FAA/Aviation Industry Minutesfor
OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) 2007-01
January 23-24, 2007
Tuesday, 1PM-5 PM/Wednesday, 8:30AM-Noon
Hosted by AmeriJet International
Tuesday, January 23, 2007--8:00 am – 5:30 pm Working Sessions
Tuesday, 6:00 pm – 7:30 pm Cocktail Reception
Wednesday, January 24, 2006--8:30 am – Noon Working Session
Sheraton Miami Mart Hotel
711 NW 72nd Avenue
Miami , FL 33126
There was an industry pre-meeting from 9AM to 12 PM on Tuesday the 23rd at the same location.
January 23-24, 2007 OSWG 2007-01
AmeriJet @ 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
AmeriJet @ Miami
Chairpersons: John Cowan, UALA, Industry Chair
Jackson Seltzer, CALA, Industry Vice Chair
Connie Streeter, FAA Chair
1. Convene :
a. Roster and Roll Call/Introductions: 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 :
The meeting schedule for OSWG 2008-01 was discussed. At the OSWG 2006-04, Aloha offered to host the OSWG 2008-01 meeting in Hawaii. It was determined that it would not be possible for FAA personnel to attend and some of the industry personnel agreed that they might not be able to have representatives there either due to the “perception” and the amount of travel time required. However, it was suggested that anyone could host in any city as it does not have to be at their home base. Ed Cook from Amerijet offered to again host the OSWG 2008-01 meeting in Miami. The group agreed that if Aloha could not host the meeting at another location that it should be hosted by Amerijet again in Miami.
2. Status of Assigned Action Items :
Reviewed, amended, and adopted agenda
Ø Certified copy of certificate and parts of ops spec on jet for ICAO requirements—no report available
Ø Connie Streeter gave a skeleton explanation of the hierarchy and responsibilities of the various divisions in the FAA that would be relative to OSWG issues.
AVS-1—Regulation and Certification, Nick Sabatini, Associate Administrator
AFS-1--Fight Standards, Jim Ballough, Director
AFS-200, Air Transportation Division (air carrier operations), Tom Toula, Manager
AFS-210, Air Carrier (121/135) Training Branch, Hop Potter, Manager
AFS-220, Air Carrier (121) Operations Branch, Bob Reich, Manager
AFS-230, Advanced Qualification Program Branch, Tom Longridge, Manager
AFS-260, Program Management Branch (OPSS/IOPSS/MMEL/135 economic authority), Dave Burr, Manager
AFS-300, Aircraft Maintenance Division, Dave Cann, Manager
AFS-330, Air Carrier Maintenance Branch,
AFS-400, New Technologies and Flight Procedures Division, John McGraw, Manager
AFS-410, Flight Operations Branch, Les Smith, Manager
AFS-420, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (OKC), Don Pate, Manager
AFS-430, Flight Technology Requirements Branch, Hank Cabler, Manager
AFS-440, Flight Operations Simulation and Analysis Branch, Steve Barnes, Manager
AFS-800, General Aviation and Commercial Division, John Duncan, Manager
AFS-820, Operations and FAAST Support Branch (125, 125M, & 91K), Don Streeter, Manager
3. OpSpec/MSpec/LOA A007, Other Designated Persons
Industry Lead : None
FAA Lead: AFS-260/AFS-210/250/820/300/400
Background: FSAT, FBAT, FSAW are all to be eliminated by the end of 2006. Orders, Notices and SAFOs and InFOs (along with OhNos J ) will provide all guidance material distributed by the FAA. SAFOs (Safety Alert for Operators) will be for safety information only and will not require PTRS input by the POI. Administrative type of information, such as the requirement by ICAO to carry a certified copy of the air carrier certificate on board the airplane, will not use the SAFO communication vehicle. InFO messages contain valuable information for operators that should help them meet administrative requirements or certain regulatory requirements with relatively low urgency or impact in safety.]
The FAA intends to use the email address(es) provided in A007 to be able to send these out to only the affected Operators and personnel. It is not the intent to take the FAA field inspector out of the loop. Notice 8000.341 was published to include the following operators, i.e., Parts 121, 135, 125, 125M, 133, 137, 145, and Part 91K.
Notice 8000.341, Designated Recipient to Receive Safety Alerts for Operators (SAFO) and Information for Operators (InFO), was published; there was a mandatory change to the A007 template for the following CFR databases in the OPSS: 121, 121/135, 135, 125, 125M, 91K, 133, 137, 145.
