FAA/Aviation Industry Minutes 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

Atlanta , GA 30337

Phone : 404-768-7800

 

October 19-20, 2004

DELTA-Atlanta , GA

January 18-19, 2005

SWA—Ft. Lauderdale, FL = location

April 26-27, 2005

FAA-Washington , DC

July 26-27, 2005

United – Denver, CO

October 18-19, 2005

FAA-Washington , DC TBA

 

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?  ATL FSDO & CSET did not receive the broadcast mailing—need to check.

4.  General Information in Regard to Agenda Items: 

a.  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. 

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

5.  Casey Seabright announced that he has heard via the grapevine that ATA is considering bringing back the OSWG under it umbrella.  No one really knows what that means.

 

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 = Chuck Schramek, Delta Air Lines/Jackson Seltzer, Continental Airlines/Jim Stieve, Southwest Airlines/Bill Cook, UPS

Desired Outcome:

a.  FAA proposes that the d eviation will only be authorized over “warm” water (i.e., 15 ° C/59 ° F) areas as defined by U.S. Coast Guard Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 7-91. 

b.  Industry wants a more reasonable answer.

 

Discussion:  Industry raised the following concerns:

What’s the problem?

We have been operating for years with no problems.

Where is the risk assessment?

Is it safer to endure turbulence or over fly cold water?

How does an air carrier monitor current water temperature to ensure the deviation is authorized?

 

The paragraph statement: “c.  Inflight operations do not exceed 162 nautical miles from a shoreline at any time” leaves prudent weather deviations in question (i.e., is Captains emergency authority required to exceed 162nm during a prudent weather deviation?). The group will request a minor clarifying revision while in Washington.

 

ACTION Delta and Continental agreed to be the lead carriers to meet in Washington with the appropriate FAA personnel to work this out.

 

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.

 

No action ready.

 

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.

DISCUSSION:   New B034 is missing: (3) An approved area navigation system fix may be substituted for a required en route ground facility when that facility is temporarily out of service, provided the approved navigation system has sufficient accuracy to navigate the aircraft to the degree of accuracy or required navigation performance (RNP) type required for air traffic control over that portion of the flight.” What happened? Possible error…  Connie will verify.

 

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:    “(3) An approved area navigation system fix may be substituted for a required en route ground facility when that facility is temporarily out of service, provided the approved navigation system has sufficient accuracy to navigate the aircraft to the degree of accuracy or required navigation performance (RNP) type required for air traffic control over that portion of the flight.” What happened? Possible error…  Connie will verify.

 

5.5.  OpSpec B036, Class II Navigation – Beginning Nov 25, 2004 Australia routes over the Tasmine Sea will require RNP-4.

ACTION:  OPSPEC & guidance updates coming soon.

 

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:  The FAA is reluctant to entertain this concept due to concerns over an “equivalent level of safety”. Requesting a non-standard paragraph for a specific airport may be an option.

 

Action:  Dave Burr agreed to the following action items:

-                  Readdress the use of “CVFP” approach alternates with his FAA counter parts.

-                Consider the use of facilities with only RNAV approaches as an alternate.

 

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.

FAA Lead :  AFS-410/AFS-200

Industry Lead:   Jim Johnson, AA

 

Desired Outcome:  Explanation of how to be able to use C359.   We have not received adequate explanation for the runways being taken from them other than they are not listed on a web site.

 

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 for CAT I.  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 for CAT I.  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 appendices provide the Checklists for requesting runway approvals.

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. 

 

Bruce and other POIs are also reviewing the necessity of having a separate paragraph at all for this authorization C359.

 

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

 

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:  

1- Revise the 8400.10 guidance to correspond to the revisions to C060 from a few years ago.

Request “equal” equipment (e.g., same HUD model) get credit for flight trials. Trying to get 25 landings with every variant of airframe/equipment is often difficult and provides little value. Change restrictions on website to show the variant.  Casey and Jim Winkleman will travel to Washington to discuss…

 

2-A C060 revision addressing approach lighting and missed approach guidance is in the works. 

