FAA/Aviation Industry Agenda for
OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) October 24/25, 2006
Oct. 24 (Tuesday, 1PM-5 PM) /25 (Wednesday, 8:30AM-Noon), 2006
Hosted by United Parcel Service
Louisville , Kentucky
There will be an industry pre-meeting on the morning of Tuesday the 24th at the same location.
October 24-25, 2006 OSWG 2006-04
UPS @ Louisville
January 23-24, 2007 OSWG 2007-01
AmeriJet host @ Miami
April 24-25, 2007 OSWG 2007-02
USAirways, @ PHX
July 24-25, 2007 OSWG 2007-03
Alaska Airlines, SEA
October 23-24, 2007 OSWG 2007-04
NBAA/NATA, Washington, DC
January 22-23, 2008 OSWG 2008-01
(presidential election year—Jan 29-30 instead?
Chairpersons: John Cowan, UALA, Industry Chair
Jackson Seltzer, CALA, Industry Vice Chair/Jim Winkleman, ASLA, substituting
Connie Streeter, FAA Chair
1. Convene :
a. Roster and Roll Call: Please initial to the left of your name when the roster comes to you and provide any corrections to the information. 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. The OSWG Procedures Guide is available with the change marks on. All are encouraged to review this procedures guide.
c. General Information in Regard to Agenda Items:
(1) Proposed changes to a template or to the guidance that would constitute "policy changes" to an authorizing document will generally need to be presented to the OSWG and AFS-260 in Notice format which includes appendices containing the appropriate revision to the guidance for the OpSpec/MSpec/LOA in 8400.10/8300.10 and a sample of the proposed Template 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.
d. Opening remarks : Orders 8400.10, 8300.10, and 8700.10 will be combined into one Order. This is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2006. Any changes to this new e-doc will be accomplished via a Notice. Therefore, the Spec will need to be changed to reflect that no new HBATs will be issued after the first of 2006. However, there will need to be a method for changing the information. Chuck Schramek would like to re-convene the old 8400.10 working committee to help the FAA review the new, combined handbook.
ACTION: Connie has said that she will take this up the line.----Right now the AFS personnel are engulfed in the effort. Right now is not a good time to bring the industry in but after the first of the year when the new e-doc is published we can be guaranteed that a whole lot more review will be necessary….let’s table the idea until the April 2007 OSWG..
2. Status of Assigned Action Items :
Reviewed, amended, and adopted agenda
Ø A048, Verification of Personnel for Access to Flightdeck
Ø 8200 series Notices
3. OpSpec/MSpec/LOA A007, Other Designated Persons
Industry Lead : None
FAA Lead: AFS-260/AFS-210/250/820/300/400
Background : SAFOs (Safety Alert for Operators) are being sent out, but not everyone receives them. In the future, the FAA would like to send these out to only the affected Operators and personnel. Therefore, the FAA wants to have an email address in 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 all the other operators that have a POI with oversight of numerous operators that are the concerns. It is not the intent to take the FAA field inspector out 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 Operator have a group mailbox? Any information that requires a PTRS entry will also be delivered through the POI. An additional table will be added to the A007 templates for person, persons, or mailbox reference to notify with information. It will include the name, email address, telephone number, and label for type of SAFO 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.
It was suggested that instead of inserting the name of a specific person that we provide for a generic email box. A draft of the proposed guidance for A007, Designated Persons is available on the OpSpecs.com website. The Notice has been expanded to include all operators conducting flight operations, i.e., Parts 125, 133, 137, and Part 91K.
4. OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C063, IFR RNAV Departure Procedures (DP) and Standard Terminal Arrivals (STAR)/B035, Class I IFR Navigation (Domestic Q-Routes)
FAA Lead: Tom Walsh, AFS-220/Mike Frank, AFS-250/Phil Dougherty, AFS-820/Mark Steinbicker, AFS-410
Background : HBAT 05-04 announced the revision to C063 for IFR RNAV Departure Procedures (DP) and Standard Terminal Arrivals (STAR)…and Q Route authorization.
We are finding C063 has been incorrectly authorized and are working to change the HBAT guidance to be more specific.
We anticipate that later down the road we will change the verbiage to harmonize with ICAO to RNAV-1 and RNAV-2; we anticipate removing the RNP verbiage since RNP requires an alerting function where the RNAV-1 has no RNP alerting function. The AC should be revised at that time.
The HBAT stated in error that C063 has a requirement to track software.
Jeppesen and LIDO are now issuing approach plates for Dubai labeled RNAV ILS or ILS RNAV. There is no pull down authorization in C052 for RNAV ILS or ILS RNAV.
(1) FAA proposes that C063 & its corresponding guidance will have Q routes taken out and the authorization will be put into B035 (because the Q routes are above 18K)
(2) Change the HBAT 05-04 guidance to remove the Q route authorization from C063 and revise B035 to accommodate Q route authorization.
(3) The C063 training requirements in the HBAT will be clarified in response to POI queries.
5. OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C051 for RNAV Substitution; (C300 RNAV with RNAV RNP)
Industry Lead: Alaska Airlines, Jim Winkleman
FAA Lead: Tom Walsh, AFS-220/AFS-250/AFS-820/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. Mark Steinbicker gave the FAA update (AFS-410). It is possible that by early in 2007 the NTAP policy will be published to expand RNAV substitution. This policy will include AIM and NOTAM changes to accommodate RNAV substitution for all but final approach coarse guidance. OpSpec C300 for RNAV substitution for approach coarse guidance will be addressed by AFS-200 to determine if NOTAM language can be incorporated.
AFS-410 provided a draft copy of the proposed change to the AIM to accomplish some of the above. It sets forth policy concerning the operational use of RNAV equipment for the following applications within the National Airspace System (NAS). This document states "pilots may not substitute for the navigation aid providing lateral guidance for the final approach segment." AFS-410 plans to publish this in the AIM and want to help develop the appropriate authorization in the OpSpecs. This document does fix the problem of an approach where the initial or missed approach is based on a non-operative NAVAID or the equipment is not installed on the aircraft. The group has established that this is the starting point. A copy of this policy is available on the OpSpecs.com website: b under POLICY/OSWG information.