A007 had a 30-day compliance as the FAA knew that 121 operators would be right on this. As it stands today, this is a functional paragraph. The FAA is updating the email list, so they are still in the process of developing the process. A test of this system is suggested before they turn it on.
It was suggested by industry that the FAA put together a team to include the industry to review any INFO or SAFO before it goes out. This could resemble the old 8400 review committee. At present, AFS has put out information or recommendations that is causing the airlines some problems. Or, the FAA could post them on OPSPECS.COM for comment.
Dave Burr, AFS-260 , will look into the FAA putting together a team to include the industry to review any INFO or SAFO before it goes out.
4. OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C063, IFR RNAV Departure Procedures (DP) and Standard Terminal Arrivals (STAR)/B035, Class I IFR Navigation (Domestic Q-Routes)
Industry Lead: Chuck Schramek, DALA, Jim Winkelman, ASAA, John Trolan, NetJets
FAA Lead: Tom Walsh, AFS-220/Mike Frank, AFS-250/Phil Dougherty, AFS-820/Mark Steinbicker, AFS-410
Background : HBAT 05-04 originally 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.
The RNAV Type A and Type B do not have an RNP. It is an ATC expected navigation tolerance. The Type A only has a 2 nm tolerance. Type B is normally a 1 nm tolerance but can be published as 2 nm in some cases. The OpSpec authorization is either for a 2 nm tolerance or a 1 nm tolerance. If the equipment is only capable of 2 nm, then only Type A is authorized. If the equipment is capable of 1 nm then both Type A and Type B are authorized. The ATC expect nav tolerance is what is published on the procedure and also found in the Nav databse, regardless of the "Type".
How to handle different state’s approach naming conventions vs the US standards is still somewhat inconclusive. For example, airports such as Dubai’s RNAV ILS, really is a RNAV transition to an ILS with an RNAV missed. It is not an RNAV approach.
b FAA proposed 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) The C063 training requirements in the HBAT were clarified in response to POI queries. HBAT 05-04 was again revised on November 13, 2006. With its publication it removed the Q route authorization from C063 and revised B035 to accommodate the domestic Q route authorization. HBAT guidance separated the two.
(3) “RNAV-ILS” was added to the selectables for C052. The JobAid for C052 was revised to explain the new pull-down selectable for “RNAV-ILS” in OpSpec C052. Jeppesen and LIDO are now issuing approach plates for Dubai labeled RNAV ILS or ILS RNAV. We [also] interpret the RNAV portion of the Plate to constitute an RNAV STAR which would be authorized in accordance with OpSpec C063 and then proceeding from the RNAV STAR to the ILS (C052 authorization). The guidance addressed the Dubai issue. It was concluded that the requirements of C063 must be met and the selectable “RNAV/ILS” was added to the 3rd column of C052.
(4) I have a question regarding the update to Op Spec C063. The selectable is either RNAV-A only + or – 2 miles or RNAV-A and B + or – 1 mile. The Type B RNAV SIDs that we fly, specify an RNP of 1.0. However, the Type B RNAV STARs specify an RNP of 2.0. This jives with the automatic changeover in the FMC’s RNP when transitioning from the En route environment (2 miles) to the Terminal environment (1 mile). The present selectable in the OpSpec database does not allow for Type-B procedures requiring an RNP of 2.0 miles, such as those in Las Vegas. Wouldn’t it be better to have the authorization be for either Type-A, Type-B, or for both Type-A and B with no distance listed since the RNP requirement is listed on the individual SID or STAR?
AC 90-100 is currently being rewritten. Trying to harmonize the language with ICAO. No plans to remove distances in selectable as the FAA believe that it will not accomplish anything.
ACTION/Outcome: No Action at this time; Closed
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, Mike Frank, AFS-250/AFS-820/Mark Steinbicker, AFS-410, Coby Johnson, 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.
NOTAM language has changed to be more specific and allow aircraft with specified equipment in the NOTAM to substitute for the NAVAID that is OTS.
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.
What was published in the NOTAM last year is now being published in the AIM. The FAA is getting close to having this completed. The RNAV rule is still on track for March/April 2007. The FAA also has to resolve some of its internal issues.
The Memorandum that was issued July 31, 2006, addressed the NOTAM service that will allow an operator to use a procedure if there is a navigation outage if the aircraft have a GPS feed for the RNAV unit.
