FAA/Aviation Industry MINUTES for
OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) April 2006-02

1 pm -5 pm APRIL 26 (WEDNESDAY) and

8:30 am-12 noon APRIL 27 (THURSDAY)

Hosted by the National Air Carrier Assn

Ron Priddy,

(703) 358-1000

1000 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1700 ,

Arlington (alias Rosslyn), VA 22209


There was an industry pre-meeting on the morning of Wednesday the 26th at the same location. 


Meeting Schedule:

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

April 24-25, 2007                    OSWG 2007-02

USAirways, PHX

Chairpersons:  John Cowan, UALA, Industry Chair

Jackson Seltzer, CALA, Industry Vice Chair

Connie Streeter, FAA Chair


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. 


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 A005, Exemptions and Deviations.


Industry Lead:  None

FAA Lead:  Ida M. Klepper, Manager, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division, ARM-100, Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9688


Background:  OpSpec A005 is used to authorize operators to use exemptions that has been granted by the ARM or deviations granted by the FAA.


Desired Outcome:  Timely processing of exemption petitions.


DISCUSSION:   Exemption petitions:  If you send your petition it takes an incredibly long time because all mail goes through security screening.  We recommend that everyone use the electronic submission instead.   http://dms.dot.gov/   or http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/petition/


If you submit a petition electronically, ARM gets it for action, usually within a day of receipt.  If the mailed petition shows up later, we'll catch it here as a duplicate.


What is the Dockets Management System(DMS)?

DMS is an electronic, image-based database.  The database contains over 800,000 pages of regulatory and adjudicatory information.  The information is stored on-line for easy research, and retrieval via the internet.

How Information Gets into the DMS

The DOT Dockets Office is the official focal point for the receiving, reviewing, and processing of adjudicatory and rulemaking material. The Dockets office assigns docket and route numbers, coordinates the publication of documents in the Federal Register, and provides public access to departmental decisions. 

The Dockets Office reviews incoming materials to assure they meet filing requirements.  The materials are registered, scanned, quality assured, and saved to optical disc in the DMS. Customers may retrieve the image through the DMS via the internet or by visiting the public access room.  We have a page that lists the document types of each of the DOT agencies.


ACTION/Outcome:   Submit your exemption petitions via this Docket or you are in for a LONG wait!


You must use the electronic docket management system (DMS).  Otherwise, it will not be looked at in a timely manner.  This is for both initial requests and renewals.



3A.  OpSpec A006/007, :


SAFOs (Safety Alert For Operators) are being sent out, but not everyone should receive them.  In the future, the FAA would like to send these out to only the affected airlines and personnel.  Therefore, the FAA wants to have an email address in either A006 or A007.  The FAA has never had a legal means for an electronic notification.  The FAA is not worried about getting information to the major airlines.  It is the small carriers that have POI with oversight of numerous airlines that are the concerns.  The POI will not be taken out the of the loop. 


The industry and the FAA are concerned about the receipt of this information.  What are the requirements for notification and receipt, who is responsible, should there be more than one person on the list, and does the airline have a group mailbox?  Any information that requires a PTR entry will also be delivered through the POI.  The FAA will continue to explore alternatives.  If nothing else is found, a second table will be added to paragraph A007 for person or persons to notify with information.  It will include the name, email address, telephone number, and label for type of information to receive.  These labels are OPS (operations), AW (airworthiness), or ALL.  The table should have a disclaimer that notification of receipt of the information by a carrier or person is not required.

ACTION:   AFS-260 will prepare an HBAT with the appropriate revision to [probably] A007, Designated Persons, to make a mandatory change. 


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

Industry Lead:  

FAA Lead:  Robert Davis, AFS-220/AFS-250


Background:  HBAT 05-04 announced the revision to C063 for IFR RNAV Departure Procedures (DP) and Standard Terminal Arrivals (STAR)…and Q Route authorization.


Desired Outcome:  The ability to select Q-Route only in C063.



