FAA/Aviation Industry Minutes for
OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) 2005-02
April 26 (Tuesday, 1 pm-5 pm) /27 (Wednesday, 8:30-noon), 2005
Administrator’s Conference/Round Room, 10th Floor, FAA HQ
800 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20591
***For FAA security purposes and entrance to the building
Please EMAIL email@example.com if you are planning to attend
January 18-19, 2005 OSWG 2005-01
SWA host @ Dallas Ft. Worth
April 26-27, 2005 OSWG 2005-02
FAA host @ Washington, DC
July 26-27, 2005 OSWG 2005-03
United host @ Denver, CO
Information available on www.opspecs.com website.
October 18-19, 2005 OSWG 2005-04
ATA host @ Hogan and Hartson Conference Room, Downstairs from the lobby, 555 13th St NW, Washington, DC.
January 24-25, 2006 OSWG 2006-01
Delta host @ Atlanta
April 25-26, 2006 OSWG 2006-02
NACA @ Washington, DC
July 25-26 , 2006 OSWG 2006-03
ComAir Host in Cincinnati
Chairpersons: Casey Seabright, NWA, Industry Chair
John Cowan, UAL, Industry Vice Chair
Connie Streeter, FAA Chair
1. Convene :
1. Roster: 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. Reviewed July 2005, October 2005, January 2006, April 2006 meeting locations.
3. 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.
4. Is an "Air Carrier Operating Certificate" that was/is originally issued to any part 121 or 135 operator in conflict with Section 119.5(a) and (b). In the NPRM or Preamble for Part 119, it was stated that all those issued an "Air Carrier Operating Certificate" [before the effective date of Part 119] would have NOT have to be re-issued a "Direct Air Carrier Certificate." All those issued an "Air Carrier Operating Certificate" before the effective date of Part 119 were grandfathered. Only operators that became certificated after the effective date of Part 119 would have a "Direct Air Carrier Certificate.
2. Status of Assigned Action Items : Chairpersons
§ Reviewed, amended, and adopted agenda
Thirty seven attended the meeting.
3-4. OpSpec C052, IFR Terminal Instrument Procedures/ and OpSpec C061, Flight Control Guidance Systems for Automatic Landing Operations Other Than Categories II and III.
FAA Lead = AFS-210—Hop Potter & Spyder Thomas (AFS-400)
Industry Lead = Jackson Seltzer, Continental Airlines
Background: OpSpec C052 authorizes certificate holders to conduct 14 CFR Part 97 instrument procedures under IFR. One of those authorizations is ILS/PRM or also known as SOIR. The FAA (ATO, AFS, Airports, etc.) is moving ahead on establishing a SOIA approach into CLE. The target date is sometime in May (that is probably very optimistic). However, before that can happen, training for this approach will need to be established (in this case the trailing AC is below and within 2 miles of the lead aircraft).
OpSpec Paragraph C061 allows autolands at facilities other than CAT II or CAT III.
It states in part:
b. (2) The certificate holder shall not conduct automatic landing operations to any runway using these systems, unless the certificate holder determines that the flight control guidance system being used permits safe automatically flown approaches and landings to be conducted at that runway.
It also goes on to say:
c. These operations may be conducted on any ILS facility but only in CAT I or better weather unless prior coordination with ATC was done by the certificate holder to ensure the protection of the critical areas.
However, we have come across several ILS facilities that have an offset. Therefore, I throw out the question, should we allow autoland approaches to any ILS CAT I facility even those with an offset?
Or, does paragraph b. (2) mean that the carrier has the responsibility to prohibit approaches to certain runway, such as to offset approach?
Hop & Spyder intend to generate comments from the Industry in regard to the SOIR for CLE and also want to emphasize the concerns of the FAA.
Outcome: CLE Rwy’s 6 L/R will be commissioned on May 12th. Rwy’s 24 L/R are a staggered configuration causing wake concerns which has caused “SOIA” to be put on hold until approximately 2007.
Steve Kuhar (FedEX) requested either officially publish the “SOIA” approach type name, or call these approaches LDA / PRMs.
Per Lyle Wink (FAA): Autolands from an offset ILS were never intended and should not be attempted. Delta’s technique: they provide guidance that autolands to runways with any restrictive notes (e.g., LOC or G/S not useable below “x-feet” or LOC is offset) are not authorized. The FAA will consider an appropriate update to OPSPEC C061.