Check out this website for the NTAP: http://www.faa.gov/ntap
AFS-200 (in coordination with AFS-410) will determine if additional NOTAM language can be incorporated allowing final approach coarse guidance RNAV substitution as authorized in OpSpec C300. It was suggested that the C300 be replaced with standard language for RNAV substitution.
A subcommittee with Alaska Airlines, Delta Airlines, NetJets, & Horizon Airlines and Tom Walsh agreed continue to explore how to standardize the implementation of NAVAID substitution with aircraft that have some advanced NAVAID technology.
Tom Walsh: Wants to have draft proposal at next OSWG meeting .
6. OpSpec C052, Instrument Approach Procedures
Industry Lead: Thomas Schaner, AirNet Systems
FAA Lead: Hooper Harris, AFS-250/260, AFS-220,Hank Cabler, AFS-430/AFS-820/AFS-410 Mike Frank, AFS 250/AFS-220
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. A solution may be to add a table that identifies specific aircraft for specific approaches.
Will GPS and GPS WAAS be put into a new paragraph?
Presentation of the draft guidance and authorization proposal?
Draft of proposed OpSpec C052 is posted on http://www.opspecs.com/ for review and discussion. Since this was removed a few years ago and it should not have been, we are proposing to roll a mandatory roll for all operators C052 by the end of January to remedy our own stupidity.---and, to remove the overlay program language and to add the updates for the GPS WAAS.
C052 should change by the next meeting to update the GPS and GPS WASS guidance, authorization, and approval. The Draft C052 Notice is posted on the http://www.opspecs.com/ website.
7. OpSpec A055: Carriage of Hazardous Materials
FAA LEAD: AFS-250 Mike Frank/Connie Streeter, 260, Rick Clarke, AFS-220,
Industry LEAD : FedEx and AmeriJet
Background: Friday, October 7, 2005 Federal Register notification published the following:
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amended its hazardous materials (hazmat) training requirements for air carriers. 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 updated 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 sets 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.
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.
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.
All carriers were asked to make sure that current A004 states if they can or cannot carry HAZMAT using the above procedures.
Add “or ICAO or IATA, as appropriate” to paragraph b. Don’t repeat the regulations throughout the paragraph.
Two major concerns from the industry:
1) 49 CFRs are quoted in the spec and yet we are required to comply with ICAO standards, which are not the same (how do they differ??)…
2) Company hazmat (COMAT) was lumped in with all other cargo. Some carriers do not carry company mail that is HAZMAT, only containers declared by a known shipper. Other companies will carry COMAT that is HAZMAT. There should be a way to distinguish between the two in the spec. (why in the OpSpec? Why not in the manual?)
There are powerpoint presentations on the http://www.opspecs.com/ website provided by the HazMat division that explain the revised requirements very well. The draft notice information for the permanent A055 was excerpted & summarized from those powerpoints.
· The Power Point presentation from the HazMat policy division is available on the http://www.opspecs.com/ website.
· A draft Notice and draft OpSpec were put on the website for discussion on January 8, 2007.
· The permanent OpSpec was rolled into the OPSS Jan. 11, 2007, prior to the Notice publication due to the urgency of the deadline.
According to the HazMat division, the 49 CFRs do mirror the ICAO standards; In the FAA’s eyes, COMAT is company material; if the COMAT is HAZMAT, then the company carries HAZMAT and must meet the requirements to carry;
Permanent OpSpec A055 must be issued by February 7, 2007 by all air carriers that carry HazMat. All of the information in the draft notice has come from the HAZMAT people.
Ø The HAZMAT inspector must approve the information in the manuals and the training required by the applicable regulations cited in the draft notice. He/she then notifies the POI that the OpSpec can be issued. If the operator did not pay attention to the changes in the manual, training, and OpSpec requirements due to the regulatory changes in parts 121 and 135 that occurred over a year ago, they may have a delay from the HazMat inspector.
Ø A table for DOT exemptions/deviations was added. Carriers should remove them from A005 and add them to A055— this is purely optional to document these in the A055 table—but if the POI/Carrier want to document them in the OpSpecs, A055 is the only place to do that.
Ø A new OpSpec A004 may 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.
8. OpSpec C355, Exemption to §121.619 for Domestic Destination Alternate Airport Requirements-
Ø Applicability: Part 121
Industry Lead: Chuck Schramek, 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.