Question (1):  I have recently been reading the guidance documents regarding the issuance of Ops Spec C063 (IFR RNAV Departure Procedures (DP) and Standard Terminal Arrivals (STAR)).  I visited AFS-410's website and located the list of equipment that is approved to fly Type A & B DP's and STARs, and those approved for Q routes.  My question is, we have several operators in the district that are using the Honeywell (Bendix/King) KLN-90B as their GPS system.  According to the list, the 90B is not approved for Type A & B, only for Q routes.  When I get into the OpSpec system, there is no selection for Q route only.


Discussion (2):  Regarding C063. The original HBAT 05-04 required the PAI to determine the software version was compatible with the AFS-400 website list of approved equipment, AC par F(3)(a). The OpSpec was not planned to be used like C384 to document s/w version. However, we are finding C063 has been incorrectly authorized and are working to change the HBAT guidance to be more specific and will modify the OpSpec to track software.


Limitations are for anything unique. For example, there is no AC requirement for a runway update before doing a type B RNAV SID. But, the operator does not use gate coordinates for initial position due to memory limits in the database. The limitation might be that a runway update is required for RNAV departure.



(1) Added Q-Route only to the selectables in C063.

(2) are working to change the HBAT guidance to be more specific and will modify the OpSpec to track software and we are thinking that we will also revise guidance to remove the Q route authorization from C063 and revise B035 guidance to accommodate Q route authorization (TBD).

FAA proposes that C063 will have Q routes taken out and the authorization will be put into B034 or B035 (probably B035 because the Q routes are above 18K).  The training requirements may be accomplished in recurrent training but will also allow the carrier to continue operations until all pilots are trained.  They are presently all Type A approaches.  The naming conventions will be changed in the future.


5.  OpSpec C051 for RNAV Substitution; (C300 RNAV with RNAV RNP )

Industry Lead:  United Airlines , Captain John Cowan

FAA Lead:  AFS-220/AFS-250/AFS-410


Background :   Recent events with NAVAID outages (e.g., JAC, EGE) have highlighted a disconnect between OPSPEC authorizations (both standard and and non-standard text) other FAA agencies (e.g., AVN, ATC). If NOTAMs are issued saying the procedure is “NA”, that effectively eliminates RNAV substitution capabilities. Previous agendas included specific questions to the FAA that have gone unanswered. Recently, AFS-200/AFS-300/AFS-400 staffers requested Industry input for: “two separate statements (one for GPS sensors and one with DME/DME sensors) that would allow your company to use RNAV substitution safely and accurately if we were to allow it.  Factors to consider:  terrain and the effects on sensor availability, minimum safe altitudes, & climb gradient and; equipment capability (limited sensors, nav DB coding, flyovers vs flybys, etc.).”


Desired Outcome:    Industry requests an opportunity to review and comment on any new guidance material prior to implementation. We need to understand the issues and guidance so as to appropriately revise operational publications (e.g., FOM/FM).



1) Request the FAA provide an overview of where we stand with RNAV substitution issues. What are the agencies current concerns, what are the proposed solutions and what is the timeline?


2) Industry suggests the following two paragraphs be considered for RNAV substitution:

DME / DME - The operator is authorized to substitute RNAV for any VOR, TACAN, NDB, or DME in a WGS-84 or WGS-84 equivalent environment as long as the position of the aircraft can be verified using other NAVAIDS or an on-ground update (such as runway update / quick align before takeoff) and as long as the NAVAID name and latitude / longitude information for the out of service NAVAID are available in the navigation data base.

GPS - The operator is allowed to substitute RNAV for any VOR, TACAN, NDB, or DME in a WGS-84 or WGS-84 equivalent environment as long as GPS is the update source to the FMC and as long as the NAVAID name and latitude / longitude information for the out of service NAVAID are available in the navigation data base.