 

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

 

Industry Lead:  Chuck Schramek, Delta Air Lines

FAA Lead:  Dave Catey, AFS-200

 

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:  Concerning listing Military airfields in this OPSPEC, Industry interprets 121.590 in the following way:  If it’s not operated by the U.S. Government or Part 139 certified, THEN the airport must be included in the OPSPEC. Hence, there is no need to list Military airfields in the OPSPEC as they are “Government” airports.

FAR 121.590

Use of certificated land airports in the United States.

 (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section, or unless authorized by the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44706(c), no air carrier and no pilot being used by an air carrier may operate, in the conduct of a domestic type operation, flag type operation, or supplemental type operation, an airplane at a land airport in any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States unless that airport is certificated under part 139 of this chapter. Further, after June 9, 2005 for Class I airports and after December 9, 2005 for Class II, III, and IV airports, when an air carrier and a pilot being used by the air carrier are required to operate at an airport certificated under part 139 of this chapter, the air carrier and the pilot may only operate at that airport if the airport is classified under part 139 to serve the type airplane to be operated and the type of operation to be conducted.

(b)

(1) An air carrier and a pilot being used by the air carrier in the conduct of a domestic type operation, flag type operation, or supplemental type operation may designate and use as a required alternate airport for departure or destination an airport that is not certificated under part 139 of this chapter.

(2) Until December 9, 2005, an air carrier and a pilot being used by the air carrier in the conduct of domestic type operations and flag type operations, may operate an airplane designed for more than 9 but less than 31 passenger seats, at a land airport, in any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States, that does not hold an airport operating certificate issued under part 139 of this chapter, and that serves small air carrier aircraft (as defined under "Air carrier aircraft" and "Class III airport" in § 139.5 of this Chapter).

(c) An air carrier and a pilot used by the air carrier in conducting a domestic type operation, flag type operation, or supplemental type operation may operate an airplane at an airport operated by the U.S. Government that is not certificated under part 139 of this chapter, only if that airport meets the equivalent--

(1) Safety standards for airports certificated under part 139 of this chapter; and

(2) Airport classification requirements under part 139 to serve the type airplane to be operated and the type of operation to be conducted.

(d) An air carrier, a commercial operator, and a pilot being used by the air carrier or the commercial operator--when conducting a passenger-carrying airplane operation under this part that is not a domestic type operation, a flag type operation, or a supplemental type operation--may operate at a land airport not certificated under part 139 of this chapter only when the following conditions are met:

(1) The airport is adequate for the proposed operation, considering such items as size, surface, obstructions, and lighting.

(2) For an airplane carrying passengers at night, the pilot may not take off from, or land at, an airport unless--

(i) The pilot has determined the wind direction from an illuminated wind direction indicator or local ground communications or, in the case of takeoff, that pilot's personal observations; and

(ii) The limits of the area to be used for landing or takeoff are clearly shown by boundary or runway marker lights. If the area to be used for takeoff or landing is marked by flare pots or lanterns, their use must be authorized by the Administrator.

(e) A commercial operator and a pilot used by the commercial operator in conducting a domestic type operation, flag type operation, or supplemental type operation may operate an airplane at an airport operated by the U.S. Government that is not certificated under part 139 of this chapter only if that airport meets the equivalent--

(1) Safety standards for airports certificated under part 139 of this chapter; and

(2) Airport classification requirements under part 139 of this chapter to serve the type airplane to be operated and the type of operation to be conducted.

(f) For the purpose of this section, the terms--

Domestic type operation means any domestic operation conducted with--

(1) An airplane designed for at least 31 passenger seats (as determined by the aircraft type certificate issued by a competent civil aviation authority) at any land airport in any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States; or

(2) An airplane designed for more than 9 passenger seats but less than 31 passenger seats (as determined by the aircraft type certificate issued by a competent civil aviation authority) at any land airport in any State of the United States (except Alaska), the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States.

Flag type operation means any flag operation conducted with--

(1) An airplane designed for at least 31 passenger seats (as determined by the aircraft type certificate issued by a competent civil aviation authority) at any land airport in any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States; or

(2) An airplane designed for more than 9 passenger seats but less than 31 passenger seats (as determined by the aircraft type certificate issued by a competent civil aviation authority) at any land airport in any State of the United States (except Alaska), the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States.