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 first OSWG in 2007, Ed will share his suggested language for incorporating into a draft revision to the specification. The drafted changes are also available on the www.opspecs.com website for your review and comment.
· 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.
· Comments on Ed’s suggested language for incorporating into a draft revision to the specification.
Ed Duchnowski surveyed the carriers that are issued the OpSpec and reviewed their data as well as the changes and recommendations for this paragraph.
If you have questions or other suggestions please send them to Ed. They will at least look at them.
Ed should be commended for his work on this paragraph because it was done with a tremendous collaborated effort.
9. OpSpec B043, Special Fuel Reserves in International Operations
FAA Lead: Gordy Rother, NWA CMO / Ed Duchnowski/AFS-220/Jack Pinto, AFS-820 (part 125), Dave Maloy, AFS-430
Industry Lead(s): John Cowan, UALA/Jim Johnson, AALA
A draft revision clarifying reporting requirements and correcting the requirement for an alternate during supplemental operations is available on http://www.opspecs.com.
Desired Outcome :
Obtain final comments, work towards a group consensus and republish the updated paragraph.
Gordy Rother would like for the fuel language in B043 to mirror the reformatted requirements of C355.
Gordy incorporated the comments from the website into his draft. He will work with Ed Duchnowski, Jack Pinto, and Dave Maloy to resolve the issue.
10. OpSpec B343 Fuel Reserves for Flag and Supplemental Operations
Ø Applicability: Part 121
FAA Lead: Gordy Rother, NWA CMO / Ed Duchnowski (AFS-220), Dave Maloy, AFS-430
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. This is a performance-based authorization using fuel burn data and statistical analysis within certain criteria as justification. Although the airlines are not experiencing any problems or concerns, a single (minor) low fuel event caused the FAA some concern. Hence, for now the FAA will not consider allowing less than a 5% fuel reserve.
The FAA (Gordy) has asked the Airlines to voluntarily provide greater detail in their fuel data (that would be de-identified) to help with their internal analysis and justification. Unfortunately, the majority of airline data collection systems are not currently programmed to provide this level of data breakout. Several airlines are now in the process of reprogramming existing flight planning systems or acquiring new systems that will accommodate such data extraction and collection capabilities.
Desired Outcome: The FAA is to review communications requirements with a recommendation to remove the reference requiring SATCOM.
FAA to provide:
Ø A quick “how’s it going” status check ( e.g., any problems or concerns and are required reports satisfactory?).
Ø Status of SATCOM requirement?
Ø Should B043 and B343 be merged?
B343 will not be merged into B043. Shouldn’t an end date be incorporated for the reporting requirements?
The FAA had discussed the reporting requirement as to if it need to be reported continuously? The FAA (Ed Duchnowski) asks that the operators provide the data to support their claim that they really are doing as well as they say they are; The FAA will be looking at each paragraph and will determine what the reports will show and whether or not it needs to continue.
11. OpSpec A048, Verification of Personnel for Access to Flightdeck
Ø Applicability: Part 121
Industry Lead: None
FAA Lead: Joe Kennan, AFS-250
Background: When the original OpSpec for A048 was written, it contained a requirement to use the passport for identification for the CASS program. TSA also had a passport requirement. TSA removed its requirement for the passport and this began to cause confusion for the air carriers at the gate.
1. Sept. 23, 2006, TSA required all CASS approved carriers to transmit a digital photo of each OA employee requesting access to a flight deck Jumpseat. The CASS system is now capable of verifying employment, confirming eligibility, and since Sept. 23rd, airlines are now able to verify a persons identity by displaying a digital photo of the individual requesting flight deck jumpseat access. All of the above listed items must be accomplished prior to admission to the flight deck jumpseat. The digital photo replaces the need to carry and present a passport for identification.
2. Cockpit jumpseating is not allowed on international segments for OA employees; therefore employees requesting jumpseat access may not carry their passport, or place it in their checked luggage.
3. Requiring employees to present a passport at the gate, also presents a security threat by exposing the passport more often to the potential of being lost or stolen.
Desired Outcome: Removal of the passport requirement for CASS. There is a draft notice on the www.opspecs.com website for your review and comment.
Land and sea travel is still acceptable without a passport until January 2008.
The draft notice is on the website with the passport requirement removed. The FAA is shooting for March/April 2007 to roll the revised OpSpec and guidance.