Additionally, we would also add the following text for inclusion as boilerplate for paragraph C051:

Where suitable NAVAID or GPS sensor updating of an FMS navigation system is available, RNAV may be used to substitute for inoperative or unavailable VOR, TACAN, NDB, DME, or Marker Beacon NAVAID's or fixes for arrival procedures, approach procedures, missed approach procedures, or departure procedures.  For such substitution, the operator should ensure that the navigation system used and updating method available, taken with the available remaining NAVAID(s) or sensors, are suitable for the route or procedure segment to be flown (for example, method to ensure runway update for departure).

Finally, we are suggesting the following timeline for implementation:

Phase 1: RNAV GPS may be substituted for any VOR, NDB, and any fix in the en route and terminal environment (Terminal being defined as SIDs, STARs, and instrument approaches)

Phase 2:  Same statement as above except using DME/DME RNAV instead of RNAV GPS

Phase 3:  GPS may be substituted for any VOR, NDB, and any fix on an instrument approach provided that use of GPS does not have an adverse impact on the existing obstruction clearance surfaces

Phase 4:  RNAV GPS may be substituted for Localizer




The industry would like to have the FAA tell us where they are on this issue.  Mark Steinbicker gave the FAA update (AFS-410).  It is possible that by early in 2007 the approaches that are out there now will be re-charted and defined. 


Current guidance documents include AIM, Ops Spec, and AC 12-29A.  Proposed guidance documents are NTAP (graphic notice NOTAM), AIM (new section), AC xx, Order 7110.65 (ATC), and Order 8260.19 (NOTAMs). 


The three phase approach for this.  1- easy stuff with current equipment.  2 - moderate problems, additions of new equipment.  3- the hard stuff including integrated equipment.  The GPS equipped aircraft are the low hanging fruit. DME/DME will take longer.


C300 as a non-standard paragraph requires Washington approval.  At the present time, no airlines have official HQ approval to use C300.  There is no guidance for it and how the airlines got it remains a mystery to the FAA.  American Airlines has email traffic that gave it to them.  Delta tagged on after AA received the notification.  The FAA feels that there was no oversight for the issuance of the paragraph and there are too many combinations of aircraft, equipment, facilities, and airports types to have the POI approve this.  The industry does not believe that this is a problem and is not a safety issue.  The aircraft were sold as being certified for RNP.  We are looking for approval to use the equipment as we bought it and trained it.  Delta has had their paragraph archived. 


The FAA does not have an answer and must get guidance from upper management before they can comment.  In the meantime, status quo?  Need to supply the AFM language, flight procedures, MEL, aircraft and equipment, and training to FAA for approval of this non-standard text. 



6.  OpSpec A055:  Carriage of Hazardous Materials

FAA LEAD:  AFS-220/AFS-260/AFS-250/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 A005…DOT 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. 

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


Minutes/Action/Outcome:   Look for a revision to make the OpSpec the permanent one and a draft HBAT at the October OSWG.


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

Industry Lead:   DALA

Industry Lead:  Jim Stieve, Manager Dispatch ASAP and Ops Performance Southwest Airlines/

 Chuck Schramek, Delta Air Lines

FAA Lead:  Jerry Ostronic, AFS-220


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.


h. The certificate holder shall maintain at least CAT II approach authorization (operations specification C059) for those fleets to which this exemption applies.


   (1) The intended destination airport and runway(s) of intended landing must have at least one operational CAT II approach suitable for the operations being conducted.


   (2) At the time of dispatch the flightcrew must be qualified and the aircraft equipped to conduct a CAT II approach to the runway or runways identified in f(1) above .


Desired Outcome:    Correct the reference in h.(2):

   (2) At the time of dispatch the flightcrew must be qualified and the aircraft equipped to conduct a CAT II approach to the runway or runways identified in h(1) above .


DISCUSSION:   Jim Stieve noticed this oversight, brought it to the attention of AFS-260.  Additionally, industry would appreciate any comments from the FAA on any problems or concerns they may have with this authorization.  Industry members are also encouraged to provide “how goes it” comments.


