connie Streeter.

§                OPSS Newsletter— AFS-260 publishes a quarterly newsletter about the operations specification subsystem (OPSS) in general and items of interest in regard to using the OPSS.  The OPSS newsletter is sent to all AFS personnel.  The industry participants of this OSWG meeting agreed that they would also like to receive the OPSS newsletter when it is sent to AFS.  A copy of the latest newsletter was sent to the OSWG mailing list a few days after this meeting.


2.  Status of Assigned Action Items:                  Chairpersons

§                Review, amend, and adopt agenda

§                AFS-200 approved ISO 9001 Process for OpSpecs

1.  Proposed changes that would constitute "policy changes" to an OpSpec will need to be presented to the OSWG and AFS-260 in HBAT format which includes appendices containing the appropriate revision to the guidance for the OpSpec in 8400.10 and a sample of the proposed revised OpSpec.  (this should be incorporated into the OSWG SPEC)

2.  If you have a proposal, email Connie Streeter and she will provide you with a sample template for the proposal.


3.  OpSpec A013, Operations Without Certain Emergency Equipment (deviation)

Background:   A regulatory change to 14 CFR Part 135 and Part 91K now allows for a similar deviation for Part 135 certificate holders. 

FAA Lead =  Alaska CMO/Connie Streeter

Industry Lead = Jim Winkleman, Alaska Airlines (part 121))/ Dave Hewitt, Part 135

Desired Outcome:

a.   It was suggested that we do not change the OpSpec in regard to the policy but consider updating the guidance to suggest that a demo may need to be done if a ditching demo has never been done with the make/model of airplane IAW Section 121.291 that is proposed for the A013 operation. 

b.   Provide similar OpSpec & guidance for the Part 135 certificate holders.



a .  AFS-260 added the following statement to the Order 8400.10 guidance for A013 but it was rejected by AFS-220 as not a regulatory requirement for the A013 deviation:

“Issuance of OpSpec paragraphs A013 and A005 may not preclude the need for at least an abbreviated ditching demonstration.   Depending upon the circumstances, the CMO may require an abbreviated ditching demonstration before submitting the request to HQ.”     Jim Winkleman (AAL) provided a definition of an “abbreviated ditching demo” for passenger-carrying operations and Bill Cook will provide his input for all cargo.  However, AFS-200 determined that this will not be necessary.


b.  HBAT04-013 was revised and is presently in coordination.  The OpSpec itself was re-organized and the specific area of operations that would be allowed was added; many years ago as a result of a GAO audit, AFS had to pull back the authorizations and ensure that all that were re-issued were only in areas of warm/tropical waters. 



There was a lot of discussion at the meeting.  Bruce Montigney felt that the proposed coordinates included waters that were not always warm and should be re-considered.  John Cowen suggested that we just exclude Alaskan waters.  The HBAT was released as we discussed it.

Action:  The HBAT is again in review and the FAA plans to amend and re-release it.  Consequently the new OpSpec paragraphs have not been rolled awaiting the revision. 


4.  OpSpec A028, Wet Leases:

BACKGROUND:  The subject of Wet Leases has been a point of confusion and discussion for many years.  At various times there appears to be a renewed interest in the subject.  Last week it came to the attention of AFS HQ that certain air carriers were not being allowed to wet lease in certain foreign countries because it was not clear as to which carrier had operational control.  As a result, we dug into our archives of unfinished business and found an old draft of A028 and have refined it to satisfy the foreign authorities.


FAA Lead —Dave Catey/Connie Streeter

Industry Lead Amerijet & counsel


Desired Outcome: 

1—Satisfy both domestic and foreign authorities

2---Clarify which certificate holder has operational control

3—Clarify which certificate holder has responsibility for the aircraft maintenance


No Discussion.

ActionRevise the existing A028.

Re-roll it in the OPSS as a Mandatory change; --did not make the July 20th schedule.

Revise the guidance for A028 in 8400.10.  Draft HBAT on when it becomes available.


5.  OpSpec B034, PRNAV/BRNAV:

FAA Lead:  (Rich Gastrich/C. Streeter)

Industry Lead: 

Background :   Proposal to revise B034 and associated guidance to accommodate PRNAV—The Opspec currently addresses BRNAV.