Desired Outcome : The FAA must define the equipment and training requirements and appropriate approval text for authorizing RNAV substitution. It is necessary to understand the issues and guidance so as to appropriately revise operational publications (e.g., FOM/FM).
Aviation Safety inspectors guidance and appropriate authorization need to be developed and published in a Notice.
From the AIM:
2. These allowances apply only to operations conducted within the NAS.
3. The allowances defined in this notice apply even when a facility is explicitly identified as required on a procedure (for example, “Note ADF required”). These allowances do not apply to procedures that are identified as not authorized (NA) without exception by a NOTAM, as other conditions may still exist and result in a procedure not being available.
4. ADF equipment need not be installed and operational, although operators of aircraft without an ADF will be bound by the operational requirements defined in this notice and not have access to some procedures.
5. For the purpose of this notice, “VOR” includes VOR, VOR/DME, and VORTAC facilities.
6. Heading-based legs associated with procedures may be flown using manual technique (based on indicated magnetic heading) or, if available, extracted from the aircraft database and flown using RNAV system guidance.
6. OpSpec C052, Instrument Approach Procedures
Industry Lead: Thomas Schaner, AirNet Systems
FAA Lead: AFS-250/260, AFS-220,Hank Cabler, AFS-430/AFS-820/AFS-410
Background : GPS/GPS WAAS. The airlines claim that there is a lack of understanding on which minima lines they can fly. They also had some negative comments about chart naming conventions. For example, most RNAV (GPS) charts say RNP 0.3 DME/DME NA. This means that the only current authorized approach aid is GPS. Some of the aircraft databases code these approaches as “GPS” and some code “RNAV” so the Charting Forum decided to name the charts RNAV (GPS). This issue was discussed by the RNAV Task Force which recommended it be re-considered by the Charting Forum. Some said that a few of their pilots had assumed that they could automatically fly the LPV line, which can only be flown by GPS WAAS-equipped aircraft.
Desired Outcome: Clarification in guidance, and documentation for authorizing GPS vs GPS WAAS, as well as clarification of the charts.
DISCUSSION: A discussion was to add a table that identifies specific aircraft for specific approaches. GPS and GPS WAAS may be put into a new paragraph.
ACTION/Outcome: Draft guidance and authorization proposal for next OSWG
7. OpSpec A055: Carriage of Hazardous Materials
FAA LEAD: AFS-250 Mike Frank/260, AFS-220/AFS-820
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.
FAA expanded the manual requirements for HazMat of sections 121.135(b)(23) and 135.23(p), respectively, to require both will-carry and will-not carry certificate holders’ OpSpecs to authorize or prohibit the operator’s carriage of HazMat.
Air carriers have until February 7, 2007, to comply with the new training and manual requirements. They may continue to operate using SFAR 99 with their existing training programs, manuals, and procedures for the carriage of HazMat. See the sample below of OpSpec A055, Carriage of Hazardous Materials (HazMat).
A new OpSpec A004 will need to be “pulled” over from Available and re-issued for those that DO NOT CARRY. OpSpec A004 is the OpSpec that satisfies the regulatory requirement of 119.49(a)(13) for those that DO NOT CARRY.
Due to the checklist design of the A004, the template has to be refreshed before new authorizations will appear in either the authorized or not authorized section. Therefore, if you are going to re-issue your A004 with the intent of having the A055 listed as a not authorized paragraph, please refresh your A004 template using one of the two methods below:
A. Pull a new A004 over from Available grid to Workspace grid. This will refresh the checklist and the A055 will now show-up as Not Authorized. (This satisfies the requirement for the OpSpecs to indicate that an operator does not carry hazmat.)
(1) Select Yes to overright the template
(2) Select Yes to retain the current answers for non-required paragraphs
*This is the preferred method!
B. Or, Open the A004 and put or remove a check mark from the A004 and close the A004.
*This will also refresh the checklist but is the least preferred method, because it has the greatest potential for error. By removing or adding a check mark you may inadvertently authorize or de-authorize a paragraph.
FedEx and AmeriJet have agreed to work with AFS-260, AFS-250 and AFS-820 to develop this Permanent OpSpec and to ensure that the DOT & DOD documentation will also be taken into account.
Desired Outcome: Having an OPSPEC is critical to addressing the requests of several foreign countries. Effective Date: November 7, 2005. SFAR Expiration Date: February 7, 2007. Compliance Date: February 7, 2007.
A Notice was published with a temporary OpSpec A055 and an HBAT will be developed with a replacement/permanent OpSpec with a compliance date of Febr. 7, 2007. All must remember that for your set of OpSpecs to say that you DO NOT CARRY HAZMAT, you have to bring over a new A004 which will give the appropriate statement.
Notice & OpSpec revison for permanent OpSpec A055.
8. 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: Bob Reich, AFS-220/Ed Duchnowski, AFS-220
Background : The FAA has stopped issuing the exemption until they gather and analysis more data from the carriers that now are operating with it. 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.
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.
Desired Outcome: The FAA & the industry would like to revise the OpSpec or the exemption to contain all the requirements since some of the requirements are in the OpSpec and some are in the exemption. None of the requirements are in conflict but it would make it clearer to have them all in one place rather than two places. The industry would also like to
9. OpSpec B043, Special Fuel Reserves in International Operations 2006-03—need to fix the supplemental –b--problem with this OpSpec…alternate airport –d-issue too…took out of B343 & put into B043…John Cowan will send it to me-counter proposal to Gordy’s proposal
Attached to the email is a copy of Gordy’s proposed changes.
FAA Lead: Gordy Rother, NWA CMO / Ed Duchnowski/AFS-220
Industry Lead(s): John Cowan, UALA/Jim Johnson, AALA
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.
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 OpSpec 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.
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. A modification that John Cowan has proposed is still under negations within the FAA. This would be an interim step because the long term goal is to make this a performance based process. We would also need to look at B032 along with this.
10. OpSpec B343 Fuel Reserves for Flag and Supplemental Operations
FAA Lead: Gordy Rother, NWA CMO / Ed Duchnowski (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.
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).
None of the airlines are having any problems with this process. 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.
Desired Outcome: Provide a quick “how’s it going” status check.
11. A023, Deicing Programs
FAA Lead: Cliff Fiscus , AFS-220/Mike Frank, AFS-250
Desired Outcome: Holdover Times published now.