12. OpSpec A332, Ultra Long Range Flag Operations in Excess of 16 Hours Block Time
Ø Applicability: Part 121
Industry Lead: Chuck Schramek, Delta Air Lines; Jim Johnson, AALA
FAA Lead: Larry Youngblut, AFS-220
The FAA met in Washington with CAL and AA and their unions to discuss this paragraph. Bob Reich described the meetings, the rules, and what led up to this paragraph. They had a choice to either remain silent or manage it.
The FAA choses to manage it by being proactive instead of just saying no you can’t do it.
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.
12a. D106 Aircraft in Long Term Storage
They do not want to use D106 for aircraft in storage. Why can’t they use a “#” and let that be used to indicate storage, which would be explained in the 99 text area. This would be for both short and long term storage. As required, they have liability insurance on all aircraft.
This would allow you to take it out of D085 and put it into D106 for long term storage. When it comes out of storage and put back into 121 service, it must meet the applicable FARs.
The problem is that American does not want to be violated because they put an aircraft in D106 for short term storage and it is swapped out and put back into service.
It was recommended by the FAA that the Ops Spec not be used for short term storage where the aircraft could go in and out but rather a separate list that is kept by the company and viewed by the FAA when requested.
12b. B042 ER-OPS
FAA Lead– Bob Reich, AFS-220/Greg Kirkland, AFS-220
FAA Announces Extended Operations Rule . Last week, in announcing the final Extended Operations (ETOPS) of Multi-engine Airplane rule, Administrator Marion Blakey said, “This is an extremely important new rule that will open up safe flights all around the world.” The rule, which takes effect next month, changes the current limitations and opens up routes for twin-engine passenger and cargo planes. It sets uniformly high standards for all commercial passenger planes when they fly routes more than three hours from an airport. Now, the latest generation of jets can fly most any route in the world, including over the North and South Poles. “This rule is important,” Bob Reich (AFS-220) explained, “because it finally recognizes in the regulations all the tremendous effort and success the industry has had in ETOPS over the past 20 years. More importantly, it recognizes the technologies inherent in today’s airplanes and sets standards that encompass not only current long-range flying but the future of these operations.” Reich noted that the rule had been a long-time in development “due to the complexities of the issues.” He added, “The FAA and industry have spent a tremendous amount of effort and energy in developing such a comprehensive rule and making sure every interested party had an opportunity to contribute to the rule’s development every step of the way.” Requirements include higher maintenance standards, the ability to extinguish cargo fires, and a plan for passenger care if there’s a diversion at a remote airport. As USA Today reported, “The frequency of long-range flights has grown more than fourfold since 1984. Last year, airlines scheduled nearly 16,000 flights a week that exceeded 3,000 miles. The Boeing 777-200LR has a flight range of 10,800 miles and Airbus’ A340-500 can fly up to 10,300 miles.” For more information, you can read the rule at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/ .
This is not a not a change to policy but a codification of existing stuff. Also, 3 & 4 engine all cargo operations are not affected by this rule.
180 minute is the extent of the new rule. However, they kept the 207 minute for the North Pacific and did expand it a little bit.
The polar policy has now been extended to the South Pole. It is for all operations whether they are ETOPS or not.
An INFO should be out within 7 days that will describe a macro view of the new ETOPS rule. The ETOPS advisory circulars should be out by the end of the first quarter 2007. The original AC is over 20 years old and needed to be updated for the new regulation. There will be a 121 AC, a 135 AC, and an aircraft certification AC.
ETOPS – B042, deviation from 121.161 in database, should this remain?
All operators have one year from the date of the rule to comply. The aircraft that are used in ETOPS have 8 years to be certified.
3 and 4 engine aircraft that will be used in ER-OPS are not required to have an ER-OPS maintenance program due to their redundant engines and systems and reliability.
13. B057, National Parks Air Tour Management Operations/Part 91 A449 to A049, Air Tour Operations.
FAA Lead: Gene Kirkendall, AFS-200/Alberta Brown, AFS-250
Notice 8000.342 was published in December 2006. A mandatory change to OpSpec B057 is required with an updated list of National Parks and Tribal lands.
