FAA/Aviation Industry Agenda for

OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) 2004-04

October 19 (Tuesday, 1 pm-5 pm)/20 (Wednesday, 8:30-noon), 2004

Hosted by

Delta Air Lines Operational Center 3 (OC3), Room 4016

Everyone planning to attend must send their name and company to

Lucy Satterwhite at:  Lucy.Satterwhite@delta.com

The hotel will drop people off in front of the Training Center.  OC3 is across the street.  I have not decided on dinner for Tuesday night yet. As you can imagine, whatever it is, it will be Dutch treat.

Chuck Schramek, System Manager Quality Assurance and Compliance

Delta Flight Operations, (404) 715-1112

 

RAMADA PLAZA HOTEL – Atlanta Airport North

is currently blocking 40 rooms for us at the price of $59 per night.  The cut off date was September 27, 2004.  After that date, that price will no longer be available.  The rooms are under the name of Delta OSWG, so when the guests call in, they must mention that.  Shuttle service is available to and from the airport 24 hrs.

1419 Virginia Avenue

Atlanta , GA 30337

Phone : 404-768-7800

 

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

October 18-19, 2005

FAA-Washington , DC ???

 

Chairpersons:      Casey Seabright, NWA, Industry Chair

John Cowan, UAL, Industry Vice Chair

Connie Streeter, FAA Chair

1.  Convene :

Chair

Roll call—

1.  Roster:  Please pass the Roster around and initial in the left margin if all information is complete and correct;  Please make the necessary corrections;  A copy of this meeting’s Roster will be sent in a separate electronic file to all those on the OSWG email list

2.   2005 Meeting Locations.  Review January 2005, April 2005, July 2005 meeting locations.

3.   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 and the OSWG mailing list.  Any comments/suggestions?

4.  General Information in Regard to Agenda Items: 

1.  Proposed changes to an OpSpec or to the guidance that would constitute "policy changes" to an OpSpec will generally 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 8400.10/8300.10 and a sample of the proposed OpSpec revision and/or guidance. 

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

 

2.  Status of Assigned Action Items:                  Chairpersons

§                Review, amend, and adopt agenda

 

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

Background:  A regulatory change to 14 CFR Part 135 and Part 91K now allows for the same deviation for Part 135 certificate holders and Fractional Owners (91K).  A HBAT was published that removed the engine reliability requirement and added specific LAT/LONGs for the areas where the authorization might be allowed.  The new OpSpec A013 was never rolled because the FAA is re-evaluating the areas to which this deviation would be restricted.

 

FAA Lead =  AFS-220—Joe Keenan

Industry Lead =

Desired Outcome:

a.  To come to a final decision that maintains a high level of safety.

 

Discussion: 

 

ACTION : Pending

 

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

 

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 opspecs.com when it becomes available.

 

5.  OpSpec B034, PRNAV/BRNAV:

FAA Lead:   (Rich Gastrich/C. Streeter)

Industry Lead: 

Background :   PRNAV implementation in European airspace is scheduled for November 20, 2004.

 

Desired Outcome :   HBAT 04-10, IFR Operating Requirements for U.S. Operators and Aircraft in European Airspace Designated for Basic Area Navigation (B-RNAV) and Precision Area Navigation (P-RNAV) Operations was published to revise Order 8400.10 guidance and to provide for the required PRNAV authorization by updating the format of the OpSpec.   The OpSpec previously addressed only BRNAV.

 

Action:   Closed

**Add B036—Tasmine Sea, Australia..guidance TBP—add selectable = “30nm/30nm (RNP-4)”

6.  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 opspecs.com and provide comment.  Deferred to October OSWG meeting.

 

7.  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.  C0359.  Since a regional AWO has raised the issue of certain carriers legality in operating to certain approved runways we have become aware that many carriers have had airport/runways approved (years ago under the original guidance in 8400.10).  POIs and carriers that were in compliance with the past guidance are now being told that airport/runways need to be re-approved.  We have not received adequate explanation for this other than they are not listed on a web site.

 

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. 

 

Review HBAT for C0359.

 

8. 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. 

 

Action/Outcome: 

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

¨      Revise the 8400.10 guidance to correspond to the 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 4 RVR 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.

 

ACTION:   Revise the 8400.10 guidance to correspond to the revisions to C060 from a few years ago.