Desired Outcome:   Revise OpSpec B034 and guidance for Order 8400.10 to provide for the required PRNAV authorization and updating the format of the OpSpec. 


Action:   As AFS-400/200 have provided draft guidance for Order 8400.10 and revised the OpSpec to provide for the required PRNAV authorization. 


Question to the group was:  Would you rather have TWO OpSpec paragraphs, one in Part B and one in Part C (PRNAV) or just the one to cover both in Part B034? The unanimous vote was for ONE OpSpec paragraph.


Review HBAT on

[Success—Provided new authorization ability for PRNAV in European Airspace]


6.  OpSpec C059/C359, CAT II Operations


OpSpec C359, Special Authorization For Certain Category II Operations at Specifically Approved Facilities


Background:  Order 8400.13 was published November 2002.  When OpSpec C059 for CAT II operations was revised, OpSpec C359 was put into place because of the requirements of Order 8400.13 for CAT II operations.  Even though this OpSpec is in the “300” series, for authorization the operator does not have to follow the “nonstandard OpSpec process” for its authorization.s published November 2002.  When OpSpec C059 for CAT II operations was revised, OpSpec C359 was put into place because of the requirements of Order 8400.13 for CAT II operations.  Even though this OpSpec is in the “300” series, for authorization the operator does not have to follow the “nonstandard OpSpec process” for its authorization.r CAT II operations.  Even though this OpSpec is in the “300” series, for authorization the operator does not have to follow the “nonstandard OpSpec process” for its authorization.


FAA Lead :  AFS-410/AFS-200

Industry Lead:   Jim Johnson, AA


Desired Outcome:  Explanation of how to be able to use C359.


Discussion:  Dick Temple explained that the original list from Order 8400.13 was reviewed and revised and can be found on the AFS-410 website.  Forty have been requested.  Order 8400.13 is presently revised again and in coordination.  The OpSpec may have to change as a result.  Bruce Montiguey requested that the subparagraph c be removed for “training and checking” because he felt the real intent was not to train this separately which that statement implies.s reviewed and revised and can be found on the AFS-410 website.  Forty have been requested.  Order 8400.13 is presently revised again and in coordination.  The OpSpec may have to change as a result.  Bruce Montiguey requested that the subparagraph c be removed for “training and checking” because he felt the real intent was not to train this separately which that statement implies. presently revised again and in coordination.  The OpSpec may have to change as a result.  Bruce Montiguey requested that the subparagraph c be removed for “training and checking” because he felt the real intent was not to train this separately which that statement implies.


Action/Outcome:  8400.13 Checklist for approvals is the required method.

Dick Temple will work with Lyle Wink on the status of these airports and determine which approach procedures are now published as Part 97s.  If you have any runways that are in question send msg to Dick Temple and he will do a “desk audit” on them.


7.  OpSpec C066/C069, Turbojet Airplane Takeoff Operations in Tailwind Conditions Not to Exceed 15 Knots—ARCHIVED from the OPSS!!


Background:  Chuck Schramek presented (at previous OSWG meeting) the reasons for additional restrictions for 15 kt tailwind takeoff authorizations.  AFM performance penalties are already restrictive.


Industry Lead = Chuck Schramek, Delta AirLines

FAA Lead = AFS-400/AFS-200


Outcome:  CLOSED (RECAP)

FAA Don Simpson provided justification to Chuck’s proposal; AFS-220 (Dennis Pratte) developed a bulletin from Mr. Simpson’s information to remove the OpSpec paragraphs; The paragraphs were archived June 2004. Removed & archived OpSpec C066/C069


[Success] - -This was a FIRST—as far as we know—we were able to remove OpSpecs rather than add them.


ACTION:  Closed


8. OpSpec C078/C079, Lower Than Standard Takeoff Minimums.  Parts 121, 125, and 135


1) Background: Previously, an issue was raised regarding runway 17/35 at KSLC as not included in their SMGCS Plan so no operations below 1200 RVR were authorized on that runway.  I therefore asked Jepp to change the takeoff minimums at SLC rwy 17/35 to 1200 RVR since the runway infrastructure supports takeoffs down to at least 1200 RVR.  OpSpecs and SMGCS do not agree.  OpSpecs address 1600, 1000, 500 and below 500.  NO SMGCS limits to 1200 or above.  SMGCS cutoffs are below 1200 to 600, then below 600 to 300.  Allowable take off minimums are the maximum of any limits, OpSpecs, SMGCS, etc.