ACTION/Outcome:   AFS-260 did a Nonmandatory roll of C355 to correct subparagraph reference in h.(2) from f.(1) to h.(1).


The paragraph does not list CAT III, this was fixed.  This is because some airports are NA for CAT II whereby they are still available for CAT III.  The other items that were open for discussion are in the exemption and not amendable.


The FAA has stopped issuing the exemption until they gather and analysis more data from the carriers that now are operating with it. 


8.  OpSpec B043, Special Fuel Reserves in International Operations   


Attached to the email is a copy of Gordy’s proposed changes.

FAA Lead: Gordy Rother / Jerry Ostronic/Robert Davis (AFS-220)

Industry Lead(s):  Jim Johnson, American Airlines


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



Desired Outcome:  Update with a “correction” to the requirement for an alternate during supplemental operations and address the definition of “class 1 navigation” for the purpose of this authorization.


DISCUSSION:  The FAA is requesting Industry comment to Gordy’s proposed changes, which were recently distributed via email.




The industry would like to move toward a performance-based process for B043.  Gordy Rother stated that the current B043 allows a Supplemental carrier to use domestic rules.  Part B is wrong and Part A needs to be rewritten to level the playing field.  The proposal was initially supposed to correct these sections.  They want this to mirror what the military does that when you go feet wet.  However, some carriers are using a 45-minute reserve in South America.  To help with this the benign area was developed.  This would allow operation down south with adequate oversight.


The industry does not see a problem with this because B043 is defined by reference to B032.  John Cowan will resubmit his rewrite of B032 and see if it is relevant today.  Why can’t the airlines carry domestic fuel reserve world wide, irrespective of ETOPS requirements?  We should be able to get there.


Planned fuel on arrival versus predicted fuel on arrival.  What is this delta and why did it happen.  We need a group of interested parties that will collect the data.  This will allow us to go forward and petition to change the fuel rule or at least change the Ops Spec paragraph.  This group needs to decide what data points will be collected and how to present the information.  If we don’t collect this information, there is no way that we can change the requirements.  However, we hope to have B043 and or B343 to eventually become the rule. 



9.  OpSpec B343 Fuel Reserves for Flag and Supplemental Operations


FAA Lead: Gordy Rother / Jerry Ostronic/Robert Davis (AFS-220)

Industry Lead(s):  Jim Johnson, American Airlines


Background:  OpSpec B343 is a nonstandard authorization that has been granted to only a few international air carriers.  Each one is required to provide to the FAA on a monthly basis reports that i ndicate that a portion of en-route reserve fuel will be consumed:

(i)   must be coordinated between the Pilot-in-Command (PIC) and dispatcher or flight follower, as soon as practical, and

(ii)   the PIC and dispatcher or flight follower must agree upon a course of action and have that decision recorded.

(c)  Both flightcrews and the dispatcher or flight follower, as applicable, must record all reports required by this operations specification until completion of the flight. 

(d)  Both a primary and secondary method of communicating the reports required by this operations specification must be available for the entire route of flight.

(e)  The FAA-accepted procedures must be included in the certificate holder's manual.

(f)   Flight crewmembers and dispatchers or flight followers, as applicable, must be trained in the use of these procedures.


Desired Outcome:  Provide a quick “how’s it going” status check.



DISCUSSION:  FAA to provide a briefing on any problems or concerns they may have as well as any Industry comments (e.g., are the required reports being submitted satisfactory).


ACTION/Outcome:  None of the airlines are having any problems with this process.  The FAA will try to have a meeting before our next OSWG meeting and discuss the pros and cons of the exemption.  The FAA has seen some arrivals fuel loads that they are not happy with.  They would like to have a performance-based system with a 5% bottom end.  Gordy put a request out to try and receive more data that is to be deidentified.  To date, no one has come forward with this data.


The FAA has also stated they will look at the communications requirement and remove the reference that requires SATCOM.