 

9. OpSpec C067 HBAT 04-11 was published with the revision to OpSpec C067 and guidance.

 

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.   The title and modifiers were changed in the OpSpec.

 

DISCUSSION: 

 

ACTION/Outcome:  Closed

 

10.  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.  Since a regional AWO has raised the issue of certain carriers legality in operating to certain approved runways we have become aware that many carriers have had airport/runways approved (years ago under the original guidance in 8400.10).  POIs and carriers that were in compliance with the past guidance are now being told that airport/runways need to be re-approved.  We have not received adequate explanation for this other than they are not listed on a web site. 

 

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: 

C074 and corresponding guidance in Order 8400.10 (ISO 9001 process #200-012) revised to reflect the changes in Order 8400.13 revision followed for proposed revisions

 

Action/Outcome:   Review C074 and corresponding guidance in Order 8400.10 (ISO 9001 process #200-012) need to be 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.

 

However, The carriers are requesting Hooper Harris, Manager, AFS-410, to provide a thorough detailed explanation why this is happening.

 

11. 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.  T he opspecs are no longer available for comment on opspecs.com.  The guidance and notice have been issued and the paragraphs are available in the OPSS.  Many carriers are in negotiation with the FAA on changes/revisions to the AC.

 

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. 

 

Discussion:   HBAW 04-05 and HBAT 04-08, Weight and Balance Program Operations Specifications Paragraphs A011, A096, A097, A098, A099, and E096 was published on August 11, 2004. (Success). 

 

ACTION:  Closed—except for the AC:

On Sept. 17, the comment period closes on the new Advisory Circular on Aircraft Weight and Balance Control.   As Hop Potter, Manager, Air Carrier Training Branch, explained, “The long-awaited revision to AC 120-27 was issued on Aug. 11, comprising a thorough (79 pages) how-to-do-it guide to development and implementation of a weight and balance control method acceptable to the FAA. New average weights are included.” You may recall that NTSB findings from the Jan. 2003 Air Midwest accident cited inaccurate weight-and-balance calculations as playing a role. FAA research showed that we needed to update our system of average weights for passengers, carry-ons, and baggage. Passengers and what they carry on with them weigh more—by about 20 pounds—and checked baggage weighs more too. Find the Advisory Circular at:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet ( Search for AC 120-27D). The AC sets out new passenger weights as well as new weights for passengers flying on airlines with a no-carry-on bag program. Potter is, as the English say, “spot on” when he said the AC was thorough. Also, a one-year interim period is permitted during which a certificate holder may adopt the average weights developed by the FAA or may, at its option, conduct a survey to identify and implement other weights. Address questions on Weight and Balance Control to Dennis Pratte, AFS-220, at 202-267-8166.

 

 

 

Day 2

Begin at 8:30am

 

 

 

12.  Status Report on other Open Action items:

 

ATTENTION:   The Citrix server avrexcokcca (ip 162.58.35.13) will be removed from service January 01 (this is an arbitrary date) and that anyone that is still accessing their OPSS from this server needs to make arrangements to change their firewall setting or contact me and see if there is an alternate solution i.e., dialup.  I show activity on this server from the following companies:  UPS (Bill Cook), Fedex (Miquel Padron), United (Thomas Cincotta), American (Keller, Johnson) but may have missed someone.  From:  Cindy Logan, 202-385-4519, cindy.ctr.logan@faa.gov.

 

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.  Casey Seabright is attempting to communicate with John McGraw, AFS-400 and asking for a meeting with a few representatives from the OSWG.

 

OpSpec C078/C079.

OpSpecs C078/C079 were 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] Closed

 

Customer Survey Connie Streeter asked each meeting participant to fill out an OSWG Customer Survey.  This is a new requirement for FAA personnel. 

 

Other.  HBAW 04-07 was published with updated information and simplified guidance on issuance of maintenance operations specifications (OpSpecs) “D” and “E” paragraphs by aviation safety inspectors (ASI). This guidance supersedes all other local, regional, and national guidance. The attachment is a revision of volume 2, chapter 84 from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 8300.10, Airworthiness Inspector’s Handbook.

 

14.  [Standing agenda item]  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 www.opspecs.com 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 http://www.opspecs.com 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.