Industry Lead = Chuck Schramek, Delta AirLines & John Cowan, United

FAA Lead = AFS-400/AFS-200

The following group agreed to get together to resolve the effect of the SMGCS issue:

Tom Schneider, AFS-420

Chuck Schramek, DALA

Kelly Dixon, Skywest

Jeppesen Representative

FAA CSET-Bob Januzzi

Jerry Ostronic, AFS-220

Dick Temple, AFS-410

Bob Hall, ALPA

Connie Streeter, AFS-260


Desired Outcome:   

a.  Resolution of the 4 RVR requirements:  2 Issues:  1) takeoff mins vs DP’s and 2) RVR requirements and charting


  1. To finally get the RVR requirements established for 2, 3, & 4 RVR system runways as they relate to the length of the runways
  2. How is official notification made to the public that a runway has 4 RVR?

¨      John Cowan met with Jeppesen in February

¨      AFS-410 will come up with appropriate change in the language for the 4 rvr systems

      and provide guidance on these systems other than in the OpSpecs.

¨      This affects other OpSpec paragraphs as well.

¨      AFS should publish proper documentation with information if necessary

¨      Four RVR Sensor Runways:   AFS-260 proposes that the following philosophy will be followed for the revision of C078.C079:  “Where four RVR reporting systems are installed (i.e., touchdown zone, mid, rollout, and far end sensors), the far end sensor, which is not required, may provide advisory information to pilots or may be substituted for the rollout sensor RVR report if the rollout sensor RVR report is not available.”

¨      A draft of the proposed changes was made available to the OSWG members prior to the meeting and comments were requested.


FAA Lead = Dick Temple, AFS-410/Connie Streeter, AFS-260/AFS-220


DISCUSSION: If we had had a tape recorder at any previous meeting we could have just done a play back and no one would have had to say anything.

1.  The OSWG members rejected the test plan proposed by AFS-420 because the test was supposed to be for “Taxing” and not for Take-off.  The test plan that was proposed had only take off profiles and no taxi profiles.

2.  They believe that it is inappropriate to tie SMGCS to either takeoff or landing minima. 


3.  The Industry group disagrees with the “findings and direction” provided in the AFS 1 letter sent to Mr. Cleary of Jeppesen on June 7, 2001. Specifically the group is unable to substantiate (in the references provided) any guidance that would lead one to conclude:

a.  That runways longer than 8000’ without three RVR reporting systems are restricted to takeoff minimums of 1000/1000 RVR. (No such distinction is made in any document and the group feels that C078 guidance applies.)

b.  There is a requirement that provisions of AC 120-57A must be meet to be authorized takeoff minimums below 600 RVR. On the contrary, OPSPEC C078 says “All operations using these minimums shall be conducted to runways which provide direct access to taxi routings which are equipped with operative taxiway centerline lighting which meets U.S. or ICAO criteria for CAT III operations; or other taxiway guidance systems approved for these operations”. There is a notable difference.



1.  FAA Action:  OpSpec C078 should be re-rolled with new formatting and the correction for an industry and FAA consensus on the policy for a four RVR reporting system:  “Where four RVR reporting systems are installed (i.e., touchdown zone, mid, rollout, and far end sensors), the far end sensor, which is not required, may provide advisory information to pilots or may be substituted for the rollout sensor RVR report if the rollout sensor RVR report is not available.”  [Success]

2.  Because of these and other concerns, the Industry group will prepare a letter to AFS 1 highlighting these discrepancies and recommending that:

a.  Runways where Jeppesen “artificially” raised the T/O minimums to 1000 RVR be reduced to the previous values.

b.  Landing and takeoff minimums be treated independently from SMGCS recommendations. For example, assuming a T/O authorization of 500 RVR, this would mean regardless of SMGCS capability, an airplane in the takeoff position with a new RVR report of 600/600/500 could takeoff even if the airport did not have less than 600 RVR SMGCS approved.