Moreover, FAA flight certification has determined that a few CAT I ILS runways have localizers that don’t support CAT III tolerances (typically rollout LOC problems). AFS 200 and 400 will meet to determine if they are comfortable with the concept of “visual” autolands to these runways. Chuck Schramek (DAL) asked that if there are runways deemed to be unacceptable, for the FAA publish in pilot-ease that autolands are not permitted. See HBAT 94-12 for additional guidance.
Lyle will ask AVN to provide a list of “unsat” autoland runways.
5. OpSpec A013, Operations Without Certain Emergency Equipment (deviation)
FAA Lead = AFS-220—Joe Keenan/Tom Penland
Industry Lead = Chuck Schramek, Delta Air Lines/Jackson Seltzer, Continental Airlines/Jim Stieve, Southwest Airlines/Bill Cook, UPS
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. After the 10/04 OSWG meeting, Chuck, Capt. Seltzer, and Bill Cook met with Tom Penland and Joe Keenan in DC and agreed to do a performance based analysis. The history of this deviation goes back to the 60’s when the concept was to stay within 30 minutes of the shore if engine inoperative. (This is how 162nm came to be.) The goal is to make this performance based on 30 minutes with an engine out. Chuck drafted a proposed OPSPEC and guidance rewrite and submitted to the FAA. The FAA countered with a proposal utilizing 162 nm for warm water and 100 nm when over cold water. A new OpSpec A013 was rolled and a revised HBAT published.
REPORT : Chuck Schramek, DALA/Tom Penland, AFS-220
Outcome: Carriers request authorization for the Sea of Cortez (Gulf of California). To get it back, we need to re-submit our request for a non-standard addition to A013 showing that the Mexican government is willing to provide search and rescue to the equivalent level as the U.S. Coast Guard.
6. OpSpec D095, Minimum Equipment List
FAA Lead: AFS-260
Background: D095, Minimum Equipment List (MEL) Authorization, was revised by request to provide a text insertion in order to describe the location of the MEL Management Program. The change marks are left on so you can also see that we also updated the formatting. Because this would not be a "policy" change but a change for convenience, it does not require that the guidance for this authorization be revised and thus there is no associated draft HBAT. This would be a non-mandatory change to D095.
Desired Outcome :
Action: We request that this change also be reviewed by the MMEL Working Group."
Outcome: Industry members of the OSWG questioned the value of this request and are unaware of any FAR requirement supporting the request. Connie will confer with the requestor. It was agreed by the MMEL working group to not revise D095 at this time.
7. C055 Alternate Airport Weather Requirements:
FAA LEAD: Dennis Pratte/Dave Burr, AFS-260—AFS-410
Industry LEAD : Jim Winkleman, Alaska Airlines
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.
Desired Outcome: The authorization/ability to use alternates with CVFP’s for the purposes of dispatching under CFR 121, while under an IFR flight plan.
Discussion: Can GPS approaches be used as an alternate by non WAAS certified airplanes? 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.
A ction: Dave Burr agreed to the following action items:
- Readdress the use of “CVFP” approach alternates with his FAA counter parts. Jim will provide Dave Burr with the history and Dave will discuss with Tom Penland.
- Consider the use of facilities with only RNAV approaches as an alternate.
Answer: The non-WAAS GPS boxes are not certified for “primary” means…thus, for en route or for approach there still has to be a ground-based NAVAID. It is a certification issue.
Outcome: Jim (Alaska) is perplexed as to how his request got tied to “GPS” procedures and will reconsider his request…
8. OpSpec C359, Special Authorization for Certain Category II Operations at Specifically Approved Facilities
FAA Lead : AFS-410/AFS-200
Industry Lead: Jim Johnson, AA
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.
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 Montigney 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 Montigney 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 Montigney 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.
Bruce will work on merging the limited value of C359 into C059 and then allowing for the elimination of C359. He owes Connie the proposal and updated HBAT.
Outcome: Dick Temple provided a brief on some of the changes with 8400.13b (e.g., CL no longer required for CAT II). Dick Temple agreed to develop a HBAT with the change to the guidance for 8400.10 and the OPspec to match the changes to 8400.13.
