FAA/Aviation Industry Minutes for
OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) January 2006-01

Was hosted by Amerijet, International in Miami, Florida

THANK YOU, Amerijet, for a great environment for a meeting!


T UESDAY , J ANUARY 24, 2006--1 pm-5:00 pm OSWG Met

8:00 AM – 11:00—Industry only met





Meeting Schedule:

January 24-25, 2006                 OSWG 2006-01

AmeriJet host @ Miami

April  26-27, [Wed/Thurs] 2006 OSWG 2006-02 (Note: dates changed at 10/18 meeting)

NACA @ Washington, DC


July 25-26 , 2006                       OSWG 2006-03

ComAir Host in Cincinnati

October 24-25, 2006                OSWG 2006-04

UPS Host in Louisville

January 23-24, 2007              OSWG 2007-01

AmeriJet host @ Miami

Chairpersons:  Casey Seabright, NWA, Industry Chair

John Cowan, UAL, Industry Vice Chair

Connie Streeter, FAA Chair


During this meeting the term of office for the Industry Chair expired and a new Industry Vice Chair was elected. The new 2006 and 2007 Industry Chairs are:

John Cowan, UAL, Industry Chair

Jackson Seltzer, CAL, Industry Vice Chair


The OSWG expressed a very sincere thank you to Casey Seabright for his talented efforts leading the Industry group and Co-Chairing the meetings for the last two years.


1.  Convene :


Roll call—

a.  Roster:   A copy of this meeting’s Roster will be sent in a separate electronic file to all those on the OSWG email list.  A record of 41 were in attendance. 


b.   The OSWG SPEC is now called the OSWG Procedures Guide.  It is on the www.opspecs.com website under POLICY/OSWG Meetings.  All are encouraged to review this procedures guide.


c.  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

Ø            Reviewed, amended, and adopted agenda

3.  OpSpec A002, DEFINITIONS


FAA Lead : AFS-220 branch

Industry Lead:   FEDEX


Background Mr. Steve Kuhar of FEDEX alerted me to the fact that apparently we had an oversight and did not include a definition for LDA-PRM into the standard OpSpec A002 template per HBAT 03-03A & 8400.10.


Desired Outcome:    Update A002 to match the guidance in HBAT 03-03A.




Action/Outcome:    We did a Mandatory revision to A002 for the part 135, 121/135, 121, 125, & 91K databases: In doing so we u pdated OpSpec A002 to revise ILS-PRM definition (per the HBAT) and added LDA-PRM per the HBAT 03-03A & 8400.10:


The simultaneous close parallel ILS approaches are enabled through the implementation of special precision runway monitoring (PRM) equipment operated by Air Traffic Control at certain airfields for some runways.  These approaches are included in 14 CFR Part 97 as “ILS PRM.”  This operation comprises two instrument landing systems (ILS), each aligned with its respective runway and parallel to each other. ILS/PRM permits simultaneous instrument approach operations to parallel runways spaced less than 4,300 feet apart, but no less than 3,000 feet.




This operation comprises one ILS and one localizer type directional aid (LDA) with glide slope.  The ILS is aligned with its runway, but the LDA serving the second runway is offset (no more than 3 degrees) from a parallel track.  This offset permits simultaneous instrument approach operations to parallel runways spaced less than 3,000 feet apart, but no less than 750 feet.  Because of the offset, this operation is also known as a simultaneous offset instrument approach (SOIA). 


Minutes/Action/Outcome: Accomplished. Closed.


4.  OpSpec C070, Authorized Airports for Scheduled Operations .

FAA Lead:  AFS-220/AFS-260

Industry Lead:  None



Desired Outcome  

1.  And clarify that the certificate holders are definitely in compliance with the current requirements even though they choose to use the old C070 template…it is just a different way of processing and not a policy difference.

2.  Ensure airports have appropriate designators;


DISCUSSION Some changes that were requested were:

1) the A/C headers don’t come out on each page

2) Remove the N/A default

Action/Outcome:  We added the following statement to the Revision History for OpSpec C070:

***Special Instructions for Part 121 C070 template use:   The Part 121 C070 templates use a special case of the Comply Date feature in OPSS.  Both HQ Revisions 04a and 04b are legitimate uses of the identical C070 template text and data.  The difference between the 04a and 04b templates is ONLY in the data selection method.  OPSS has extended the compliance date of the 04a template indefinitely to allow use of both templates and data entry methods. ***



Airport Data

C070 paragraph data loaded into Select Data from Airport Data entered under Certificate Holder Menu, Airport Data.

Non-mandatory with indefinite comply date


The following changes were made for C070 in OPSS:




Changed BELGIQUE to BELGIUM on our ICAO state list.