9.  OpSpec C074, Category I ILS, MLS, or GLS Approach

(D. Temple/C. Streeter)


Industry Lead:  None assigned

FAA Leads:   Dick Temple, AFS410/AFS-260/AFS-220


Background:  Order 8400.13 was revised November 2003.  It is now in coordination with new changes. s revised November 2003.  It is now in coordination with new changes.


D iscussion:   Once any runway has been officially charted by the FAA, it will not be required to have it listed in the OpSpec paragraph.


Desired Outcome:  


Action/Outcome:   Review C074 and corresponding guidance in Order 8400.10 (ISO 9001 process #200-012) revised to reflect the changes in Order 8400.13 revision.

[Success] :  Eventually official Part 97 charts will reflect the fact that the runway is approved for this operation—when that occurs, that runway will no longer need to be listed in the OpSpec itself.




Day 2

Begin at 8:30am




Reviewed the OSWG FAA/ATA (Industry) SPEC. 

DISCUSSION:   Do we need to change it now that we do not have an “official” ATA representative?  Industry participants recommended that we don’t make a change right now because they feel that even though it may not be a “specific” ATA representative, that any one of the ATA members would fulfill the responsibility for the others and make their recommendations to the ATA organization.  


We also all agreed that the original Appendices were not being used nor sufficiently updated so that we should remove them.  The Appendices A and B are essentially the electronic meeting roster.


The requirement for a proposed change in an OpSpec that is a policy or regulatory change must be presented in “HBAT” format and follow the ISO 9001 process for coordination and publication was added to the SPEC.  This requirement is for Industry and FAA that want to propose a change.  (An editorial or corrective change would not necessarily require going through this process, e.g., the four RVR system requirements).


10.  OpSpec A003.  Aircraft Listing.


Background:  OPSS will not let you input a number under "Seats Approved" that is greater than the number under "Seats Demo."


FAA Lead = AFS-260-Dave Burr/Dennis Pratte

Industry Lead = Jim Johnson, AA


Desired Outcome:   Jim Johnson would like to discuss paragraph A003 and the fact that OPSS doesn't allow us to input data to comply with the way 8400.10 requi res.


Discussion:   The carrier representatives the need to be able to enter several pieces of data and the FAA needs certain data:

1--the number of seats that the carrier has demonstrated

2--the number of seats the aircraft was certified or STC’d for, and

3—the number of seats  insured (135)



Action:  Dave Burr agreed to look into the re-programming of the OPSS and to revise the A003 guidance in Order 8400.10 to accommodate the needs of the FAA and the carriers.



11. OpSpec C067, Note the change in the title from: Special Airport Authorizations, Provisions, and Limitations –

to  “Special Authorizations, Provisions, and Limitations for Certain Airports”


BACKGROUND:  Part 139 and Section 121.590 changed in June 2004:

1.  14CFR Section 121.590 added the requirement for 9-30 seat pax-carrying scheduled operations to use Part 139 airports unless they could provide the same level of safety at an airport that did not have part 139 certification.

2.  14 CFR Section 121.590 does not apply to all cargo operations.

3.  Draft change to C067 and revised guidance (HBAT 04-067) are now in coordination and are available on the website for review and discussion. 

The title and modifiers are changed in the paragraph and the guidance.


FAA Lead:   Dave Catey, AFS-200/Connie Streeter, AFS-260

Industry Lead:  None assigned


Desired Outcome:   Correct OpSpec C067 & revise guidance—CHANGE TITLE of Paragraph!!




Action :   All members should review the draft HBAT and OpSpec C067 on and provide comments.