Action/Outcome: 

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 b website

¨      Send email message to OSWG members

¨      Discussion of each individual assessment

¨      Recommendation for AFS-200

DISCUSSION:  Chuck Schramek, Delta Air Lines proposes a removal of the two Russian airports from the Special PIC Qualification Airport List:

 

ACTION: 

1.            The recommendations of the OSWG 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.

 

15.  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:  

Discussion:   The FAA proposes to revise the OPSS software to accommodate the following:

1--the number of seats the aircraft was certified or STC’d (all aircraft in OPSS) for

2--the number of seats that the carrier has demonstrated (121 only), and

3—the number of seats installed (all aircraft in OPSS)

 

Action:  Dave Burr will provide a preview of the re-programming of the OPSS to accommodate the needs of the FAA and the carriers. 

 

Additional Change:  The signature block has the following now:

This is how it comes out with the FAA button:

****************************************************************

1.       Issued by the Federal Aviation Administration.

2.     These Operations Specifications are approved by direction of the Administrator.

 

 

Test121, Test1   Principal Operations Inspector    EA19         

*******************************************************************

This is how it comes out with the Industry-requested button:

***************************************************************

1.     The Certificate Holder applies for the Operations in this paragraph.

2.     Support information reference:    We don't know why

3.     These Operations Specifications are approved by direction of the Administrator.

 

 

Trump, Donald                                                     Principal Operations Inspector

****************************************************************

When the OPSS changes are made both the FAA or Industry will be able to put in support information that will archive with each individual paragraph.

******************************************************************************************

Miscellaneous Information:

FAA Directory.   Starting July 7, 2004, the public will have access to an on-line organization and employee phone directory.  Anyone interested in locating an FAA organization or employee can search by location or employee name by going to the FAA home page under “About FAA” or http://directory.faa.gov .  Point of Contact:  Patricia Carter, APF-100, at patricia.carter@faa.gov or 202-267-9946.

****************************

TWA Flies Into History The passengers likely didn’t know, but Skip Whitrock and Dean Adam certainly knew that flight 2932 from Dallas/Ft. Worth to St. Louis the evening of Aug. 30, 2004, was TWA’s last flight. American Airlines acquired TWA assets in April 2001 and to the public the acquisition was completed some time ago. But flight 2932 was the last flight operated on TWA’s OpSpecs and operated by a TWA flight crew. Whitrock, who’s been Assistant Manager, TWA Certification Management Office and Principal Maintenance Inspector, said “FAA had done a lot work with TWA on ATOS and had a close working relationship.” That’s what made the last flight so meaningful. In addition, both he and Dean Adam, who had been TWA Supervisory Principal Operations Inspector appreciate TWA’s heritage and said this flight was “another significant milestone in aviation history…A pioneer in the aviation industry TWA had operated for 79 years, one month, and 17 days obtaining one of the best safety records in the industry. TWA can boast of having many firsts, among them:  The first airline to offer transcontinental nonstop flights between the East and West coasts, the first to offer true round-the-world service, the first to conduct all cargo jet service, the first U.S. carrier to offer two engine jet trans-Atlantic service utilizing ETOPS procedures, and the first airline to offer all-jet service across the Atlantic.” Whitrock said 183 TWA aircraft went to American and each took about 30 days to transition the cockpit (different avionics), cabin (AA seating and medical equipment), as well as the exterior livery. Next stop for Whitrock is the AMR CMO to work with American Eagle and Adam is Acting Operations Supervisor for Remotely Sited Inspectors. Thanks, Skip and Dean, for reminding us about this significant event and for the memories.

**************************************************************

MEMO FOR RECORD  (Section 121.445, Special PIC airports)

Friday, October 01, 2004

Mr. Kaiser,

AFFSA/XOIP participated in the weekly FAA Procedures Review Board via telecon yesterday with numerous FAA offices including AFS-410 and AFS-420.  The main subject of the telecon concerned the safety of civilian air carrier flights to and from Thule AB, Greenland.  As you know, instrument procedures at Thule are published in TRUE headings versus the standard MAGNETIC headings and therefore are nonstandard. 

 

As a result of the telecon, AFFSA/XOIP agreed with the FAA that the following note must be added to all civil and military instrument procedures developed, published, and/or reviewed by the FAA or by the USAF that are published in TRUE:

 

"SPECIAL AIRCREW AND AIRCRAFT AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED".