DISCUSSION : When will the Holdover Time Tables be published??
ACTION/Outcome: The official notice will be published in October. However, the tables are available now. The link to the 2006-2007 Holdover Time Tables/Ice Pellet Allowance Time/Heavy Snow Procedures appears on the Airline Safety web page (under "More"):
Here's the direct link to the document:
12. 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 will be available at the next OSWG meeting.
13. Discussion and Adoption of the revised OSWG Procedures Guide . Several suggestions were made and Connie Streeter made the proposed changes which are available on the www.opspecs.com website.
14. OpSpec/MSpec C077, Terminal Visual Flight Rules, Limitations, and Provisions
Industry Lead: Jim Johnson, AALA
FAA Lead: AFS-220/AFS-250—Tom Walsh
Desired Outcome: American Airlines would like clarification on the following issue
C077 states that a flightcrew may not accept a visual approach without a CVFP unless the reported visibility/ceiling is 3 miles/1000 feet or greater. AA operated a flight which was dispatched to a scheduled destination with reported weather greater than 1000/3 (all reports were available). When the aircraft arrived in the terminal area, the latest weather observation included a visibility that was above 3 miles, however it did not include a reported ceiling. The weather observer had left the airport prior to our flight landing. The local tower reported the visibility but was not qualified to report ceiling. The flight was on an IFR flight plan under radar control. The flightcrew could see the airport.
Does C077 preclude the flightcrew from landing at the destination when in the terminal area, the airport is in sight and an element of the latest weather observation, such as ceiling, is not available? This would seem inconsistent with inferences in the regulations which allow the pilot to continue a landing when visual references the airport, runway, or runway environment are in sight.
The OpSpec/MSpec says: The flightcrew may accept a visual approach or a CVFP provided all the following conditions exist....
For a visual approach without a CVFP CVFP - The flightcrew must be able to establish and maintain visual contact with the airport or maintain visual contact with the traffic to be followed as directed by ATC. In addition, all of the following provisions and weather conditions at the airport at the time of the approach must be met:
(a) Reported visibility must be as specified in Section 91.155, but not lower than a visibility of three miles.
(b) Reported ceiling must be 1,000 feet or greater.
The reported ceiling must be at least 1000 ft. Thus, if ceiling is not reported, the crew does not meet the OpSpec C077 requirement. I know it does not make sense that a crew can see the runway and not be able to accept the visual, but that is what the OpSpec says. I think the intent is to not have crews pushing the envelope on ceiling and visibility (1000/3) required for VFR. The crew was in VMC, but did not meet the requirement for VFR flight.
This OpSpec may be a candidate for discussion. Since all instrument approaches now only require visibility and not a ceiling, maybe VFR in the terminal area could just meet the 91.155 of 3 miles visibility and the class B requirement of clear of clouds or the class C/D requirement of cloud clearance of 500 below, 1000 above, 2000 horizontal.
15. 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: 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.
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”.
Boise discussion for CAT II (FEDEX)
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).
Desired Outcome: 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.
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. Coby Johnson has will check on the lists of airports and see which is accurate and try to get the airport list straightened out. He will also look at the definitions.
16. OpSpec/MSpec A025/A061, Electronic Record Keeping System A025 and/or Electronic Flight Bag A061
FAA Lead : Wayne (Coby) Johnson/Connie Streeter, AFS-260/AFS-220/AFS-250/AFS-820
Industry Lead: Steve Kuhar, FEDEX
Background: At the last OSWG, Coby Johnson announced the following:
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 the 121 side does not prohibit it. Connie will correct this when she separates A025.
Desired Outcome: The Order/Notice for EFB is 65 pages long and should be signed by Jim Ballough within two weeks. It is mostly dealing with certification. The AC is 120-76A and the Order is the companion piece for it. It might be better to have a new paragraph for EFB. There is no HBAT or Ops Spec paragraph ties to the Order. However, the Order will die in one year. It is suggested that the OSWG look at the Order and develop the paragraph. Steve Kuhar and Connie Streeter will work with Coby Johnson to develop this paragraph.
17. OpSpec C382, Landing Performance Assessment At Time Of Arrival For Turbojet Operators:
Industry Lead: John Cowan, UALA/NATA/NBAA/UPS
FAA Lead: Jerry Ostronic, AFS-220/AFS-250/AFS-260/AFS-820
Background: Lessons learned from the Southwest Airlines accident on a slick runway at Midway Airport have led the FAA to issue SAFO 06012. This SAFO is based on the FAA's policy statement published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2006, and incorporates revisions based on public comments received by the FAA. Accordingly, the FAA has undertaken rulemaking that would explicitly require the practice described above. Operators may use Operation/Management Specification paragraph C382 to record their voluntary commitment to this practice, pending rulemaking. This SAFO urgently recommends that operators of turbojet airplanes develop procedures for flightcrews to assess landing performance based on conditions actually existing at time of arrival, as distinct from conditions presumed at time of flight planning and dispatch.
Due in part to Industry requests for standardized guidance and concerns over adequately maintained winter runways, last August the FAA hosted a Runway Condition Determination, Reporting, and Report Dissemination Workshop. One of the products of this workgroup is a braking action document that includes standardized definitions as well as estimated correlations based on runway surface conditions. Unfortunately, the FAA is not able to finalize their coordination and publish such a product in time for this winter season. However, w ith the FAA’s encouragement, the Industry members of the working group are requesting all Operators give this document (attached) the widest possible dissemination and respectfully request all operators volunteer to incorporate these definitions into their Operations Manuals for this winter season.
The FAA has committed to make the following guidance changes, during this winter season (if possible):
· The term used in the U.S. describing an intermediate level of braking action, “Fair” (AIM 4-3-8) will be changed to “Medium” in an effort to harmonize with ICAO terms.
· Currently, when ATC receives PIREPs of Poor or Nil, they issue braking action advisories on ATIS (AIM 4-3-8).The threshold for when these advisories will be issued, and therefore when pilots should provide braking action PIREPs will be increased to include if the term Medium (the old Fair) is used.