2--A rule change is imminent that will require those conducting certain air tour operations under Part 91 will have to be issued an LOA separate from those affected by B057. The Part 91 operator must also comply with the drug/alcohol prevention requirements in order to conduct these non-stop sightseeing operations. Thus, for the Part 91 DB only, we will be archiving the A449 for drug/alcohol prevention registration and revising that LOA to also accommodate the new LOA requirements of this upcoming rule change. Some of these Part 91 operators may also have to be issued B057 is they conduct their tours in the applicable National Parks or tribal lands.
The rule is coming out. The Notice needs to be published and the LOA is also being developed. This can be closed when they are completed.
14. OpSpec A003, Aircraft Authorization (part 135)).
Ø Applicability: Part 135
Industry Lead: None
FAA Lead: Commuter and On-Demand Part 135 and Training Center Branch, AFS-250
The improper registering of aircraft is improving, but we still have some work to do. The FAA has promised a two day turn around time.
15. OpSpec/MSpec C077, Terminal Visual Flight Rules, Limitations, and Provisions
Industry Lead: Jim Johnson, AALA
FAA Lead: AFS-220/AFS-250/AFS-820—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. AALA 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.
Paul Kolish, Mesaba question:
Mesaba Airlines proposes that the word, “reported,” be removed from CO77 a.4(a) and para. b.1(a). (Please see highlighted paragraphs below.) This would not have a material affect on the intent of the OpSpec as we understand it, but would remove the possibility of confusion as visibility is determined in FAR 91.155.
The cited regulation allows a pilot to operate visually at an airport with reported visibility, or, in the absence of reported visibility, with the required inflight visibility. We have occasion to use airports where the AWOS/ASOS visibility is missing. Per the regulations and the guidance of 8400.10, it is not permitted to commence an instrument approach without the required visibility. It appears clear from the absence of any restriction on VFR operations, and from the wording of 91.155(d)2 that there should be no restriction on proceeding VFR with the regulatory conditions met.
Further to the question of a pilot’s authority to make the determination is the requirement made by 91.175(c)2, where the pilot is not permitted to operate below the MDA or DH unless: “The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used.”
Clearly the pilot is required to judge visibility in poor conditions, and it would seem reasonable that the same pilot is as able to meet the provision of 91.155(d)2 in good conditions.
a. Terminal arrival IFR - Visual approach or a Charted Visual Flight Procedure (CVFP). The flightcrew may accept a visual approach or a CVFP provided all the following conditions exist. The flightcrew may not accept a visual approach or a CVFP unless the limitations and provisions of subparagraph e. of these Operations Specifications are met.
(1) The flight is operated and remains in Class B, C, or D airspace, within 35 miles of the destination airport in Class E airspace, or the airspace beneath the designated transition area.
(2) The flight is under the control of an Air Traffic Control (ATC) facility.
(3) The flightcrew must maintain the basic cloud clearance as specified in Section 91.155.
(a) Reported visibility must be as specified in Section 91.155, but not lower than a visibility of three miles.
b. Terminal arrival VFR. If operating under the VFR en route provisions of B051 or if canceling an IFR flight plan, the flightcrew may operate under VFR in the terminal area under the following provisions. In addition, the flightcrew may not conduct VFR operations in the terminal area unless the limitations and provisions of subparagraph e. of these Operations Specifications are met.
(1) All of the following provisions and weather conditions at the airport at the time of approach must be met:
Tom Walsh, AFS-220: C077 does not preclude the flight crew from landing at the destination airport when in the terminal area with the airport in sight and an element of the latest weather observation, such as ceiling not available. However, C077 does preclude the flight crew from conducting a visual approach without the required 1000 ft ceiling. The flight crew can continue on their filed IFR flight plan and conduct the appropriate instrument approach to a landing.
After a lengthy discussion with Air Traffic Control Specialists from both the Central and Eastern Regions, it became clear that removing the ceiling requirement as outlined in Ops Spec C077 would not accomplish the AA desired outcome for the following reasons:
1) As a Part 121 air carrier AA is required to operate under Instrument Flight Rules as such they must operate under IFR and in ATC control at all times.
2) Visual Approaches are issued by the approach control facility not the tower controller as such the approach controller must have the required weather as outlined in the ATC controlling document FAA Order 7110.65R to issue the visual approach.
3) A visual approach is an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually to the airport of intended landing; it is not an instrument approach procedure. With out meeting the above criteria the ATC controlling facility will not issue the clearance for the Visual Approach regardless of the ceiling requirements outlined in Ops Spec C077.
Reference: AIM 5-4-22 paragraph a.