 

It was determined that this note will become a standard note to publish in this circumstance.  AFFSA/XOF will ensure the appropriate guidance is published in AFI 11-202v3 and will coordinate with AFFSA/XOIA for the appropriate guidance to be added to FLIP GP.  AFFSA/XOIP will ensure this note is added to all instrument procedures published in TRUE by the USAF.  USAF aircrews are already being made aware of the requirements incurred by the new note.  The FAA will ensure civil aircrews are made aware of the requirements; the addition of this note should not affect current contract air carrier operations at Thule.

 

Ensure appropriate NOTAMs are issued as soon as possible to include the exact wording of the above note on each instrument approach and departure procedure published at Thule.

 

Ensure NGA is notified to add the note to all applicable procedures in the DoD FLIP (Terminal) High and Low Canada and North Atlantic via the next TCN.  If it is not possible for NGA to have this note added to the 30 Sept TCN, please have them add it no later than the 25 Nov 2004 TCN.

 

As the instrument approach and departure procedures at Thule AB are nonstandard and have approved waivers to TERPS criteria, please ensure a copy of this email is attached to each waiver form in each procedure package.  We will do the same to our copies of each procedure package.

 

Please call me, Lt Col Pixley or Mr. Wiseman if you have any questions.

 

Michael R. Clayton, Program Manager  

USAF Instrument Procedures

Hq AF Flight Standards Agency

Instrument Standards Division

1535 Command Drive , Suite D-307

Andrews AFB, MD 20762-7002

Comm (240) 857-6701

DSN 857-6701

FAX 857-7996

God promises a safe landing, not a calm passage

 

Discussion: 

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

**TCAS-ELT-Russian Airspace:  Dave:  I have some info for you but I do not know if it is what you need.  The implementation date is Jan 1 2005 for the whole world.  The situation with the Russians is that they are not only implementing at the same time but they are also requiring that of the two ELTs' required they say that one of them must be Auto-activated.  This will be a problem for some carriers who do not have an automatic ELT on board.  The Russians are requiring this auto feature above 60 North latitude in their airspace.  Apparently IATA and others are protesting this to the Russians but I have not heard about any delays in implementation.  ICAO standard is for the requirement of two ELTs but not that one must be automatic.  Hope this helps.  I will here more tomorrow from the Russians but I do not think that they will change the requirement.

Best Regards,

Bob Tegeder

DOT - FAA

Flight Technologies and Procedures Div., AFS - 400

Tel:  202-385-4581,  Fax:  202-385-4653

 

10/18/04

Dave:  These two are forwarded for your attention.  This is what is in the Annexs'.  The Russians have said that they will require that one of the ELT's be automatic starting Jan 2, 2005.

Hope all is well with you.

Best Regards,

Bob Tegeder

DOT - FAA

Flight Technologies and Procedures Div., AFS - 400

Tel:  202-385-4581,  Fax:  202-385-4653

 

International Restrictions:

The International Website has been down for several months due to security risks.  If you need to check on a country please email connie.Streeter@faa.gov to request information on that country.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


Summary of OSWG 2004-04 Customer Feedback Assessment

Quarterly ISO 9001 Customer Feedback Assessment:

OSWG 2004-04

Subject or Paragraph

Positive

Possible Improvements

Average

Rating 1-5

Customer

CAR

A011/A096/97/98/99

 

 

 

 

 

A013

 

 

 

 

 

A028

 

 

 

 

 

A048

 

 

 

 

 

B034

 

 

 

 

 

B343

 

 

 

 

 

C050

 

 

 

 

 

C055

 

 

 

 

 

C058

 

 

 

 

 

C059/C359

 

 

 

 

 

C060

 

 

 

 

 

C066/C069

 

 

 

 

 

C067

 

 

 

 

 

C070

 

 

 

 

 

C074

 

 

 

 

 

C078/C079

 

 

 

 

 

C089/C090/C052

 

 

 

 

 

A003

 

 

 

 

 

Zero G

 

 

 

 

 

Portal

 

 

 

 

 

NonStd Requests

 

 

 

 

 

Email Inquiries

 

 

 

 

 

Telephone Resp.

 

 

 

 

 

OSWG material

 

 

 

 

 

Opspecs.com website

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 satisfied 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 satisfied the industry was with the outcome of the policy as it affected them rather than with the OSWG process.