The FAA will also be working to provide standardized braking action definitions very similar to, if not exactly per the attached in time for the winter 2007 season. However, the FAA is currently unable to support the inclusion of ICAO’s estimated Mu values in such a document and may or may not change their position, or they may opt to provide a simpler overlapping format so as to imply less specificity. For operators who may prefer not to share runway friction Mu information with their pilot group, they may omit them but are still asked to use of the standardized braking action definitions and associated runway surface conditions.
A notice was published with the recommendations for the landing performance assessment at the time of arrival. OpSpec C082 was published as C382. Because it is in the “300 series” it is nonstandard. In order for an operator to have C382, they must follow the nonstandard OpSpec request procedure before it can be issued. It is understood that the FAA will pursue rulemaking for this.
Desired Outcome : Encourage as many operators as possible to use the standardized braking action table, comply with the voluntarily SAFO 06012 and accept this optional supporting OpSpec C382.
FAA Status Report On Supporting Guidance Document Revisions
· What is the status of officially replacing the term “Fair” with “Medium”? Estimated completion date?
· What is the status of officially issuing “Braking Action Advisories” when PIREPs less than Good are received? Estimated completion date?
· Will a very close version of the working groups Braking Action table be issued in time for next winter?
The C054 Wrinkle
It’s unreasonable to ask an Operator to volunteer to unnecessarily complicate their landing assessment procedures by requiring more than one method of assessment to be made. Specifically, the low visibility field length requirement in C054 (and C059 and C060 if not revised per the recommendations in this agenda) should be suspended for Operators using the more accurate procedures required by this OpSpec. The field length requirements of C054 are arbitrary and not based on actual performance making it an unreasonable method of ensuring landing safety. The use of specific manufacture data provided for by C382, use autoland with appropriate air distances, use of accurate autobrake performance data and efforts by industry to replace “dive and drive procedures ” with constant angle procedures should mitigate any low visibility landing distance concerns. If not resolved, the FAA can expect this issue to be a significant part of the comments during formal rule making. Moreover, the regulatory basis for this C054 provision has not been determined and is questionable at best. Will the FAA readdress this issue now for those who may consider requesting C382?
1.6 Multiplying Factor
The SAFO’s 1.6 multiplying factor for “Poor” seems to be excessive and overly conservative resulting in distances that exceed those provided by manufacture advisory data. Will the FAA consider a more reasonable value?
18. OpSpec C054 Special Limitations and Provisions for Instrument Approach Procedures and IFR Landing Minimums
Industry Lead: John Cowan, UAL
FAA Lead: Jerry Ostronic, AFS-220
The limitations sections states that an approach may not be attempted in visibility less than ¾ statute mile (or RVR 4000) unless 15% additional runway length is available over the landing field length specified “by the appropriate Sections of the CFR”. This wording may cause the unintended consequence of suggesting that a wet runway requires a second 15% pad above and beyond the first 15% increase (i.e., 2.21 times the dry demonstrated landing distance instead of 1.92). The intent has always been to use a multiplier of 1.92, even if arriving to a wet runway.
Desired Outcome :
b. Limitations on the Use of Landing Minimums for Turbojet Airplanes.
(1) A pilot-in-command of a turbojet airplane shall not conduct an instrument approach procedure when visibility conditions are reported to be less than ¾ statute mile or RVR 4000 until that pilot has been specifically qualified to use the lower landing minimums.
(2) A pilot-in-command of a turbojet airplane shall not begin an instrument approach procedure when the visibility conditions are reported to be less than ¾ statute mile or RVR 4000, unless the following conditions exist:
Request the FAA provide the legal regulatory basis (rule) for this specific OpSpec provision requiring additional landing field length in low visibility. If and when advisory landing distance plus 15% becomes a rule, the above requirement should be removed from C054.
19. OpSpec C080 Terminal Area IFR Operation in Class G Airspace and at Airports Without an Operating Control Tower for Scheduled Passenger Operations.
Industry Lead: Les Stephens, Atlantic Southeast Airline
FAA Lead: Rick Clarke, AFS-220/Larry Buehler, AFS-250
As the OSWG leadership, I am respectfully asking for your permission to add an item to the group’s agenda for the next meeting. I would like to propose to remove the airport listing from paragraph C080. All other provisions of C080 would remain; the operator would just have to have a process to ensure they have WX and COMM at the airport before operation. The purpose for removing the table is to remove a potential liability. We recently had a situation where we had ASOS listed as the WX source for a particular airport in C080 when the control tower was inop. The ASOS broke and the airport had the NWS send a WX observer to make official SAWRS reports when the tower was closed. We were giged by our FAA because the C080 table said ASOS not SAWRS, and C080 states you may only use the source listed in the table and no others. I don’t see any safety value added by having the table, and a potential non-compliance issue if not kept updated. If you gentlemen agree I will draft out a proposal and send to all in the group for review.
Thank you for your time
Manager - Flight Operations
Atlantic Southeast Airline
Desired Outcome: Remove Table from OpSpec C080. If the table lists every weather source then why put it in the table? This is where the POI approves the source for that particular airport. However, it is already required to have an approved weather source in the OpSpecs. The FAA will not support a removal of the table, but a modification would possibly be acceptable—maybe listing only non-government sources that are approved?
DISCUSSION: Nice Try ( : ….but, no we cannot remove the table…however,…….
Question: In a situation where the air carrier had ASOS listed as the WX source for a particular airport in C080 when the control tower was inoperative. The ASOS broke and the airport had the NWS send a WX observer to make official SAWRS reports when the tower was closed. Would the air carrier be remiss because the C080 table said ASOS not SAWRS, and C080 states you may only use the source listed in the table and no others ?
Answer: According to DOT/FAA Order 7900.5B, 2-5. Backup Requirements, says that the SAWRS is the mandated backup for ASOS failure (or unavailable). FAA Order 7210.3, Facility Operation and Administration, 2-9-1. Backup/Augmentation of Weather Observations, refers us back to Order 7900.5B. Thus, if the air carrier has ASOS listed in its C080 & the ASOS breaks, they are automatically authorized to use the SAWRS and it would not be necessary for the SAWRS to be listed in its OpSpec C080.
The JobAid for C080 has now been updated to include this Q/A. Eventually, we will add this to the Order 8400.10 guidance for C080.
20. OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C059/C060
Industry Lead: John Cowan, UALA
FAA Lead: AFS-410/420/ All Weather Ops ANM
C059/C060 Background #1:
#1-- Both these OpSpecs contain repetitive requirements similar to that of C054 to ensure an additional 15% FAR Field Length is available prior to the actual approach. However, these two OpSpecs conflict with C054 in terms of the triggering visibility. Where as C054 requires the additional runway length if visibility is less than ¾ sm or 4000 RVR, C059 specifies less than 1800 RVR and C060 implies the 15% provision is required for any CAT III approach. These provisions seem to be less restrictive than the C054 ¾ sm or 4000 RVR requirement, yet as CAT II and III approaches are subsets of “Instrument Approaches”, they are also governed by the C054 ¾ sm or 4000 RVR requirement. Hence, these C059 and C060 provisions are an unnecessary and confusing conflict.
C060 goes on to specify the landing field length should be increased by a factor of 1.3 under certain conditions. The conditions requiring a 1.3 factor are vague and are explained differently in the following guidance documents:
· 8400.10 (Vol 2): “…depending on the operational procedures and/or additional equipment the operator uses, or AFM as appropriate.” [Ch 6, Sec 2, OpSpec C060, paragraph H]
Desired Outcome :
Remove the repetitive and conflicting additional 1.15 field length factor from C059 and C060 allowing C054 to govern. Clarify when a 1.3 field length factor is required for C060. Example:
The certificate holder shall not begin the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure when the touchdown zone RVR report is less than RVR 1800, unless all of the following conditions are met:
b. Required Field Length and Special Operational Equipment and Limitations. The certificate holder shall not begin the final approach segment of a CAT III instrument approach unless the runway field length requirements, and the special operational equipment (installed and operational) and limitations listed or referenced in Table 1 are met.
(1) For operations with an RVR below 600 feet, the required field length is 1.3 times the field length required by 14 CFR Section 121.195(b) if anti-skid or auto brake equipment is not installed. (If and when advisory landing distance plus 15% becomes a rule, this paragraph should be deleted.)
C059 Background #2: No Middle Marker for the CAT II approach for VBKK, Bangkok’s new airport
How do we resolve the fact that the new airport, VBKK--Suvarnabhumi, Bangkok, Thailand, has no middle marker for the CAT II approach?
C060 Background #3: G EG runway 21 CAT III ILS
Below is the whole sordid story in regard to GEG runway 21 CAT III ILS approach which is restricted for irregular approach terrain and operators must qualify. Nothing can be done until we get the NOTAM prohibiting autolands changed. Once operators are ready to begin qualifying, they will need to coordinate with the ANM AWOs so we can get someone on site to observe the touchdowns. Norm LeFevre, ANM AWO (425) 227-1737
Here is the rest of the story:
We initiated upgrading the CAT II ILS RWY 21 at Spokane to a CAT III after the airport removed some terrain that was in the approach path, which forced higher than minimum CAT II. Our checklists revealed an 0.8% up slope runway and no Airports Modification to Standards. We completed the checklists and the CAT III ILS RWY 21 was published. AC 120-28, appendix 3, paragraph 6.3.5 requires autoland certification to demonstrate capability to handle runways with 0.8% upslope.
A couple of weeks later Norm received email originated by an engineer in Aircraft Cert's Transport Airplane Directorate stating that they had experienced some autoland problems on GEG Runway 21 while performing autoland certification testing of a particular B-737. He did an analysis of the runway and discovered that Runway 21 has a upslope of 0.98% in the first 3000 feet of the runway. They experienced 5 instances of aircraft displaced above glideslope about 100 feet above touchdown zone elevation, the aircraft pitched over to re-acquire the glideslope, then at 50 feet the flare computer took over with a very aggressive flare (several of the instances were against the anti-tail drag limit). In all cases the aircraft touched down with in the box and with acceptable sink rate, but the maneuver was deemed unacceptable by the FAA test pilots.
The engineer feels the incident was caused by or aggravated by the runway upslope. The runs that had the incidents were performed with a tail wind. The upsloping runway causes the approach angle relative to the runway to increase.
Boeing says that all their models use the same algorithms and would perform the same in the circumstances. Boeing specifically uses GEG runway 21for autoland testing because “if the system works on GEG Runway 21, it will work anywhere. Taking the conservative approach, we had the FPO issue the following NOTAM while we figured things out.
!FDC 6/2691 (KGEG A0238/06) GEG FI/T SPOKANE INTL, SPOKANE, WA. ILS OR LOC RWY 21 AMDT 20 ... ILS OR LOC RWY 21 (CAT II) AMDT 20 ... ILS OR LOC RWY 21 (CAT III) AMDT 20 ... AUTOLAND NOT AUTHORIZED.
Examining the runway we confirmed that the slope gets up to 0.98% in the first 3000 feet. The reported gradient for the runway of 0.8% is measured from the threshold to the mid point (the standard airports way of measuring runway over 8000 feet long). Airports standards for this category of runway require that the gradient not exceed ±0.8% in the first and last quarter of the runway. This runway does not meet this requirement and Airports has failed to get a modification to standards (airports language for waiver).
We placed this CAT III ILS on the restricted list because of the runway gradient. Operators will have to qualify to use this runway just like any irregular terrain runway, e.g., SeaTac runway 16L. We have qualified CRJs using HGS for the CAT III on Runway 21 because the CRJ HGS AFM states that it is good to 1.0% upslope. Other HGS approval is waiting for data from Rockwell Collins/Flight Dynamics.
About three weeks ago we requested the FPO change the NOTAM to a P-NOTAM on all the runway 21 ILS approaches stating “Autoland NA below 300/1 except for operators authorized CAT III autoland on this runway.” I have an email from the FPO manager on Oct 3 stating that the new NOTAM will be issued. So far they haven’t done so. Once the NOTAM changes, operators can begin qualifying for autoland CAT III operations on this runway in accordance with AC-120-28D, Appendix 8. The process for aircraft models already approved for CAT III autoland operations at one of the irregular terrain CAT III runways in the US (case 2 from appendix 8) is:
Four to six successful non-revenue autoland operations on the runway with FAA knowledgeable in that aircraft autoland operation (POI or APM) on the flight deck and FAA personnel (AWOs) on the ground to validate touchdown position. Once the 4-6 successful non-revenue landing have been accomplished, each operator using that model must perform 25 successful line autoland operations on that runway with the pilots recording the autoland event. After the AWOs and POI evaluate the data from the 25 line operations and deem them acceptable the POI may authorize the operator CAT III operations on that runway for that model of aircraft.