10.  OpSpec A008, Operational Control


Industry Lead:  

FAA Lead:  Kent Stephens, AFS-200/AFS-250/AFS-220


Background:  Federal Aviation Regulations provide that only entities properly certificated by the FAA may exercise operational control of any flight conducted for commercial purposes under 14 CFR parts 121 and 135. After a review of an aircraft accident that occurred in 2005 at the Teterboro Airport, the FAA issued instructions to its inspectors directing them to contact each air carrier they oversee to make sure that these carriers understand their obligations to maintain operational control of flights conducted under their certificates. The FAA believes that there are eight essential elements that are required in the exercise of operational control of flight operations by a certificate holder.


Desired Outcome: Facilitate Understanding of Operational Control Requirements in Part 135 operations and provide an explanation of revised Opspecs A008 (Operational Control).






A 121 version of this will be coming out in the future.  The main problem is who has operational control and is that person qualified to make those decisions.  Comments can be sent to info@nbaa.org with the subject line of “operational control.”






Day 2

Begin at 8:30am




11.  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.


12. OpSpec A002 DEFINITIONS and A027 Land and Hold Short Operations/New OpSpec C082 proposed


Industry Lead:  ?

FAA Lead:  AFS-220


Background:  Available Landing Distance (ALD) definition. Given the MDW accident and recent scrutiny over how dry and slick landing distances are calculated, what guidance changes, if any are being considered?


Desired Outcome:   Industry requests an opportunity to review and comment on any new guidance material prior to implementation. We need to understand the issues and guidance so as to appropriately revise operational publications (e.g., FOM/FM).




Seeking a briefing from the appropriate FAA office on these issues:

·                Will we need to pad landing distances by 15%?

·                Will this affect our LAHSO operations and OPSPECS?

·                What is the anticipated timeline for implementing any changes?

Example: Per A027:

a.   Landing Distance Computations

(1)  Landing distance will be the FAA-approved Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) distance plus 1,000 feet for the configuration, environment, and the weight actually used for landing.  In no cases shall LAHSO be conducted to a runway distance less than specified for an aircraft type as identified in FAAO 7110.118, Appendix 1.

(2)      The AFM distance is that determined in accordance with the appropriate Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations Sections 23.75, 25.125, and 121.195, and Part 135 Subpart I.







13.  OpSpec C074, Cat I ILS, MLS, or GLS [Precision] Approaches/OpSpec C359, Special Authorization for Certain Category II Operations at Specifically Approved Facilities/new OpSpec C047 proposed


FAA Lead : AFS-410/AFS-220/AFS-250

Industry Lead: Mindy Waham, Alaska Airlines


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 the status of these airports as to which approach procedures are now published as Part 97s.


3.  Questions regarding Ops Spec C074 and Order 8400.13B  from Alaska Airlines.:

1.  Autoland or Autopilot?

a. Order 8400.13Bses the term “autopilot” throughout.

b. Ops Spec C074, paragraph a, Note 3 and paragraph b use the term “autoland”.

c. Ops Spec C074, paragraph c uses the term “autopilot”

Which is the appropriate term autoland or autopilot?


2.Special Aircrew and Aircraft Authorization Required (SAAAR) or Special Aircrew and Aircraft Certification Required (SAACR)


a. Order 8400.13BItem 7c(1), CAT I Operations to 1800 RVR, states: Add a separate line of minima for the 1800 RVR, 200’ height above touchdown, with the following notes: “SPECIAL AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED,”….  This phrase does not even mention aircrew.

b. Ops Spec C074, paragraph c, Special Aircrew, Aircraft Authorized Minimums, states:  The certificate holder shall not use an IFR landing minimum for straight-in precision Category I approaches labeled as “Special Aircrew, Aircraft Authorization Required” except in accordance with subparagraph a of this operations specification and the following….

c. In conversations with the FAA I have been told the phrase Special Aircrew and Aircraft Certification Required is the correct term for CAT II/III Operations.

d. Special Aircrew and Aircraft Authorization Required is for RNP approaches only.

If the statement in item c is correct can the Order and/or Ops Spec be updated to reflect this statement?