Minutes/Action/Outcome: Casey Seabright provided clarification that either the old or new templates may be used. Jim Johnson pointed out a problem with C070 whereby the table headers do not always print (page to page). He also noted that adding “N/A” to each of the blank fields makes the document difficult to read (using a small dash (e.g., -)) may be a visually more appealing alternative. Closed.


From AFS-260:  We can modify the stored procedure for the 121 C070 to remove the "N/As" if that is the consensus view because the change would apply to everyone.  (It was programmed specifically to include the N/As, I assume to show a positive response in all cells?, but I agree it is difficult to read.)  Because all the data for C070 airports loads together, including the headers, we cannot do anything from a programmatic standpoint to force the headers to repeat in the draft document.  The work-around fix is for the users to Open the Word document for C070 after it has been drafted, highlight the heading rows of the table and select Table-->Heading Rows Repeat from the standard MS Word menu.  (Or use the old 04a version of the template and process the C070 all within Select Data instead of using the Certificate Holder-->Airport Data feature.).


5.  Non-Std OpSpec 384, RNP SAAAR/C052


FAA Lead:  AFS-410/AFS-220—

Industry Lead:  Alaska Airlines


Background:      The concept of required navigation performance (RNP) is a significant enhancement to navigable airspace design, use, and management.  RNP was developed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Special Committee on Future Air Navigation Systems (FANS) and is an integral part of the communication, navigation, surveillance, and air traffic management (CNS/ATM) plan envisioned by the Special Committee.


Advisory Circular (AC) 90-101 provides airworthiness and operational approval guidance material for aircraft operators conducting Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 97 Area Navigation (RNAV) Required Navigation Performance (RNP) instrument approach procedures with Special Aircraft and Aircrew Authorization Required (SAAAR), charted as “RNAV (RNP) RWY XX”.  Hereafter, these procedures will be referred to as “RNP SAAAR”.


Desired Outcome:   

1-- NonStandard OpSpec C384 is now in the live part 121 DB [only].  We are still working on the development of standardized guidance.  However, the intent is for this OpSpec to remain a nonstandard authorization requiring AFS-200 and AFS-400 concurrence for it to be issued. 

2--C052.  Nov. 1, 2005 the FAA added the following statement to ensure(?) that all realized the importance of following the AC 90-101 guidance for nonstandard authorization even though the RNP-SAAR approaches are published as Part 97 approaches ( Note:  C058, Foreign instrument procedures, do not use the same naming convention as the Part 97 does.:


“(4)   Approach procedures listed in the table above do not constitute authorization to conduct Part 97 RNAV (RNP) approaches.  In addition, this operations specification does not constitute authorization to conduct any foreign airport approach which has an RNP line of minima, an RF leg segment (radius to a fix), or requires an RNP missed approach.  These types of approaches must be authorized by the issuance of OpSpec C384.  “


3—POI asks:  there are numerous type of approaches at foreign destinations that are not included in the table—do they need to be?:

1. VOR-A (circle to land)*                             Non-Precision           STT (St. Thomas USVI) / MUGM

2. VOR-1                                                       Non-Precision          MUPB

3. VOR-2                                                       Non-Precision           MUPB

4. NDB Locator                                        Non-Precision           MUHA

5. *NDB A   (circle to land)*                     Non-Precision           TUPJ/TAPA/TKPK

6. *NDB B   (circle to land)*                     Non-Precision           TUPJ

7. NDB PTP    (ident facility-French)       Non-Precision           TFFR

8. NDB PTP ILS DME                              Precision                     TFFR

9. *RNAV (GPS)-C (circle to land)*         Non-Precision           TUPJ

10.*GPS-A   (circle to land)*                   Non-Precision            KEYW (Key West, FL)

11. ILS Z                                                 Precision                     MYGF

(ILS Y so must have Special)

12. FOF NDB                                           Non-Precision            TFFF

13. VOR/DME/ILS                                     Precision                     TFFF

14.FOF/NDB/ILS                                       Precision                     TFFF

15. 12 DME ARC  (initial approach fix no procedure turn)   Non-Precision            TAPA

16. LOCATOR   (Locator at outer marker = our NDB)   Non-Precision            TNCM





The group agreed with the recommendation of Mr. Jim Nixon (FAA) that no action is required.


6.  OpSpec C063, IFR RNAV Departure Procedures (DP) and Standard Terminal Arrivals (STAR)

Industry Lead:   none

FAA Lead:   AFS-400/AFS-200


Background:   HBAT 05-04, U.S. Area Navigation (RNAV) Instrument Departure Procedures (DP), RNAV Routes, and RNAV Standard Terminal Arrivals (STARs); Revision to OpSpec/MSpec C063 was published 06/09/05.