For more detail and for cases for aircraft and/or operators not previously qualified for CAT III operations on one of the US irregular terrain CAT III runways, see appendix 8, AC -120-28D
To answer specific questions posed:
The upslope of 0.98% exceeds that required to be demonstrated for an autoland system. AC 120-28D, Appendix 3:
6.3.5. Irregular Approach Terrain. Approach terrain may affect the performance and pilot acceptance of the Approach and Landing system.
The information on the nominal characteristics of an airport is contained in ICAO Annex 14. This information can be used to characterize the airport environment for nominal performance assessment. However, the system shall be evaluated to determine the performance characteristics in the presence of significant approach terrain variations. At a minimum the following profiles should be examined:
a. Sloping runway - slopes of 0.8%.
b. Hilltop runway - 12.5% slope up to a point 60m prior to the threshold; or
c. Sea-wall - 6m (20 ft.) step up to threshold elevation at a point 60m prior to the threshold.
NOTE: In addition to the profiles described above, examination of the profiles of known airports with significant irregular approach terrain, at which operations are intended, is recommended (see section 5.18 of the AC).
AC 120-28D, Appendix 8 addresses not just irregular pre-threshold terrain, but irregular underlying approach terrain which includes all terrain to touchdown:
IRREGULAR TERRAIN ASSESSMENT
The following information describes the operational evaluation process, procedures, and criteria applicable to approval of flight guidance systems (e.g., autoland or “pilot-in-the-loop” manual flight guidance systems) to support Category III procedures and minima at airports identified in the FAA Order 8400.8 and “Category II/III Status List” as having irregular underlying approach terrain.
C060 Background #4:
SEA 16R has been changed to 16C….
Seattle , WA
B-727, B-737-200ADV (SP177), B-737-300 and later models,
HGS Equipped Aircraft – B-727, B-737-300 and later models,
A-319, A-320, A-321, A-330, B-747-400, B-757, B-767, B-777,
L-1011, MD-10, MD-11
Desired Outcome: 410 has changed list on website and it has been changed in the CAT III selectables:
21. OpSpec A052 ??
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. 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. Steve Kuhar suggests 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.
22. A125, Letter of Deviation Authority (LODA)
Industry Lead: NBAA
FAA Lead: AFS-820, Jack Pinto
Background: Operators of large aircraft have been issued a Letter of Deviation Authority authorizing them deviation from all of the requirements of Part 125. Notice 8700.46 was published that requires the issuance of a New Letter of Deviation Authority, template A125 in the part 91 DB of the OPSS. Any deviations granted to these operators must be authorized by FAA Headquarters and be selectable from the A005 Deviation Database.
Desired Outcome: A higher safety standard is established for those operators conducting operations under an LODA. New notice will be published soon. Also see item #3, A005, Exemptions and Deviations.
Notice N8700.46 was published for operators that had full deviations from Part 125 and is in revision for corrections. The revision will not change the fact that all Part 125 deviation holders will be required to go through the “certification process” to determine whether or not they may continue to have an LODA but must comply with all the requirements of part 125 (unless they are granted specific deviations), require a part 125 certificate, or in some cases, require a part 121 certificate.
23. A050, Helicopter Night Vision Goggles
Industry Lead: National Helicopter Assn
FAA Lead: AFS-250, Harlan Sparrow
Background: This authorization was put into place several years ago. During the past year considerable FAA resources have been expended to look at the Helicopter Air Ambulance operations. The OpSpec for the helicopter air ambulance was revised.
Desired Outcome: As a result of the revision to OpSpec A021, changes need to be made to the A050 and the guidance for Helicopter Night Vision Goggles also needed to be published in the inspector’s handbook. A draft is available on the opspecs.com website.
24. OpSpec A008, Operational Control
FAA Lead: Harlan Sparrow, AFS-250
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 OpSpec A008 (Operational Control). A draft HBAT with guidance and the new proposed A008 is available on www.opspecs.com website.
25. OpSpec/MSpec/LOA A005, Exemptions and Deviations
Industry Lead: None
FAA Lead: AFS-260 is responsible for maintaining the database—The deviations that into the database is the responsibility of the appropriate branch AFS220/AFS-250/AFS-820/AFS-300
Background : Template A005 is used to authorize operators to use exemptions that ha ve been granted by the AFS or deviations granted by the FAA.
Desired Outcome: Deviation Database Updates and all authorizations SELECTED from the Database.
Deviation Petitions: Deviations are now identified in the deviation database of the automated OPSS in template A005. Deviations requested that are not listed in the drop-down data box will be handled through a separate application process. At no time should deviations be added or manually entered into A005 templates. If the specific deviation is not in the OPSS national database, a request to add the deviation to the deviation database must be sent via email (from the principal inspectors) to the OPSS Help Desk at 9-awa-afs-opssprob.
The request (from the principal inspectors) for the deviation to be put into the OPSS deviation database must contain the following:
125.5(a) and 119.23(a)
Authorizes a deviation from the requirement to hold a 14 CFR Part 125 operating certificate and operations specifications.
Once the appropriate FAA policy division approves the deviation, it will be entered into the OPSS Deviation database and made available for authorizing in an A005 template (e.g., OpSpec/MSpec, Training Spec, or LOA, etc.
Exemption petitions and exemption extensions : If you send your petition into the FAA in paper 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/
26. [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 consistent standardized process for updating the Special PIC Qualification Airport List.
Additional processes that are included in the FAA/Industry SPEC for this process:
1) Should have a minimum of 1 week lead time before the OSWG quarterly meeting
2) OSWG Members can vote at the meeting or they can send their recommendation to Connie Streeter for submittal at the meeting.