12. OpSpec C050, Special PIC Qualification Airports—14 CFR Section 121.445 Airport List Review & Recommendation of OSWG to AFS-220:

Background:   Advisory Circular 121.445 was cancelled and replaced with OpSpec C050 and guidance that directs the OSWG members to present additions and deletions to the 14 CFR Section 121.445 Special PIC Qualification Airport List.  The recommendation must include the airport information on the completed Airport Assessment Form found in association with OpSpec C050 and on the website.  The OSWG members should review the assessment and make a recommendation to FAA Headquarters, specifically AFS-220.  This recommendation will become a part of the OSWG minutes and presented to AFS-220 within 2 weeks of the quarterly OSWG meeting.  The Airport Assessment Form for each specific airport recommendation will also be forwarded to AFS-220.  AFS-220 will make the final determination in regard to the request and recommendation.  If a change in the Special PIC Qualification Airport List is to be made, the OSWG members will be notified by email, the revised List will be posted on the public website at and in the OPSS guidance subsystem in association with both OpSpec C050 and C067, and reported at the next quarterly OSWG meeting.


Industry Lead:   Casey Seabright, NWA

FAA Lead:   AFS-220/260


Desired Outcome A known process for updating the Special PIC Qualification Airport List. A consistent process for updating the Special PIC Qualification Airport List.


Additional processes that are included in the FAA/Industry SPEC for this process:

1) Should have a minimum of 1 week lead time before the OSWG quarterly meeting

2) OSWG Members can vote at the meeting or they can send their recommendation to Connie Streeter for submittal at the meeting.

3) Notification to certificate holders:

¨      Put a Note on the OPSS Splash Screen for first line of notification

¨      Change the Special PIC airport List in guidance subsystem in association with

      OpSpecs C050 and C067

¨      Change the Special PIC airport List on the website

¨      Send email message to OSWG members

¨      Discussion of each individual assessment

¨      Recommendation for AFS-200



v          Review PGUM Assessment by Jackson Seltzer, CALA representative.  Representatives from CALA were taking a closer look at the GUAM airport to see if it indeed should be added to the list.  As of the writing of these minutes CALA withdrew its petition to make Agana, Guam a special airport.  The Airport Assessment Aid has been change to reflect that position.

v          OSWG recommendation is that we should not let politics interfere with a technical assessment and let the FAA make the final determination.

v          The OSWG members agree that the Special PIC Qualification Airports that an air carrier uses should not be listed in the OpSpec even though the Dispatcher’s group would like them to be.



1.            This information will be provided to the Air Transportation Division, AFS-200.  That division of the FAA will make the final determination taking this recommendation into consideration.

2.            No Change to OpSpec C050


13. OpSpecs C059/C060—CAT II/CAT III Lists on AFS-410 Website

Background:   Frustration in regard to the CAT II/III list not being updated in a timely manner—and the requirement for the CAT III domestic airports to be listed in OpSpec C060 before an air carrier can conduct CAT III operations at that runway. Casey Seabright provided background for discussion. 


Industry Lead = Casey Seabright, NWA     

FAA Lead = AFS-400/AFS-200


Desired Outcome:  Hooper Harris, AFS-400 has requested that the OSWG work with him to overhaul the CAT II/III procedure authorization process.


Discussion:  Dick Temple explained that the AFS-410 website has now been changed.  [success]



A.  The group proposed that as the domestic part 97 CAT II and CAT III approaches are published they do not have to be on the website in order for the cert holder to conduct those operations; AFS-410 is anticipating having NOTAM ability.

For these runways, when the SIAP is published, it is able to be use per the effective date on the chart.  The AFS-410 website is for information purposes only; AFS-410 may transfer the CAT II/III approvals to the regional AWOs

When AFS-260 changes those OpSpec paragraphs, notification will be;

¨      Emailed to the OSWG and Splash screen notification

¨      Change the paragraphs, C059 & C060

¨      Change the AFS-410 website

¨      Change the JobAid for C059 and C060


B.  OpSpec C059 was revised to correct subparagraph for 121.652 and to include the 4RVR sensor requirement and re-rolled as a mandatory change. (Closed)


C.  OpSpec C060 will be revised accordingly and revised to include the 4RVR sensor requirement and subparagraph for 14 CFR Section 121.652.

re-rolled as a mandatory change.

D.  Continental requested non-std language to add “SSALSR” to the approach lighting system requirements.  Still being reviewed by the FAA.


14. OpSpec A048.  Verification of Personnel for Access to Flightdeck. 

Background:   Originally the FAA published guidance that the electronic databases to be used for the verification of personnel for access to the flightdeck should be authorized in OpSpec A025. 