During the implementation of various RNAV terminal procedures from 2001 through 2004, several operational problems became apparent.  Some of the relevant issues involved aircraft RNAV system architecture, procedure design and coding, and pilot/controller guidance and procedures.


A.  Regarding the latter concern, pilots in several cases did not fly with adequate precision to meet controller expectations.  In a few instances, this inconsistency resulted from pilots not following available flight guidance, such as a flight director.  In more limited cases, pilots did not enter the correct departure runway into their RNAV system.


B.   In an effort to harmonize RNAV system functionality, FAA design criteria, and operational guidance for RNAV terminal procedures and routes (except for instrument approach procedures), the FAA published A dvisory Circular (AC) 90-100, U.S. Terminal and En Route Area Navigation (RNAV) Operations, current edition (available at: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/afs400/afs410/policy_guidance /).  To reflect the terminology of AC 90-100, RNAV terminal procedures will be charted as either RNAV “Type A” or “Type B” DPs and STARs after September 2005. 


Desired Outcome:   HBAT 05-04 revised; remove subparagraph f from current OpSpec.

DISCUSSION:   paragraph f (remove).   The Opspec f, Other Limitations and Provisions (2) states: "An indication must be immediately provided within the normal field of view of each pilot, when the navigation performance of the area navigation system is sufficient to navigate to the degree of accuracy required for air traffic control."

NWA has been reviewing the limitation as stated and believe that it is inherently in error and is not applicable to authority granted through this opspec.

The compliance vehicle for this authority is AC 90-100. We have reviewed Chapters 6 (specifically para 6.c. Navigation Displays and Functions), 8, and 9 of the AC and cannot find any specific reference that requires compliance with the limitation referred in subparagraph f(2) of the OpSpec.  The procedures that we are being approved to fly are actually RNAV procedures and not RNP (by definition); therefore it is our belief there should not be a requirement to display RNP and ANP values.  It is our opinion that the Ops Spec requirement is in error and should be changed to reflect the content of 90-100 (eliminate paragraph f of the opspec).  Further, we do not believe that the intent was to limit many technologically equipped aircraft and crews from participating in the procedures authorized via C063 with this opspec limitation.


f.         Other Limitations and Provisions


(1)        Prior to conducting operations in airspace that requires this specific navigation performance, the flightcrew must check that the aircraft RNAV system is providing the track-keeping accuracy for the time of planned operation.


(2)        An indication must be immediately provided within the normal field of view of each pilot, when the navigation performance of the area navigation system is insufficient to navigate to the degree of accuracy required for air traffic control.


Minutes/Action/Outcome: Bob Davis (FAA) agreed with NWA that f.(2) may be a bit misleading and will work with AFS 410 to revise/clarify. Bob stated that the intent was there should be a failure indication for the pilots which is not necessarily the same as an ANP/RNP comparison and warning. **AFS-220 is revising the present HBAT and proposes the following:

1) Climb gradient requiremetn will be discussed in HBAT revision

2) More explicit training guidelines—frequency of training

3) Propose to remove the Q route and put into B035—but that will require another HBAT for B035.

When the revised HBAT is available, draft revision will be shared with the OSWG.


HQ Control

HQ Revision
Description of Change

Type of Revision



Removed subparagraph f.(3) as manufacturer performance data is not available to comply with paragraph as written.

Operations specification guidance will be developed to address this.


The HBAT and possibly the OpSpec will be revised again

C063.  AC 90-100 is signed and on the website. It is an AFS-400 AC and specifies equipment, procedures and training for RNAV SIDs and STARs that are published as type A or type B. It also covers RNAV routes published as Q-Routes (except those in the Gulf of Mexico). The AC specifies a website where AFS-400, with AIR-130, have evaluated types of equipment that qualify and what they qualify for. The POI and PAI then determine if the operators equipment matches one on the list, then evaluate the procedures and training of the operator.


The AC will probably be updated. The guidance is already being updated. It will split Q-routes from RNAV SIDS and STARs since Q-routes are enroute and put them in B034. But currently they are all in C063. If the operator is currently flying RNAV SID and STAR procedures, they can continue to fly those that are not type A or type B, but need C063 for type A and/or type B. The new guidance will more clearly specify training requirements since that has been a continuing question from the field.


7.  OpSpec A055:  Carriage of Hazardous Materials

FAA LEAD:  AFS-220/AFS-260/Bruce Montiguey

Industry LEAD : FedEx and AmeriJet


Background:    Friday, October 7, 2005 Federal Register notification published the following:

SUMMARY : The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is amending its hazardous materials (hazmat) training requirements for certain air carriers and commercial operators. In addition, the FAA is requiring that certain repair stations provide documentation showing that persons handling hazmat for transportation have been trained, as required by the Department of Transportation’s Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs). The FAA is updating its regulations because hazmat transportation and the aviation industry have changed significantly since the

FAA promulgated its hazmat regulations over 25 years ago. The rule will set clear hazmat training standards and ensure uniform compliance with hazmat training requirements.