9. OpSpecs C060—CAT II/CAT III Lists on AFS-410 Website
Industry Lead = Casey Seabright, NWA
FAA Lead = AFS-400/AFS-220
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.
Desired Outcome: Revision to C060 and its guidance in 8400.10.
Discussion: Dick Temple explained that the AFS-410 website has now been changed.
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 C060 will be revised accordingly and revised to include the 4 RVR sensor requirements and subparagraph for 14 CFR Section 121.652.
re-rolled as a mandatory change.
1- Revise the 8400.10 guidance to correspond to the revisions to C060 from a few years ago.
Request “equal” equipment (e.g., same HGS 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…
ACTION 2: Industry to review the tables and provide Dick with feedback on how the table could be made more intuitive and user friendly. Be sure to review the guidance in the paragraphs prior to commenting.
Outcome: An OpSpec C060 revision addressing approach lighting and missed approach guidance is in the coordination.
10. OpSpec C081. Special Terminal IFR Approach & Departure Procedures. Form 8260-7 is being revised.
Industry Lead: none
FAA Lead: AFS-420
BACKGROUND: It was discovered that FAA Form 8260-7 was very out of date. It originally was used as the OpSpec authorization for Specials. Order 8260 is presently being revised and this form comes from that order. When the revised Order is published, the form will be officially revised as well.
11. OpSpec C074, Category I ILS, MLS, or GLS Approach
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 again. It is now in coordination with new changes. s revised again. 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. In8400.13B paragraph 5 b. it states:
Recent harmonization efforts have resulted in an FAA/JAA agreement for ILS operations at 1800 RVR without TDZ/CL lights if the operator employs the use of aircraft flight director or autopilot or HGS equipment.
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. Now that we have a clean list of 1800 RVR airports to add to the table in paragraph b of Operations Specification C074, can we get the specification to state the same limitations as 8400.13B?
Currently, the table description and guidance are not applicable to CAT I RVR 1800 operations as described by 8400.13B
Regretfully, C074. Category I, ILS, MLS, or GLS Approach Procedures and IFR Landing Minimums - All Airports, has more restrictive language. NOTE 3 states:
“These minimums apply to autoland or HGS-equipped aircraft when operated by a properly qualified flightcrew and flown in the appropriate CAT III annunciation mode at the authorized airports and runways listed in paragraph b. below.”
Paragraph b. states the same limitation:
“The certificate holder is authorized precision Category I landing minimums as low as 1800 RVR without touchdown zone and centerline lights with autoland or HGS-equipped aircraft at the following airports and runways”
The missing equipment authorization is the flight director. Alaska Airlines request that the Operations Specification be revised to state the same equipment authorized in 8400.13b.
1) Review C074 and corresponding guidance in Order 8400.10 (ISO 9001 process #200-012) need to be revised to reflect the changes in Order 8400.13b.
2) 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.
3) The carriers are requesting of AFS-410, a thorough detailed explanation why this is happening.
Outcome: No resolution. Discussion continues.
12. OpSpec A012.
FAA Lead: AFS-220
Industry Lead: none
Previous POI's at ASA have been of the opinion that we cannot list an airport in A012 if that airport is in a non-radar environment. The current POI is reluctant to allow a change because of the guidance in 8400.10 VOL 3 Chapter 1 Section 3 paragraph 64 OPSPEC A012 A. (3) The flight operations have the capability of being surveiled by radar or other surveillance technology equivalent to radar such as ADS or ADS-B.
The two airports that are in question for us at ASA are MBPV Providenciales I, Caicos Is, and MYGF Freeport, Bahamas. Flights to both airports are in a radar environment (Miami Center) until you arrive at the airports which both have a non-radar approach control facility. We have been operating flights to both airports as FLAG operations but have recently discovered that all the other airlines operating to these airports operate their flights under domestic rules using A012.
My question is the above reference from the 8400.10 correct and we cannot list an airport in A012 that has a non-radar approach control facility, or are we simply interpreting this wrong and it only applies to the enroute section of the flight (this is what I have been told by other carriers who list there airports in A012).