3) Notification to certificate holders:
¨ Put a Note on the OPSS Splash Screen for first line of notification
¨ Change the Special PIC airport List in guidance subsystem in association with
OpSpecs C050 and C067
¨ Change the Special PIC airport List on the http://www.opspecs.com/ website
¨ Send email message to OSWG members
¨ Discussion of each individual assessment
¨ Recommendation for AFS-200
FAA Lead : AFS-220 branch
Industry Lead: DALA
CURRENT for this Agenda:
Special PIC Qualification Airports Revision History
Date of Change
Completely Revised List per FAA-Cancelled AC 121-445 and put OpSpec C050 into place
October 16, 2003
Added - Thule Air Base, Greenland (BGTL)
March 29, 2004
Removed – Russian airports, Domodedovo, (UUDD), Moscow and Pulkovo, (ULLI), St. Petersburg
January 14, 2005
Removed - Chinese airport at Zhengding, Shijazhuang (ZBSJ)
November 23, 2005
Added - Ponce, Puerto Rico (TJPS)
November 23, 2005
Removed - Chinese airports Wuhan (ZHHH) and Nanjing (ZSNJ)
April 4, 2006
Removed - all asterisks from Alaska Airports & Adak Island NAF, AK is now a public airport
No notice---asterisks were removed since they were left over in anticipation of the AC revision-which was cancelled
April 24, 2006
Removed – Russian airports Yakutsk, UEEE and Tolmachevo, UNNT
May 19, 2006
Removed – Russian airports:
Minsk-2, (UMMS), Minsk, Belarus;
L’viv, (UKLL), L’viv, Ukraine;
Simferopol , (UKFF), Simferopol, Ukraine;
Kyiv/Boryspil, (UKBB), Kyiv, Ukraine;
Kyiv, (UKKM), Kyiv, Ukraine
Removed – Chinese airports:
Pudong, (ZSPD), Shanghai, China;
Zhengding, (ZBSJ), Shijiazhuang , China;
Hongqiao, (ZSSS), Shanghai, China;
Binhai, (ZBTJ), Tianjin, China
Added - Gustavia III, (TFFJ), St. Barthelemy, Guadeloupe, French West Indies
Desired Outcome: Requests for the removal of some Russian and Chinese airports and a request for the addition of Gustavia III, TFFJ, airport.
DISCUSSION : The AFS-200 staff reviewed those requests and the Special PIC Qualification Airport List is revised as follows when the notice is published:
a. French West Indies (FWI) Added per Request. Gustavia III, TFFJ, St. Barthelemy, Guadeloupe, FWI was added to the Special PIC Qualification Airport List;
b. Russian and Chinese Airports Not Removed per Request. Samarkand, (UTSS), Samarkand, Uzbekistan; Manas, (UAFM), Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan; Almaty, (UAAA), Almaty, Kazakhstan; and Yuzhny, (UTTT), Tashkent, Uzbekisttan; and Xiaoshan, ZSHC, Hangzhou, China, will remain on the Special PIC Qualification Airport List at this time. Each of these airports has high terrain with obstructions, some have limited radar control, one is located in a prohibited area. The requester, as stated in the "airport Assessment Aid" did not provide a copy of the topographical map depicting the location of this terrain. This topographical map would provide for a more precise evaluation of this request.
c. Chinese Airports Removed Request. The following Chinese airports are removed from the Special PIC Qualification Airport List but will be put on a Foreign Terminal Instrument Procedures (lite) List. The foreign terminal instrument procedures (lite) list is associated with all C058 templates in the Operations Safety System (OPSS) and is also on the http://www.opspecs.com/ website.
Ø Pudong, ZSPD, Shanghai, China;
Ø Zhengding, ZBSJ, Shijiazhuang, China;
Ø Hongqiao, ZSSS, Shanghai, China;
Ø Binhai, ZBTJ, Tianjin, China
d. Russian Airports Removed. The following Russian airports per request are removed from the Special PIC Qualification Airport List but UKLL, UKFF, UKBB, and UKKM will be added to the Foreign Terminal Instrument Procedures (lite) List. The foreign terminal instrument procedures (lite) list is associated with all C058 templates in the Operations Safety System (OPSS) and is also on the http://www.opspecs.com/ website:
Ø Minsk-2, UMMS, Minsk, Belarus;
Ø L’viv, UKLL, L’viv, Ukraine;
Ø Simferopol, UKFF, Simferopol, Ukraine;
Ø Kyiv/Boryspil, UKBB, Kyiv, Ukraine;
Ø Kyiv, UKKM, Kyiv, Ukraine
The C058 “Lite” list will be published in the same process as the Special PIC Qualification Airport List. The C058, Special Restrictions for Foreign Terminal Instrument Procedures “Lite List” will be posted on http://www.opspecs.com website and in the OPSS guidance subsystem in association with OpSpec C058.
27. General Information:
As noted in Advisory Circular AC 00-58A, Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program (VDRP), a web-based tool has been developed for the submission and processing of Voluntary Disclosures by Air Carriers.
The web-based VDRP will be available via the Internet effective Saturday, September 30, 2006 . However, as provided in AC 00-58A, use of the tool is not mandatory until December 8, 2006. The optional period is intended to give all users time to familiarize themselves with the web-based tool. As you review the documentation and begin to utilize the web-tool, you will find that the basic steps and information required for submission and processing of a voluntary disclosures are virtually identical to the paper-based VDRP, with a few functions automated which were previously done manually by inspectors or other staff.
To assist with the initial introduction to the web-based VDRP, this message has an attachment, "Welcome to VDRP" that contains the information necessary for Principal Inspectors to login to the newly created VDRP Internet Site and provides direction to the resources developed to familiarize inspectors with the VDRP web-based system.
In addition to the attached file, those resources include:
The VDRP tool is intended for use by both FAA inspectors and the operators. The new AC 00-58A, and guidance forwarded with the welcome notice, reflects that Principal Inspectors are the backbone of the system. The Principal inspector can gain access to the system by using a login ID, as identified in the welcome package (soon, the Principal will be able to use their FAA domain login as well, but we just got access to that data today and we can't get sufficient access to build an automated conversion. Thus, every principal's domain login ID is being added to the VDRP system manually.
Once the Principal is on the system, there is a video demo of the tool, a quick start user's guide and other help tools. Once the Principal is on the system, he/she can add FAA inspectors (granting them read only or read and write privileges on that inspector's certificate(s) and, that same Principal can add representatives for a specific regulated entity, who get read and write privileges only to that certificate.