3. Currently, of the approved CAT I (1800 RVR) airports/runways, the following have had guidance published on the charts:  ABQ, AUS, LBB, OKC and DEN.

a. ABQ, AUS, LBB and OKC all have SAACR published

b. DEN has the SAAAR terminology.  I believe this is being changed to SAACR.

c. All have the guidance “Use of flight director or autopilot or HGS required”.




Action/Outcome:   Boise discussion for CAT II (FEDEX)

Need to sort out autopilot versus autoland in 8400.13B.  Also need to sort out SAAAR (only for RNP) and SAACR.  Wayne (Coby) Johnson (AFS-410) stated that this order would be corrected within the next year.  The term in the Op Spec will be changed from autoland to autopilot.  Also, the SAAAR and SAACR will be cleaned up.  Connie sated that by the next meeting the Op Spec paragraph will be changed.  They are looking at taking the special authorizations out of C059 and C359 and putting it in its own paragraph.  Also, the training and checking requirements will come out of C359 (c).  A draft to correct these problems will be available by the next meeting via an HBAT.



13A.  OpSpec A025, Electronic Record Keeping System and/or Electronic Flight Bag


FAA Lead : Wayne (Coby) Johnson

Industry Lead: ?


A draft job aid details a five step approval that the POI will go through.   It needs to be rewritten and sent out as a Notice.  Coby will send this draft out to the OSWG in approximately 30 days.  Also, EFB will be broken out from this paragraph into a new paragraph and have this Notice as its basis.


In the 145 Ops Spec, A025 allows for electronic signature.  However, the 121 side does not show this, but he 121 side does not prohibit it.  Connie will correct this when she separates A025.



14.  OpSpec A023 De-Icing and Anti-Icing Programs.

Industry Lead:   None

FAA Lead:   AFS-220, Dan Meier (202) 267-8166   daniel.meier@faa.gov /AFS-250


Background:  As Notices 8000.308, .309 and .313 expire in October (2006) and will not be incorporated into Order 8400.10, we would like to know what the plan is to address these issues for this next winter season.


Desired Outcome:   As we move forward and when the time is right, I ndustry requests an opportunity to review and comment on any new guidance material prior to implementation. Hosting these discussions in a timely manner so as to allow for publication (e.g., FOM/FM revisions) prior to the start of the winter season would be greatly appreciated.


Request an update from AFS 220 on the status of efforts to produce holdover times for snow/ice pellets and for heavy snow.




ACTION/Outcome:   Jerry Ostronic has stated that there is currently is no new guidance.  Dan Meier will be retiring this summer and is working on cleaning up what he can.  The SAE meeting is at the end of July.  They will turn this information around as fast as they can.  They believe that they will have it done before the US winter season.  Canada has just completed testing for ice/snow pellets and it looks like they will have relief by the winter.  However, there will not be the normal hold over time.  This is because of the definition of hold over and the way the pellets penetrate the fluid is different.  So, they will come up with a different term from the time of anti-icing to takeoff for ice/snow pellets.  As for heavy snow, testing is currently being performed.  The results have not been finalized or analyzed. 


15.  OpSpec C070, Scheduled Airports


Industry Lead:  

FAA Lead:  AFS-260


Background:  From the previous OSWG meeting:  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.


Desired Outcome:  ?? 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.).





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.  Jim Johnson wants to leave the field blank.  The FAA does not like this, as they want to know that the field was at least looked at.  However,

Monica did this:  Select Data for OpSpec C070, Rev 04b for Part 121 (ONLY), has been modified so that hypens ("-") will be loaded instead of "N/A" for cells where Make/Model use is not applicable.  But if you want the header row names to be duplicated you have to do it on each page.



16.  OpSpec A052 or A0XX?


Industry Lead:  Steve Kuhar, FEDEX

FAA Lead:  AFS-220/AFS-250


Background: There is no comprehensive OpSpec paragraph that indicates surveillance authorization or capabilities of an aircraft.