Outcome: Jerry Ostronic agreed to review 8400.10 VOL 3 Chapter 1 Section 3 paragraph 64 OPSPEC A012 A and consider removal of this requirement. The entire group was unable to recall why such a requirement might have been included in 8400.10. AFS-200 will remove the following statement from the 8400.10 guidance in a future change:
(3) The flight operations have the capability of being surveilled by radar or other surveillance technology equivalent to radar such as ADS or ADS-B.
13. Customer Survey. Connie Streeter asked each meeting participant to fill out an OSWG Customer Survey. This is a new requirement for FAA personnel. Results of previous survey are at the end of this agenda.
14. OpSpec C063. RNAV Approach and Departures.
Industry Lead: none
FAA Lead: Jerry Ostronic, AFS-220, Vince Chirasello, AFS-410, & Mark Steinbecker, AFS-410/AIR-130, Bruce DeCleene
BACKGROUND: Current and new terminal procedures will be charted as either RNAV “Type A” or “Type B” SIDs and STARs in the summer of 2005 to for use throughout the NAS with specified navigational accuracy requirements and terminology of AC 90-100. In addition, aircraft suffixes denoting equipment capability and identified in the Aeronautical Information Manual will be concurrently revised to allow air traffic automation to better identify RNAV-capable aircraft.
DISCUSSION: The original [existing] C063 was used to authorize the “rho theta” RNAV approaches and departures when they were considered new technology. Now C063 is no longer applicable and OpSpec C052 provides for the rho Theta RNAV authorization. We are proposing to revise OpSpec C063 to accommodate the authorization of these NEW RNAV SIDs & STARS.
Outcome: See AC 90-100. Additionally, the need for a new RNP approach OPSPEC was discussed. Alaska, Horizon and Continental will work with Connie and AFS-410 to develop the draft document. First draft document is on the opspecs.com website.
15. OpSpec C300N, Part 97 Non-Precision Instrument Approaches Using an Area Navigation System Approved for RNP Operations
FAA Lead: Jerry Ostronic-AFS-220/Vincent Cherasello, AFS-410
Industry Lead: Jackson Seltzer, Continental Airlines
Background: Written as a nonstandard .
DISCUSSION: Aircraft certification engineers feel that OpSpec C300 raises potential safety issues. AIR has initiated a review with Boeing and Airbus to review the details of the aircraft capability; this review could affect some of their comments in regard to placing a greater reliance on navaid monitoring accomplished in the FMS. It is recommended that AFS-200 proceed with a detailed review of the available operational documentation beyond the operations specifications.
Subparagraph (a): The table does not provide adequate information to summarize equipment capability (see related comments on other ops spec paragraphs).
Subparagraph (b)(1): What does “unless prohibited by the certificate holder’s Operations Advisory page or by NOTAM” mean? Is there an expectation that NOTAMs are issued to address this capability (the infrastructure to support this does not currently exist)? Does it mean that the approach cannot be conducted based on RNP if the underlying navaid is NOTAMed out of service? What if the procedure is NOTAMed out of service?
Subparagraph (b)(4),(5): See comments on C089 subparagraph (b). This should be rewritten to reflect entry of RNP, rather than manual monitoring of ANP.
Desired Outcome : Proposed by Jackson Seltzer: C hange Ops Spec paragraph C-300 to include the following language (also see attached file):
c. Limitations and Provisions.
(2) No approach requiring a localizer may be flown using FMC RNP procedures. For any type of localizer approach incorporating non-localizer NAVAIDS, RNAV may be used to identify those non-localizer NAVAIDS that are selectable from the aircraft FMS database.
As has been pointed out, AC 20-130A give us the authority to do this, we now want the approval. Additionally, the above is the specific place and language that was suggested by the FAA.
Outcome: While the Administrator allows other types of RNAV approach procedures with no raw data available, her staff is currently reluctant to accept the same level of risk for LOC based approaches. Bottom line, it is still under discussion.
Action: Draft AC 90-RNPSAAAR is going to the PARC soon, review and provide comments. Draft HBAT and OpSpec will be available at next meeting.
16. OpSpec C053. Straight-In Category I Approach Procedures Other Than ILS, MLS, or GLS and IFR Landing Minimums—All Airports.