Question:  Tracking of Special Permits given by DOT (they no longer give exemptions) with qualifying language why in A005DOT Permit:

a. This special permit authorizes the transportation in commerce of certain hazardous materials described herein subject to the limitations and special requirements specified herein. This special permit provides no relief from the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) other than as specifically stated herein.

b. The safety analyses performed in development of this special permit only considered the hazards and risks associated with transportation in commerce.

c. No party status will be granted to this special permit.

3. REGULATORY SYSTEM AFFECTED: 49 CFR Parts 106, 107 and 171-




Desired Outcome:  Effective Date: November 7, 2005. SFAR Expiration Date: February 7, 2007. Compliance Date: February 7, 2007.


DISCUSSION:   Connie is thinking this may be an optional OPSPEC. AmeriJet offered that having an OPSPEC is critical to addressing the requests of several foreign countries. 


Minutes/Action/Outcome: Richard Carpenter (AmeriJet) provided a draft OPSPEC and HBAT for the FAA to consider.  Thank you, Richard.  your proposal broke the code.  A Notice will be published with a temporary OpSpec and an HBAT will be developed with a replacement/permanent Opspec with a compliance date of febr. 7, 2007.


8.  OpSpec C355, Exemption to §121.619 for Domestic Destination Alternate Airport Requirements

Industry Lead:   DALA

FAA Lead:   AFS-200


Background:  C355 authorizes those with the appropriate exemption to dispatch flights in accordance with the exemption which grants relief from 14 CFR Sections 121.619(a)(1) and (2) for domestic operations.  All operations under the exemption are subject to compliance with the conditions and limitations set forth in the exemption and this operations specification.


b.     In accordance with the provisions and limitations of the exemption, the certificate holder is allowed to reduce the destination airport weather requirement of Section 121.619(a)(1) and (2) for designating an alternate airport from the current CFR requirement of at least 2,000 feet ceilings and at least 3 miles visibility to at least 1,000-foot ceilings and at least 2 statute miles visibility based on the limitations and provisions of this operations specification.


DISCUSSIONIndustry voiced several concerns with the several re-writes of C355, specifically the lack of Industry involvement and the inclusion of new “rules”. Example: One of the issued OPSPEC versions added a requirement to report the actual fuel, by leg for each flight using the exemption, went above and beyond what was required by the FAR or exemption.


Continental asked what is “Priority Handling” for the purpose of reporting. Cowan pointed out the AIM definitions for Minimum vs. Emergency fuel makes it clear that reporting will most likely only occur with a declaration of “emergency fuel”. 


Desired Outcome :


Minutes/Action/Outcome: Industry provided feedback that working with both an exemption and an OPSPEC for the same subject is cumbersome and presents unnecessary difficulties and conflicts. They requested  future versions of the exemption include the relevant portions of C355 guidance allowing C355 to be rescinded for those operations. They also asked that the few examples of confusing or unnecessary exemption language be cleaned-up (clarified) in future authorizations. Examples:


- “…limited to those airports at which an operable CAT II ILS is available, for the intended landing runway.” We have no way of predicting which runways ATC will assign, hence saying “intended landing runway” causes confusion with pilots and dispatchers. What if we said: “ Destination airport must have a suitable CAT II approach capable of being used as a landing runway.”


- Mandating that that pilots and dispatchers must be provided with a copy of this exemption is highly unusual and is the source of some confusion. By design the text is “legal ease” causing those not experienced with such documents to have differing interpretations. Many Carriers prefer to decipher such guidance into straight forward FOM procedures that are less susceptible to any misunderstandings. What if we had an option to provide either the exact document or FOM procedures acceptable to the POI?  


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

Industry Lead:  

FAA Lead:  Robert Davis, AFS-220


Background:  Order 8400.13 was again revised as of February 2005.  The OpSpec C074 and C059 could be affected by the change.s again revised as of February 2005.  The OpSpec C074 and C059 could be affected by the change.


Desired Outcome:    A decision to revise OpSpec C074 to agree with Order 8400.10--maybe.  The revised Order 8400.13 added the use of a flight director for conducting operations to certain airports/runways without CL, TDZ, or ALSF-II. 



Minutes/Action/Outcome: Tabled for now.


10.  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. It was revised to Order 8400.13B on February 15, 2005.  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. It was revised to Order 8400.13B February 15, 2005.  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.  C359?  


Desired Outcome: 

1.  Need to revise the present C359 to match the revisions to 8400.13B.  And, 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. 