The intent was to get the basic login info out to the principals and they would then view the demo and begin to add inspectors and/or reps of the regulated entities to the system.
The Principals would notify their certificate holders once they were comfortable with their responsibilities in the system.
Demonstration Video : An audio-visual demonstration of the web-tool.
Quick-Start Users Guide : General Topics on the Use of the web-tool
User's Guide : A detailed guide intended for use by support staff, but made available to all users
On-line Help : Contextual help which explains each item requested or required in the submission and processing of a Voluntary Disclosure with the web-tool
Direction to AVS User Support for those questions which the user is unable to answer from the above documentation.
Note: as provided by AC 00-58A, the web-based VDRP is currently available for use only by Air Carriers (Parts 121 and 135) and those inspectors processing Voluntary Disclosures from those Air Carriers. However, it is anticipated that the web-tool will be expanded to include other groups, beginning in 2007. VDRP is open to the Fractional operations, but at this time, the web-based system is only open to air carriers under Parts 135 and 121. Other users will be added, beginning next year (2007) There are some data/access issues for other users that need to be resolved and we need to get the system working well for one group before expanding to others.
Please direct questions concerning the use of the web-based tool to the AVS Support Staff:
AVS Support Central and the VDRP program have trained personnel who aids users when they have support issues with VDRP. The following information outlines AVS Support Central daily operations:
· Hours of operations are: 6:00 AM – 5:00 PM CST Monday through Friday.
· Telephone number: Toll-free at (866) 285-4942 or at 405-954-7272.
· E-mail address: 9-AMC-AVS-Support-Central@faa.gov
NOTE: Please restrict contact with AVS Support Central to the hours noted above.
Questions concerning VDRP policy issues as outlined in AC 00-58A, may be directed to:
AFS-230, Voluntary Safety Programs Branch
VDRP POC: Scott Crosier
New FAA Forum to Review Age 60 Rule For Pilots
WASHINGTON, DC — Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator Marion C. Blakey today established a forum of airline, labor and medical experts to recommend whether the United States should adopt the new International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standard that will allow one of the two pilots in the flight deck to be over age 60. The forum also will determine what actions would be necessary if the FAA were to change its rule.
“The FAA must ensure that any future rule change, should it occur, provides an equal or better level of safety to passengers,” said Blakey. “I’m looking forward to hearing from the experts so the FAA can make informed decisions as the ICAO standard is implemented and Congress considers this issue.”
Since 1959, the FAA has required that all U.S. pilots stop flying commercial airplanes at age 60. In November, ICAO, the United Nations’ aviation organization, will increase the upper age limit for pilots to age 65, provided that one of the two pilots in the cockpit is under age 60.
28. Paragraphs/Templates revised during the last quarter include:
Control Always Auth./
Para FAR Rev Date Optional Type of Change
A520 91 060 07/21/06 Optional Mandatory
D084 91K 020 08/03/06 Optional Mandatory
D084 121 040 08/03/06 Optional Mandatory
D084 121/135 050 08/03/06 Optional Mandatory
D084 135 040 08/03/06 Optional Mandatory
A001 125M 000 08/08/06 Always Auth. New Release
A002 125M 000 08/08/06 Always Auth. New Release
A003 125M 000 08/08/06 Always Auth. New Release
A004 125M 000 08/08/06 Always Auth. New Release
A007 125M 000 08/08/06 Always Auth. New Release
A125 125M 000 08/08/06 Always Auth. New Release
A447 125M 000 08/08/06 Always Auth. New Release
D097 125M 000 08/08/06 Optional New Release
A005 125M 000 08/14/06 Always Auth. New Release
A006 125M 000 08/14/06 Always Auth. New Release
A008 125M 000 08/14/06 Always Auth. New Release
A009 125M 000 08/14/06 Always Auth. New Release
A010 125M 000 08/14/06 Always Auth. New Release
A013 125M 000 08/14/06 Optional New Release
A031 125M 000 08/14/06 Always Auth. New Release
B031 125M 000 08/14/06 Optional New Release
B032 125M 000 08/14/06 Optional New Release
B034 125M 000 08/14/06 Optional New Release
B036 125M 000 08/14/06 Optional New Release
B039 125M 000 08/14/06 Optional New Release
B046 125M 000 08/14/06 Optional New Release
B050 125M 000 08/14/06 Always Auth. New Release
C059 125M 000 08/14/06 Optional New Release
C060 125M 000 08/14/06 Optional New Release
D073 125M 000 08/14/06 Always Auth. New Release
D085 125M 000 08/14/06 Always Auth. New Release
D088 125M 000 08/14/06 Always Auth. New Release
D092 125M 000 08/14/06 Optional New Release
D095 125M 000 08/14/06 Always Auth. New Release
E096 125M 000 08/14/06 Always Auth. New Release
A529 121 000 08/31/06 Optional New Release
A529 121/135 000 08/31/06 Optional New Release
A529 135 000 08/31/06 Optional New Release
C382 91K 000 09/06/06 Optional New Release
C382 121 000 09/06/06 Optional New Release
C382 121/135 000 09/06/06 Optional New Release
C382 125 000 09/06/06 Optional New Release
C382 135 000 09/06/06 Optional New Release
A056 125M 000 09/08/06 Optional New Release
C081 125M 000 09/08/06 Optional New Release
C384 91 000 09/19/06 Optional New Release
C384 91K 000 09/19/06 Optional New Release
C384 121/135 000 09/19/06 Optional New Release
C384 125 000 09/19/06 Optional New Release
C384 125M 000 09/19/06 Optional New Release
C384 135 000 09/19/06 Optional New Release
The following CFR Part 91 templates were archived and moved to 125M:
For further information about 125M see the October 2006 edition of the OPSS News Letter at http://www.opspecs.com/NewsLetters/
Summary of Changes:
A520 - Added ‘Passenger Risk Statement and Liability Release’ subparagraph that can be ‘loaded’ where applicable. Added ‘Crew Members’ subparagraph.
D084 - Revised subparagraph g to clarify that D084 is not required for ferry flights with one engine inoperative as long as all applicable requirements of Section 91.611 are met.