Industry Lead: none
FAA Lead: AFS-260
BACKGROUND : Someone noticed that we published OpSpec C053 title incorrectly. Straight-In Category I Approach Procedures Other Than ILS, MLS, or GPS and IFR Landing Minimums—All Airports.
ACTION/Outcome: Closed. Corrected title (GPS to GLS) and re-formatted with nonmandatory change.
17. OpSpec A057. Eligible On-Demand.
Industry Lead: none
FAA Lead: AFS-260
BACKGROUND: The eligible on-demand authorization was put into place quickly to accommodate the part 135 certificate holders that wanted that authorization when the rule changed. The guidance was never officially published.
ACTION/Outcome: AFS-260 staff proposes to remove the OpSpec paragraph A057, Eligible On-Demand and to use OpSpec A001 and A005 in place of A057 for this authorization. OpSpec A001 would provide for the selection of “eligible on-demand” for Table #1. If any deviations are authorized in conjunction with this, they would be authorized in OpSpec A005.
18. OpSpec A301, Mergers and Acquisitions.
Industry Lead: none
FAA Lead: AFS-260
BACKGROUND: OpSpec A301 was first published as a “nonstandard” in the 300 series. When it was no longer needed by those that had it issued, the plan was to put the same template into the “500 series” as a standard that was time-limited.
ACTION/Outcome: On November 18, 2004, A301 was archived and template A502 was put into the OPSS in its place. The text did not change. CLOSED
19. OpSpec A005, Exemptions and Deviations.
Industry Lead: none
FAA Lead: AFS-260
BACKGROUND: When the original OPSS was implemented, the FAA had no database for deviations. The users of the OPSS entered the various information with little or no guidance. Thus, the deviations listed were variable.
ACTION/Outcome: A deviation database was developed through a thorough review of all the applicable CFRs and OpSpec A005 itself was revised to accommodate the selection of the deviation authority, what was being deviated from, a standard description of the deviation and column for remarks by the individual operator. OpSpec A005 was released as a mandatory roll.
20. C058 Foreign Instrument Procedures :
Industry Lead: Casey Seabright, NWA
FAA Lead: Tom Schneider, AFS-420
BACKGROUND : AFS-420 is revising Order 8260.31 and has developed a draft Advisory Circular on the same subject. Tom Schneider is proposing that the POIs have specific training in this area.
DISCUSSION: Revision to Order 8260.31 is still not acceptable to industry: Connie Streeter presented the following recommendation to handle what used to be the Appendices of that Order but it was rejected by Tom Schneider:
ACTION: Monitor draft document process.
Outcome: Casey Seabright sent a letter to AFS-420 and had planned to meet with Don Pate, Branch Manager of AFS-420 in Oklahoma City . Meanwhile note from Tom Schneider was received describing the scheduled TRB review of the draft documents. Jerry Ostronic reviewed the latest version of the Order and the AC and believes it is something that the operators can live with.
21. Weight and Balance Template Changes. A096, A097, A098, A099.
Industry Lead: none
FAA Lead: AFS-260, Dennis Pratte.
BACKGROUND: Templates A096, A097, A098, A099 were put into the OPSS for Weight and Balance tabulations.
DISCUSSION: AFS-330 removed the loading schedules and instructions from E096 since E096 is now an aircraft weighing authorization. We have added the same chart to A096-A099 in order to keep the Operational authorizations together.
ACTION/Outcome: These drafts are on OpSpecs.com for review and comment. They will be rolled out as mandatory changes in May 2005.
Outcome: Connie reported the status of the new templates Closed.
22. 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 was 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.
Gordy explained that using the current NAV aid trigger is flawed, not consistently applied and is concerned over the quality of wind data used by the different operators. For now, only paragraph “b” dealing with supplemental carriers will be revised (Gordy to provide.) The rest of the debate is still open and Jim Johnson will work with the FAA on their concerns. Industry did seem open to the concept of beefing up the OPSPEC by clarifying the quality of wind data used.
B343: Jim Johnson handed out proposed changes to B343. One of the proposals is to allow a combination of both the 5% and Redispatch deviations. The FAA was receptive to some of the proposed requests and will review them as appropriate.
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”.
Outcome: Further action postponed under next quarter.
23. [Standing agenda item] OpSpec C050, Special PIC Qualification Airports—14 CFR Section 121.445 Airport List Review & Recommendation of OSWG to AFS-220:
Industry Lead: Casey Seabright, NWA
FAA Lead: AFS-220/260
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.