2.  Order 8400.13 appendices provide the Checklists for requesting runway approvals.  If you have any runways that are in question send msg to Dick Temple and he will do a “desk audit” on them.  We are still looking for thhe status of these airports as to which approach procedures are now published as Part 97s.


DISCUSSION:   Since Bruce was not at the meeting, there was no further discussion on this subject.


Action/Outcome:   Bruce and other POIs will review 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. …TBD….


Minutes/Action/Outcome: List is on the 410 website, no further action required.


11.  OpSpec A023, De-Icing and Anti-Icing Programs.

Industry Lead:   None

FAA Lead:   AFS-220, Dan Meier

Background It has come to the attention of the Air Transportation Division (AFS-200) that a number of air carrier operators are continuing to dispatch in ice pellet conditions.


DISCUSSION:  Operating in ice pellet conditions with anti-icing fluids on the critical surfaces of an aircraft is contrary to FAA guidance and policy expressed in N8000.309, Dispatching During Precipitation Conditions of Ice Pellets, Snow Pellets, or Other Icing Events for which No Holdover Times Exist, and N8000.313, Parts 121 and 135 Operations Specification for Deicing/Anti-Icing, Operations in Ice Pellets without Deice/Anti-Ice Fluids. 

AFS-200 has also received reports that some deicing/anti-icing contract service providers are failing to deice aircraft properly (e.g., not removing ice or snow from engine inlets, etc.).  Air carrier operators should be reminded that they, the air carrier operators, are responsible for the proper deicing/anti-icing of their aircraft and that they should take the necessary actions to assure that their aircraft are being deiced/ant-iced in accordance with their program. 


Desired Outcome:   Flight standards field offices should monitor their air carriers for compliance with the current deicing/anti-icing guidance and regulations.  Air carriers may be subject to enforcement action if they do not comply with appropriate deicing/anti-icing regulatory guidelines.


If you have any questions on this matter, contact AFS-200 at (202) 267-8166 or by e-mail at: daniel.meier@faa.gov .


Minutes/Action/Outcome:    The FAA//ATA meeting is occurring today in D.C. More to follow.


12.  OpSpec B043 Fuel Reserves in International Operations :

FAA Lead: Gordy Rother / Jerry Ostronic/Robert Davis

Industry Lead(s):  Jim Johnson, American Airlines


Desired Outcome: Update B043 with a “correction” to the requirement for an alternate during supplemental operations, while the FAA continues to debate the definition of “class 1 navigation”.


DISCUSSION:  Industry is concerned that attempts will erode the definition of Class 1 navigation as provided in B032.

Gordy Rother request for complete data sets:

1)            The data would be request to be in a delimited format on electronic media.  The media may be CD, DVD, or email.  The preferred format would be a Microsoft Access Database format, but any delimited file that allows the import of this data into an Access Database will be acceptable.

2)            For each International flight, the specific data fields required are as follows (fields followed by an asterisk (*):

a)            Flight Date*

b)            Flight Origination*

c)            Flight Destination*

d)            Aircraft Make/Model/Series*

e)            Total Planned Fuel (in lbs) at Departure*

f)              Total Actual Fuel (in lbs) at Departure*

g)            Planned Fuel (in lbs) at Arrival*

h)            Actual Fuel (in lbs) at Arrival*

i)                Planned International En route Fuel Burn (in lbs)*

j)                Planned International En route Reserve Fuel (in lbs, excluding any ETOPs critical fuel)*

k)              Planned fuel (in lbs) at top of climb (first level off)*

l)                Actual (calculated) fuel (in lbs) at top of climb (first level off)*

m)          Planned fuel (in lbs) at top of descent*

n)            Actual (calculated) fuel at top of descent*

o)            Provide a means to identify re-released flights*

p)            A combined fuel value (in lbs) that includes the following fuel categories - Holding, Contingency, ETOPS critical, Extra (Captains Fuel), Taxi, and 30 Minute Reserve*.

q)            Explanations for exceedances where greater than 50% of the planned en route reserve fuel was burned – if available.

r)            Aircraft Engine bias percentage


ACTION/Outcome:   Knowing that any attempts to erode the definition of Class 1 navigation as provided in B032 will meet with serious Industry opposition, Gordy will attempt to be creative in recommending an appropriate resolution. 


Minutes/Action/Outcome:  The air carriers that have this data agreed to provide it to Gordy per his request.  Also Gordy has a draft OPSPEC and HBAT that he will circulate for comments.