Supplemental type operation means any supplemental operation (except an all-cargo operation) conducted with an airplane designed for at least 31 passenger seats (as determined by the aircraft type certificate issued by a competent civil aviation authority) at any land airport in any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States.

United States means the States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the territories and possessions of the United States.

Note: Special Statutory Requirement to Operate to or From a Part 139 Airport. Each air carrier that provides--in an aircraft (e.g., airplane, rotorcraft, etc.) designed for more than 9 passenger seats--regularly scheduled charter air transportation for which the public is provided in advance a schedule containing the departure location, departure time, and arrival location of the flight must operate to and from an airport certificated under part 139 of this chapter in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 41104(b). That statutory provision contains stand-alone requirements for such air carriers and special exceptions for operations in Alaska and outside the United States. Nothing in § 121.590 exempts the air carriers described in this note from the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 41104(b). Certain operations by air carriers that conduct public charter operations under 14 CFR part 380 are covered by the statutory requirements to operate to and from part 139 airports. See 49 U.S.C. 41104(b).

[Doc. No. 20450, Amdt. 121-182, 49 FR 18089, Apr. 27, 1984; Amdt. 121-251, 60 FR 65935, Dec. 20, 1995; Amdt. 121-262, 60 FR 13257, March 19, 1997; Amdt. 121-304, 69 FR 6379, February 10, 2004, effective June 9, 2004, as corrected at 69 FR 31522, June 4, 2004]

{Beginning of old text revised February 10, 2004, effective June 9, 2004}

 

ACTION/Outcome:  Remove requirement for listing Military airports in C067.

Chuck S. will include this concern in his upcoming discussions in Washington…

 

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

(D. Temple/C. Streeter)

 

Industry Lead:  Chuck Schramek, Delta Air Lines/Jackson Seltzer, Continental Airlines

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.

 

Minutes:

No effort spent on this today…

 

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—AC 120-27D was published but will be revised shortly to clarify language for standard weights.

 

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/   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.  NO Report 2004-04

 

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. 

OSWG 2004-04--Casey Seabright briefed his draft letter to John McGraw on the 8260.31C proposal. 

 

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 http://www.opspecs.com/ 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 for the removal of these two airports 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.  Connie will send an email request to all OSWG members asking for their recommendation (yea or nay) in supporting Delta’s proposal to remove both UUDD, Moscow Russia (Domodedovo) and ULLI, St. Petersburg, Russia from the Special PIC Qualification Airport List. Members should cc: Casey Seabright.

 

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)

 

Dave Burr provided a preview of the re-programming of the OPSS to accommodate the needs of the FAA and the carriers. 

 

Action:  Changes to the OPSS software are scheduled for release by the end of 2004.

 

 

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

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

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:

 

b

 

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:   The air carriers (Delta, American, NWA, etc.,) wanted me to pass along their comment about the note that would be added to the charted procedures in true.  One suggestion was "Aircrew and Aircraft Must be Authorized Operations in True....."  The argument is that the statement is too generic...they want the FAA to "just say it" ..."say what it IS" that is required, not just this generic statement...

 

ACTION:   Connie Streeter to pass along the information to the Flt Procedures Charting Group.

 

New Agenda Items:

 

Subject:  Tailored ATC procedures: 

BACKGROUND:  Special (or tailored) procedures that are not included in C081 (e.g., SNA Back Bay 2 Departure).

 

DISCUSSION:   It was pointed out that many of us have special or tailored arrival, approach and departure procedures. Although there are times when such measures are warranted (e.g., Eagle, CO), there are many concerns with this practice. Such as:

-                  Is the procedure being periodically reviewed?

-                  Who is responsible for the procedure?

-                  If a Departure or Approach procedure, is it listed in C081?

Industry Lead(s) : Jim Johnson with John Cowan

FAA Lead:   AFS-410/420

 

ACTION:  The goal is to have the FAA take as many of these procedures “public” as possible. Connie Streeter will contact AFS-410/420 to request that the subject be brought up at one of the regular Procedures meetings so the proper process can be determined & followed.  