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 http://www.opspecs.com/ website
¨ Send email message to OSWG members
¨ Discussion of each individual assessment
¨ Recommendation for AFS-200
Chuck Schramek, Delta Air Lines proposes a removal of the two Russian airports from the Special PIC Qualification Airport List:
The FAA proposed adding E.T. Joshua Airport (TVSV), St Vincent, Lessor Antilles ;
1) Remove UUDD, Moscow Russia (Domodedovo), & ULLI, St. Petersburg, Russia were removed from the Special PIC Airport Qualification List by official notification.
2) The FAA sent out a proposal to add E.T. Joshua Airport (TVSV), St Vincent, Lessor Antilles ; a Notice should be forthcoming soon.
1. UUDD & ULLI were removed from the Special PIC Airport Qualification List by official notification.
2) The group affirmed the addition of E.T. Joshua Airport (TVSV), St Vincent, Lessor Antilles .
3) AFS-200 published Notice 8400.81 adding E.T. Joshua Airport (RVSV) to the Special PIC Airport Qualification List. The lists in the guidance subsystem and on the website were updated.
24. OpSpec C068, HBAT 04-C068 DRAFT 02/09/05 revision: Noise Abatement Departure Profiles; OpSpec C068 Revision
Industry Lead: none
FAA Lead: Dave Kountz, POI USAIRWAYS
BACKGROUND: Dave Kountz proposed the HBAT C068 draft revision which is posted to the opspecs.com web site. Although no comments have been posted to the site, John Cowan, UAL, has an issue with the proposed revision and believes the draft needs another look and possible further clarification and provides the following information.
1. The HBAT statement that "The ICAO procedure requires the power reduction to be performed with the flaps/slats retraction or when zero flap/slat configuration is attained" ignores the additional statement in the ICAO appendix that states "to ensure optimum acceleration performance, thrust reduction may be initiated at an intermediate flap position." In addition, the ICAO statement is equivalent to saying a power reduction may occur with initial flat/slat reduction, at an intermediate flap/slat position, or after flap/slat retraction. Therefore, rewriting OPSPEC C068 should not be done in such a manner as to prescribe exactly how this (initial power reduction) is to be accomplished. The current wording in the OPSPEC is adequate. Any changes in the OPSPEC should be to copy the guidance provided by ICAO, and not to copy the wording provided in the ICAO example, which is not regulatory.”
2. UAL’s Engineering researched the details that lead to our support of this conclusion and comments.
ACTION/Outcome: RE-think any revision to C068.
Outcome: Based on the extensive research provided by United, it was determined that no change was required. CLOSED
25. Canadian Takeoff Minimums:
Industry Lead: Casey Seabright, NWA
FAA Lead: AFS-220
BACKGROUND: Charting standard should be recommended for development.
Carriers are not applying US Regulations, U.S. OpSpecs, Canadian Regulations, and Canadian Opspecs consistently.
Outcome: United has the action to work with the ATA Charting group and Jeppesen to publish the lowest authorized Canadian takeoff minimums on CA charts.
26. Miscellaneous Information:
2. 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.
Outcome: John Cowan will ask the ATA Charting group to work with Jeppesen in identifying non-public “special / tailored / Lead Carrier” procedures (e.g., SNA Back Bay 2, SFO visual procedures) and then to work with local ATC agencies to make the procedures public. For currency, quality and safety reasons, the old concept of “Lead Carrier” procedures needs to be phased out.
3. Fractional Ownership Management Specification Changes.
1) MB031 and MB032 were combined into MB031. MB01 was a mandatory roll and MB032 was archived.
2) MC054 and MB055 were requested to be available in the OPSS. They were rolled in as optional templates.
3) MA014, IFR Operations in Class G and Class E Airspace Without an Operational Control Tower was revised to include terminal; originally it was only en route. Since C064 and C080 are for “passenger-carrying” operations, we elected to just include the whole authorization in MA014 for Fractionals.
Outcome: Connie Streeter provided notice of the changes. CLOSED
4. Part 142. Training Specification A001, Issuance and Applicability, will be revised to reformat and remove the table in subparagraph b.