Day 2

Begin at 8:30am




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 C051.  Instrument Approach Procedures/RNAV Substitution

Industry Lead:  United Airlines , Captain John Cowan

FAA Lead:  AFS-220/AFS-410


Background :   John Cowan, UALA:  We had a SNAFU concerning our OPSPEC authorizations recently when the JAC VOR unexpectedly went out of service (lightning strike on 9/10). Although we are authorized to conduct arrival, approach and departure procedures with the basic underlying NAVAID out of service, it's difficult to do if Center (SLC) denies you the procedure or if it's NOTAMed "NA". Here are a few of the obstacles we faced:


 - AVN evidently has a policy that when a primary NAVAID is OTS, they NOTAM each affected procedure as "NA". Example:


                JAC NO 9/2 JAC VOR OTS


                JAC NO 13/2 FDC 5/8234 ILS OR LOC RWY 19, JEPCO. PROCEDURE NA.


                Such NOTAMs cripple our ability to fly the procedure using our (OPSPEC authorized) RNAV capabilities. How do we resolve this?  


Desired Outcome:   When you consider that for years numerous Air Carriers have had airplanes flying NDB approaches without an ADF receiver, and that many of our expensive advanced navigation systems don't look at VOR radials when navigating (i.e., don't actually track the radio signal), we are at a loss to understand these systemic failures.

Ø            ATC Center would not clear the pilots for the LOC approach because the VOR was OTS (used for the missed). How do we prevent this?

Ø            The ATC Tower manager says he is prohibited from using a procedure name (e.g., TETON ONE) in a clearance if the navaid is OTS. How do we resolve this? 

Ø            FAA HQ Staff seemed to be caught by surprise when we explained our RNAV authorizations. How do we resolve this?

Ø            Your assistance in facilitating resolution to these issues would help move all of us together into the 21st Century and would be greatly appreciated.


Minutes/Action/Outcome:  Bob Davis and Colby Johnson updated the group on progress of Flight Standards efforts to sort through navaid substitution issues.   There is an agency task force that is working to resolve the RNAV substitution issue.  AFS will work toward identifying a matrix of navaid substitution authorizations for airplanes based on equipment. They also need to coordinate changes to Air Traffic and AVN manuals and procedures. 


there will need to be a phased-in approach as they work with aTC.  it is important that the RNAV architecture be defined that will be required for each phase of flight.  the first phase looks like it would be en route (DME/DME) in regard to the equipment and procedures that are wll-known.  the second phase would probably be SDs and STARS.


AFS has agreed to involve the RNAV Task Force with their efforts as well as providing updates to the OSWG at each meeting until the major issues have been resolved.


15.   OpSpecs C060—Part 97 CAT II/CAT III Operations

Industry Lead:   UPS

FAA Lead:   AFS-410 Coby Johnson/AFS-220


Background For several years the OSWG members requested the removal of the requirement for listing the Part 97 CAT III runways in the OpSpec. 


Presently all requests for approval are sent to AFS-410.  There is a proposal to change this. Coby will explain.


Desired Outcome:   Suggestion sent in by Bill Cook, UPS:

g.   Authorized CAT III Runways


(1)    The certificate holder is authorized to conduct Part 97 CAT III instrument approach procedures at runways approved for such operations.  CAT III operations into Restricted U. S. Facilities are authorized with the approval of AFS-400 as provided in AC 120-28D, appendix 8, current edition.  Additional analysis or flight demonstrations are required for each aircraft type prior to approval of CAT III operations.  CAT III operations are authorized for U. S.  ILS facilities and aircraft listed below:


Airport Name/Identifier


Special Limitations



Cat III approach authorized for B767/B757 only.



Cat III approach authorized for B767/B757 only.




CAT III approach authorized for B767/B757 only.




CAT III approach authorized for B767/B757 only.


Revised text addressing Restricted U. S. Facility Runway use.

(2)     CAT III operations are also authorized for the foreign airports and runways listed in Table 2 below.







DISCUSSION:  After the recently revised C060 was rolled, the UPS POI called and asked where he was to put any Part 97 CAT III runway restrictions since we no longer require them to be listed routinely in C060.  The group felt that two tables may be best, a domestic table for runways with comments or restrictions and an International table. Additionally it was suggested that a “dropdown” selection menu be added to the tables which would eliminate the need for the user to go to the website.


Action/Outcome:   Connie has redrafted and is ready to provide and maintain known restrictions to domestic runways and develop an additional domestic table for runways with comments or restrictions with a “dropdown” selection menu.  Look for a revised HBAT 05-02 to be posted on www.opspecs.com.


Minutes/Action/Outcome:  AFS 400 agreed with UPS’s recommendations. Additionally, they clarified that aircraft CAT II/III approvals will be handled by the Region. Approval of Foreign CAT II/III runways will still be handled by AFS400.  The revised HBAT should be released soon with a mandatory change to C060.