Airspace service providers worldwide are beginning to demand surveillance requirements for airspace usage. Some examples are;  the European requirement for elementary or enhanced mode “S”, US FAA mandate for mode “S”,  Australian requirement in some areas to have ADS-B or ADS-C utilizing either 1090 “squinter” or UAT. There are some areas of the world requiring aircraft to be equipped with FANS surveillance utilizing data link or Sat COMM. 

There is a need to document an aircrafts surveillance capability just as we document in OpSpec an aircraft’s communication capability (A056 CPDLC) and several OpSpec paragraphs documenting aircraft navigation capabilities.


Desired Outcome:  Create a new OpSpec paragraph or a revised A052 that will document by M/M/S an aircraft’s surveillance capability.




ACTION/Outcome:   During the change over to Lido from Jeppesen, FEDEX has examined everything in their Ops Spec.  They questioned as to where they are authorized to have a surveillance type of broadcast.  Maybe we need to make a new 400 series paragraph to facilitate this approval.


Note:  For foreign operation where the state of the operations requires that the operator provides verification from its state that it has met the requirements of annex 6 for COM/NAV surveillance.



17.  OpSpec C078 “Lower Than Standard Takeoff Minimums”


Industry Lead:  Steve Kuhar, FEDEX

FAA Lead:  AFS-200/AFS-250/AFS-400


Background:  Current C078 text authorizing 500 RVR minimums has stipulations with regard to runway lighting, markings and RVR reporting systems only. No other stipulations are indicated.  FAA 8400 series documents the following guidance to POIs when authorizing below 600 RVR takeoff minimums:


2) Operations below RVR 600 at U.S. airports require appropriate surface movement and guidance control procedures to be in place at the airport.


Desired Outcome:  Determine what is the relevance of surface movement to takeoff minimums? The OpSpec is authorizing takeoff operations not operations on the taxiway. If it is determined that taxi conditions effect takeoff restrictions then the template needs to reflect that appropriate surface movement and guidance control procedures must be in place at the airport.


If it is determined that taxi restrictions are NOT part of takeoff minimums then determine what is the technical limitation for takeoff minimums; 500 RVR or 600 RVR or some other value?




ACTION/Outcome :  Order 6750.24C has guidance that should be revised.  Also, the 8400.10 guidance for 121 C078 states:


(2) Operations below RVR 600 at U.S. airports require appropriate surface movement and guidance control procedures to be in place at the airport.



18.  OpSpec A034 “Advanced Qualification Program”


Industry Lead:  FEDEX Express

FAA Lead:  AFS-230, Tom Longridge


Background:   The FedEx Express personnel responsible for AQP have pointed out to me, (while reviewing OpSpec para A034) that the a. statement is no longer current. SFAR 58 is no longer valid and should be replaced with FAR 121, Subpart Y,

121.901 – 121.925


Desired Outcome:   Change OpSpec template a. to reflect change from SFAR to FAR 121, Subpart Y, 121.901121.925




ACTION/Outcome:  Connie will put out a non-mandatory change to fix this.  



19.  [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 for this Agenda:  


Desired Outcome:  American Airlines requests the Chinese airports of Wuhan/Tianhe (ZHHH) and Nanjing/Lukou (ZSNJ) be removed from the Special Qualification Airports List associated with 14 CFR Section 121.445 and Operations Specification C050.


Wuhan/Tianhe (ZHHH) and Nanjing/Lukou (ZSNJ) airports are currently listed for the reason of “limited information.”  Because there is there is an abundance of operational information available for both airports in the China Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP), and there are no other factors such as terrain or unique operating procedures that warrant special training or pictures for the two airports, American Airlines recommends that both be removed from the list.



a.  The OSWG members recommended ZHHH and ZSNJ be removed from the Special PIC Qualification Airport List; and

b.  The FAA has determined it is appropriate to remove these two airports from the Special PIC Qualification Airport List.

c.   The question came up in regard to the meaning of the Asterisks next to the Alaska Airports shown below:



Distinctive Characteristics

Effective Date

*Seward , AK


Mountainous terrain (no approach)


Sitka , AK


Mountainous terrain


Valdez , AK


Mountainous terrain


Wrangell , AK


Mountainous terrain



U.S. Military Airports



Distinctive Characteristics

Effective Date

Adak Island NAF, AK


Mountainous terrain


*Cape Lisburne LRRS, AK


Mountainous terrain


*Cape Newenham LRRS, AK


Runway located on mountain slope with high gradient factor; nonstandard instrument approach.  Extreme slope of runway gives illusion of very steep descent when on normal glide slope for runway 14.  Departure end of runway 32 (lower end) is flanked on the west (left) side by a filled area, which can cause the left side runway markers to appear to be runway centerline.  Visibility is reported from the weather station that is located at the lower end of the runway and faces north, normally away from sun.  The runway 14 approach is to the south, normally into the sun, and effective visibility on final may be much less than reported, especially in haze, snow, or broken layered conditions.  Recommend landing configuration be established far enough prior to touchdown to allow for go-around in the event of landing gear and/or flap malfunctions, and to allow sufficient time to visually acquire the runway and establish normal glide slope.  Do not rely on VASI for glide slope information; the VASI runway intercept point is 500 feet past the threshold.  Reliance on the VASI will cause long landings.  Runway has 5 foot-tall lip at both ends.  Aircraft may incur significant damage when operating on gravel runways.



We have not found out who put the asterisk's by those airports nor why. I spoke with Rick Girard and neither of us could make any sense on the reason for the asterisk. However, Rick did have some input as follows:

Seward has a Special IAP

Adak Island , AK is no longer a military airport. It now is a public use airport.


3) American Airlines requests the Russian airports of Novosibirsk/Tolmachevo (UNNT) and Yakutsk/Yakutsk (UEEE) be removed from the Special Qualification Airports List associated with 14 CFR Section 121.445 and Operations Specification C050.


Novosibirsk/Tolmachevo (UNNT) and Yakutsk/Yakutsk (UEEE) airports are currently listed for the reason of “limited information.” However, as shown in the attached documents, there is an abundance of operational information available for both airports in the Russia Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP).  Because there is sufficient information, and there are no other factors such as terrain or unique operating procedures that warrant special training or pictures for the two airports, American Airlines recommends that both be removed from the list.


The following are on the http://opspecs.com website under POLICY/Ops Documents/Special PIC Airports for your review:

AIRPORT ASSESSMENT AID UEEE.DOC: required airport assessment aid for Yakutsk

AIRPORT ASSESSMENT AID UNNT.DOC: required airport assessment aid for Novosibirsk


AD UEEE.PDF – supporting operational information for Yakutsk from Russia AIP

AD UNNT.PDF – supporting operational information for Novosibirsk from Russia AIP

AD UEEE.PDF – supporting operational information for Yakutsk from Jeppesen

AD UNNT.PDF – supporting operational information for Novosibirsk from Jeppesen


Respectfully,  D Tran,  Flight Operations, American Airlines



1 )- Notice 8400.88 was published 03/22/06.   As a result:   A revision history page to the end of the Special PIC Qualification Airport List.

2)-When another change to the list is made, we will remove the asterisks and correct the reference to Adak Island.

3) Discussion of American’s proposal to remove the Russian airports UEEE and UNNT.


The FAA stated that it is recommends that the two Russian airports should be removed from the list.  Casey Seabright also agreed that they should be removed.




20.  OpSpec A082,  Landing Performance Calculations After Dispatch for all Turbo Jet Operations:


Need to review C054 to either incorporate information or reference it.  Draft Notice 8400.C082 has been sent out for review.  Any comments need to be sent in very soon.  The FAA plans to roll this soon.


FAA legal has reviewed this proposed Ops Spec paragraph and maintains that it does not do rule making by Ops Spec, but only mirrors what is available in the regulations in various places.