FAA LEAD = Tom Penland/Joe Keenan, AFS-220

Industry Leads = UPS/American Airlines


Desired Outcome:   As AFS-200 is in the process of incorporating that guidance into the Order 8400.10 and OpSpec paragraph A048. 


No Discussion.


Action:  Closed (Recap)--FYI

1.  When AFS-220 completed development of the “checklist” and draft guidance, the OpSpec was rolled into the OPSS.

2.  The guidance, checklist, and OpSpec documents are in formal coordination for publication in Order 8400.10.

3.  OpSpec A048 was rolled into the live OPSS about a week after the April OSWG meeting.  Official guidance is in coordination for publication in Order 8400.10.



15. OpSpec A096/97/98/99, Weight and Balance

Background:  Recent accidents caused the FAA to re-evaluate the Wt. & Balance Programs.  There is rulemaking in progress and a revision to the advisory circular. A draft of the 4 proposed paragraphs was available at the April meeting for review and discussion; the 4 proposed paragraphs are available on the website.


FAA LEAD: Tom Penland/Dennis Pratte, AFS-220

Industry LEADs : ARC


Desired Outcome:   A reasonable safety solution and a tracking of the methodology used by the air carriers.


ACTION:  Review and provide comment on draft documents posted on

No Discussion or comments.


16. C055 Alternate Airport Weather Requirements:  

Background: Jim Winkleman suggested an amendment to the Opspec to allow carriers consider Charted Visual Flight Procedures (CVFP’s) for determining alternate airport weather requirements to designate an airport for use as an alternate.  Connie has taken forward the suggestions and options to review the possibility of an opspec amendment.


FAA LEAD:  Dennis Pratte, AFS-260

Industry LEAD: Jim Winkleman, Alaska Airlines


Desired Outcome : The ability to use alternates with CVFP’s for the purposes of dispatching under CFR 121, while under an IFR flight plan.


Discussion:  No discussion as the FAA lead had left and the Industry lead was not in attendance.


Action:   Review draft changes on and provide comment.  Deferred to October OSWG meeting.



17.  Status Report on other Open Action items:


C070 – Airport Listing Gordy Rother and Dave Burnham will work to revise guidance to 8400.10 VOL 3, 1185 so as to clarify guidance and airport type definitions.  Deferred to October OSWG meeting.


C058 Foreign Instrument Procedures :  Is an update available from AFS-400/AFS-200?  Order 8260.311 is in final coordination.  Tom Schneider is proposing that the POIs have specific training in this area.  This document was coordinated through the FAA PARC group.


New OpSpec B059 for Part 135 and 91 Subpart K (Fractionals) Change 26 to Order 8400.10 gives guidance for the separation of the MNPS airspace authorizations.  The FAA Navigation specialists requested that we provide a separate authorization for the Canadian MNPS from the NAT/MNPS for the Part 135s (& Fractionals).  The new B059 is now available in the OPSS.


19.  Customer Survey Connie Streeter asked each meeting participant to fill out an OSWG Customer Survey.  This is a new requirement for FAA personnel.  A summary of the results for the OSWG 2004-03 meeting follows on the next page.

Summary of OSWG 2004-03 Customer Feedback Assessment

Quarterly ISO 9001 Customer Feedback Assessment:

OSWG 2004-03

Subject or Paragraph


Possible Improvements


Rating 1-5




very good guidance







dislike restricting areas




































































































Zero G












NonStd Requests






Email Inquiries






Telephone Resp.






OSWG material



4 website


make more user-friendly
















This process supports the division's goal in managing national standards and policies for 14 CFR Part 91K & 119 [135 & 121] operators. This represents the customer satisfaction survey results from the ISO process AFS-200-012 at the quarterly OSWG 2004-03 meeting.  A survey will be taken at each quarterly meeting.   The information is displayed in a bar chart which shows that overall, the customers are satisified with the OSWG process.  The ratings were averaged by the number that responded to a particular subject--not all subjects applied to all the participants. I suspect that the ratings are more reflective of how satisified the industry was with the outcome of the policy as it affected them rather than with the OSWG process.