 

SUBJECT:   ELT in Russian Airspace (Required by January, 2005)

Industry Lead:   Jackson Seltzer, Continental Airlines

DISCUSSION:  The Russian’s took the ICAO recommendation from 2002 that two ELTs (1 which should automatically activate on impact) should be on all airplanes, and made it REQUIRED. Numerous Air Carriers report that they will not be able to comply with this requirement (including all U.S. Carriers represented at this meeting) even Aeroflot can’t comply. The equipment is not available in the quantities required and estimates are that it will require about 18 months for even a cash “fat” carrier to come into compliance. IATA is issuing a formal request to the Russian’s for an extension.

ACTION:   Stand by to stand by…

 

OpSpec B043 Fuel Reserves in International Operations:

FAA Lead: Gordy Rother / Jerry Ostronic

Industry Lead(s):  Jim Johnson, American Airlines

 

DISCUSSION:  [Industry perspective] Whereas B043 currently states “where the aircraft position cannot reliably fixed at least once each hour”, the proposed change says “outside the service volume”.  It appears the net effect would require additional contingency fuel to compensate for the hour outbound and inbound while the plane is outside the service volume; no more credit for the hour outside on each end of the route.  This class 1 navigation definition is a shift from the guidance in B032 to what is provided in A002.  So once again, the FAA’s inability to agree among themselves on what constitutes Class 1 navigation has come back to haunt Industry and those attempting to provide FAA oversight. This capriciousness has led to this immense confusion and continues to do so. It is time to streamline the two class 1 definitions into a single one and end the confusion. 

 

Moreover, when the FAA was asked where the problem was with the existing B043 guidance (i.e., “where the aircraft position cannot reliably fixed at least once each hour”), no answer could be provided. Evidently, there were no safety, risk analysis or financial impact studies accomplished. 

 

Further (added by the FAA), 14 CFR Section 121.389 gives a very old twist to the “once each hour” fix and refers back to Section 121.355 where the explicit equipment for 121.389 is given, Doppler and INS.  In retrospect, when Section 121.351 was codified a few years ago, this regulation should have been changed. 

 

ACTION:   Expect B043 to be updated with a correction to the requirement for an alternate during supplemental operations, while the FAA continues to debate the definition of “class 1 navigation”.

 


OSWG 2004-04 Customer Satisfaction Survey

1.  In your opinion how would you rate the following?

Low

Average

High

No Comment

Circle your response

OSWG Agenda

1       2

3        4

5

 

OSWG Quarterly Meetings

1       2

3        4

5

 

OSWG Minutes

1       2

3        4

5

 

Industry Subworking Groups

1       2

3        4

5

 

OSWG Meeting Locations

1       2

3        4

5

 

OpSpec/OPSS website

1       2

3        4

5

 

OSWG SPEC

1       2

3        4

5

 

Misc Information included in agenda/minutes

1       2

3        4

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.  Check your overall satisfaction with the OSWG and

 

 

 

 

AFS PROCESSES for assessing and designating Special PIC Qualification Airports?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Satisfied

 

 

 

 

Somewhat Satisfied

 

 

 

 

Somewhat Dissatisfied

 

 

 

 

Very Dissatisfied

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Please rate the overall satisfaction of the following:

Low

Average

High

No Comment

 

Circle your response

 

 

 

A013, Emergency Equipment     

1       2

3        4

5

 

A028, Wet Lease     

1       2

3        4

5

 

B034, PRNAV/BRNAV     

1       2

3        4

5

 

B036, RNP Routes in Class II  

1       2

3        4

5

 

C055, Alternate Airports     

1       2

3        4

5

 

C059, CAT II     

1       2

3        4

5

 

C359, CAT II special     

1       2

3        4

5

 

C060, CAT III     

1       2

3        4

5

 

C067, Special Authorizations for Certain Airports

1       2

3        4

5

 

C074, CAT I

1       2

3        4

5

 

C070, Airport Listing

1       2

3        4

5

 

C078/C079, Lower Than Std. Take off

1       2

3        4

5

 

Weight/Balance Paragraphs

1       2

3        4

5

 

Nonstandard paragraph requests

1       2

3        4

5

 

Other:____________________________________

1       2

3        4

5