**Here is the link to the video:



16.  OpSpec A030 Nonstandard Conduct all operations under Domestic or Flag, as applicable.

Industry Lead: Chuck Schramek

FAA Lead:   AFS-220


Background §119.21, provided for the authorization to conduct supplemental kinds of operations under regulations for domestic or flag need not be restricted to airports listed in C070. 


Desired Outcome:   The FAA has approved a few air carriers for this authorization.  It should be noted that those approvals restricted the air carrier from conducting ANY of the flights under Supplemental regulations…ALL operations are under either Flag or Domestic regulations.




Minutes/Action/Outcome:  Carriers considering this authorization may wish to discuss the pros and cons with Chuck Schramek or casey seabright.


17.  OpSpec C078 , Lower Than Standard Takeoff Minima

FAA Lead:  AFS-220

Industry Lead:  FEDEX


Background :  Recently here at FedEx there have been discussions about C078. Specifically paragraph “d.”  At Foreign Airports.  Some of my Flight Managers (actually one) believes that C078 allows us (FedEx) to use lower than standard takeoff minima  at any airport in the world as long as that airport has the required lighting as described in the OpSpec. Here’s my point in question; what happens if that foreign country’s API shows a higher takeoff minimum? Who says we can takeoff at lower minimums regardless of API information? 




Desired Outcome:  I guess I’m asking for the OpSpec C078 to be more specific about takeoff minimums at foreign airports. Not to just consider lighting equivalents.  Regards,  Steve Kuhar


Minutes/Action/Outcome:   As FedEx transitions from Jeppesen to Lido navigation charts they ran into issues with takeoff minimums. The confusion comes from the 6/7/2001 letter from the FAA to Jeppesen that asked Jeppesen to publish minimums other than those authorized by C078. During this meeting, the FAA made it clear that the “OPSPEC rules” and Air Carriers and charting vendors may use the minimums as authorized in C078.  This clarification is what Industry has been working toward for several years. It invalidates the 6/72001 letter to Jeppesen and is seen as a major Success by the group.


18.  OpSpec A031, Contract Training Centers/ Part 142 Training Specifications

Industry Lead = None

FAA Lead = AFS-250, Hooper Harris, Branch Manager for new [part 135] Commuter, On Demand, and Part 142 Training Branch—Staff includes Harlan Sparrow, Larry Buehler, & Dan Jenkins


Background:   Jim Kerr (OKC academy) has some suggestions regarding FAA OpSpecs.  He writes:  There is confusion among the POI work force regarding the audit interval required in OpSpec paragraph A031.  The audit verbiage is tied to the curriculum.  Operators are adding/changing curriculums on a somewhat regular basis. This in turn makes the anniversary date for audit difficult to determine.


September OpSpec A031 was inadvertently rolled with a minor change.  This still did not take care of the “audit” issue.


Desired Outcome:  (Jim Kerr, OKC academy) would like to suggest that the audit language be tied to the original date the POI authorized the use of outsourced training at training centers.  Justification is that the audit date would remain fixed and there would be less confusion for the POIs and operators when an audit would be required.


DISCUSSION:  Because it was pointed out that all certificate holders are responsible for conducting a biennial audit on their out-sourced training, some of the industry participants recommended that a n audit must be completed within the calendar year in which it is due.


Action/Outcome:  Pending…


19.  OpSpec A021, Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) Loss of Control (LOC) and Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT) Accident Avoidance Programs

Industry Lead:   none

FAA Lead: Hooper Harris, AFS-250, Harlan Sparrow, Larry Buehler


Background :    OpSpec A021 authorizes a certificate holder operating in accordance with part 135 to conduct VFR helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) operations.  HEMS operate in a demanding environment:  they provide an invaluable service to the public by providing crucial, safe, and efficient transportation of critically ill and injured patients to tertiary medical care facilities.  While the contribution of HEMS is a profound component of the nation’s medical infrastructure, from an operational standpoint, it is a commercial aviation activity performed by FAA-certificated air carrier operators.  HEMS operations have recently suffered an increasing accident rate, especially in accidents involving LOC and CFIT. 


DISCUSSION:   The guidance for HEMS and the OpSpec will be revised.  Two draft HBATs are on the www.opspecs.com website for your review.


Minutes/Action/Outcome:  No action. Closed.


20.  MSpec MA007, Designated Persons (for fractional ownership 91K).

The following change will be coming for MA007.  The AQP branch proposes this change in order for the Program Managers for Fractionals to be able to use an AQP.  A draft HBAT is available:


a.   The following person is designated as the agent for service in accordance with 14 CFR Section 91.1015(a)(6):




Mailing Address








b.     The following personnel are designated to officially apply for and receive management specifications for the program manager as indicated below.




Parts Authorized








c.       The following personnel are designated by the program manager as points of contact and required positions for those authorized a continuous airworthiness maintenance program (CAMP) regarding specific areas of expertise.



Title/Point of Contact

Equivalent Company Title








d.  The program manager has requested, and been granted, the opportunity to participate in a temporary test program allowing the program manager listed in this management specification to participate in the Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program.  The following personnel are authorized to submit Voluntary Disclosure Reports on behalf of the Program Manager:




Contact Phone Number








Minutes/Action/Outcome:  No action. Closed.


21.   [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 b website

¨      Send email message to OSWG members

¨      Discussion of each individual assessment

¨      Recommendation for AFS-200


FAA Lead : AFS-220 branch

Industry Lead:   CALA


Current Background

1.  Previously, only small aircraft used the Ponce, Puerto Rico (TJPS) airport.  A 14 CFR part 121 certificate holder is planning to start passenger service into Ponce using large aircraft.  The airport is surrounded by high terrain to the north and there are numerous man-made obstacles in close proximity to the runway. 

2.   Zhengding, Shijazhuang (ZBSJ) airport was on the list because there was limited information about the airport available. 


Desired Outcome:

1.  A request was submitted by the FAA that Ponce, Puerto Rico (TJPS), be added to the Special PIC Qualification Airport List .


2.  Continental Airlines submitted a request for the removal of the Chinese airport at Zhengding, Shijazhuang (ZBSJ) from the Special PIC Qualification Airport List.  


Action/Outcome:   Notice 8400.86 published 11/23/05 announced that

1--t he FAA has determined that it is appropriate to ADD Ponce, Puerto Rico (TJPS), to the Special PIC Qualification Airport List.

2.  that because sufficient information is now available, the FAA has determined that it is appropriate to REMOVE Zhengding, Shijazhuang (ZBSJ) from the Special PIC Qualification Airport List.


New Discussion: 

Minutes/Action/Outcome:  No new requests. Delta pointed out a glitch with OPSPECS.com whereby the link to this document is not updated when the document is updated. Connie will work with the webmaster to correct the problem. 



22.  NOTE:  OpSpec C089/C090 archived…and put into their proper places as C389/C390.  They must be i ssued together...and they were developed for USAirways only—no one else has applied for them.  When we discovered that a couple of other operators misunderstood, we archived C089 and C090 and they reappeared as they should have been originally as C389 and C390.  This means that in order for them to be issued, HQ must have given the permission through the nonstandard OpSpec process.  Only USAirways has been granted that permission.


23.  OPSS General Discussion:

I plan on attending the IOPSS meeting in Miami and would like to have a discussion item on the Ops Specs database inputs and/or requirements.  I have attached 4 screen shots that I think should be discussed.  Please advise if this is acceptable.  Look forward to seeing you in few weeks.  Rgds  Mike Keller, 292-2416—see attached ppt for Mike’s discussion.





Late Addition to the agenda:  OpSpec C067

FAA Lead:  AFS-220/410

Industry Lead:  Continental (Jackson)


Background :  Jackson recommends the new South American RNP procedures be covered under C067 as opposed to C384 (e.g., Quito).


DISCUSSION:    Bob Davis (FAA) pointed out that because the same type of equipment and navigation accuracy required (e.g., RF legs, RNP less than 0.3nm), C384 would be the most appropriate OPSPEC. Connie referred the group to current C052 guidance: “(4) Approach procedures listed in the table above do not constitute authorization to conduct Part 97 RNAV (RNP) approaches.  In addition , this operations specification does not constitute authorization to conduct any foreign airport approach which has an RNP line of minima, an RF leg segment (radius to a fix), or requires an RNP missed approach.  These types of approaches must be authorized by the issuance of OpSpec C384.  “



Desired Outcome:  Clarification, which was provided.


Action/Outcome:   Clarification, which was provided.   C067 is NOT the applicable OpSpec.  the air carrier may need a nonstandard authorization for c384 or the faa may consider adding the authorization to c058…tbd…



OpSpec A013:   All operators that have route AR7 authorized in their OpSpec A013 should note that AR7 routing changed to AR23 routing and that AR7 & AR23 are exactly the same routing, just a different designation..  This should constitute an administrative change only to OpSpec A013;  Nothing else may be changed in OpSpec A013 in any previously approved deviation.  As long as all of the above are correct this change is approved without submitting a new deviation request.  Thomas Toula, AFS-200 Air Transportation Division Manager.



The FAA has just commented on the JAA's draft NPA OPS 41.  This will come out as official rulemaking later this spring.  The AFS still has to coordinate impact with AVN and then release the TERPS chapter 3, hopefully within the next couple of months. Upon completion of the TERPS coordination, we will need to progress the ops specs.