A visual approach is conducted on an IFR flight plan and authorizes a pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport. The pilot must have either the airport or the preceding identified aircraft in sight. This approach must be authorized and controlled by the appropriate air traffic control facility . Reported weather at the airport must have a ceiling at or above 1000 feet and visibility 3 miles or greater. ATC may authorize this type approach when it will be operationally beneficial. Visual approaches are an IFR procedure conducted under IFR in visual meteorological conditions. Cloud clearance requirements of 14 CFR Section 91.155 are not applicable, unless required by operation specifications.
Reference: FAA Order 7110.65R, 7-4-1 Visual Approach:
A visual approach is an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually to the airport of intended landing; it is not an instrument approach procedure
Reference: FAA Order 7110.65R, 7-4-2 Vectors for Visual Approach:
A vector for a visual approach may be initiated if the reported ceiling at the airport of intended landing is at least 500 feet above the MVA/MIA and the visibility is 3 miles or greater.
Reference: Part 121.101 Weather Reporting Facilities paragraph a.
Each certificate holder conducting domestic of flag operations must show that enough weather reporting services are available along each route to ensure weather reports and forecasts necessary for the operation.
Removing the word reported would not solve the problem. Instead, it is suggested that a “or” statement needs to be added. The words are TBD by the April meeting, but the intent is that if you have the runway in sight that the aircraft could legally land.
16. 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. 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).
Mike Frank of AFS-250 briefed the group on our request to reconcile Order 8400.13B with Ops Spec C074. In general, the OSWG requested changes to Ops Spec C074, paragraph a – note 3, paragraph b and paragraph c – dealing with the use of the terms autopilot, autoland, flight director & HGS. There is also confusion on the guidance for “Special Aircrew and Aircraft Required (SAACR)”, “Special Aircrew and Aircraft Authorization Required (SAAAR)”, “Special Authorization Required”, and “Special Aircrew Training Required”.
History of the specification and the Order showed that paragraph c was for DTW RWY 21R, which had an obstacle clearance issue. The mitigations stated in paragraph c for DTW RWY 21R are no longer need with the addition of the new RWY. Paragraph c is no longer applicable and can be removed from the specification.
AFS-250 also noted that the current list of airports established by AFS-400 is under review. While these U.S. airport/runways are APPROVED by AFS-400 for operators conducting operations under FAA Order 8400.13, AFS-250 felt further review was necessary. The outcome will most likely cause changes to the authorized runways listed in the C074 Table (Authorized Airports/Runways).FS-250 felt further review was necessary. The outcome will most likely cause changes to the authorized runways listed in the C074 Table (Authorized Airports/Runways).
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.
Industry and FAA agreed that paragraph c of Ops Spec C074 is no longer applicable and should be deleted.
Industry needs to update the table in paragraph b of the specification to meet the current guidance in AFS-400 list of CAT I (1800 RVR) Runways.
AFS-250 will continue its review of the airport and runways listed by AFS-400 and the use of Flight Directors and Autopilots to mitigate touchdown zone and centerline lights.
The following addresses feedback received at the OSWG in Louisville 24 & 25 October, over C074 (Mike Frank).
1. There was concern about airports that were on the list of airports approved for operations below normal Category I minimums being removed from the list.
Response : In order for an approach to be approved for operations below standard Cat I minimums, that facility must be flight checked to appropriate tolerances. If during a subsequent periodic inspection, that facility is found to be out of tolerance, it will be notamed out of service or restricted until maintenance has restored it to the desired performance parameters, at which time any restrictions will be rescinded. This is no different from what is currently done with any Part 97 SIAP.
2 . Attendees were confused about the fact the FAA had previously approved approaches for lower than standard minimums, but it appeared that was being changed now. The question was “which FAA do we believe?”
Response : AFS-200/AFS-400 plan to propose a policy that would enable an operator to request an evaluation of a runway. The request would go through the POI to the appropriate regional AWO who would in turn communicate with the flight inspection division. If a runway could be safely used for the requested operation, the AWO would give that response to the POI and to AFS-260. AFS-260 would then add that runway or amend the restrictions for that runway in the selectable list for C074. This way we think there would be only one list to maintain. However, there would still be the issue of maintaining the integrity/continuity of the original analysis.
The FAA wants to open up low visibility landing for other than just HUD or autoland. This will allow the RJs to use these procedures.
Alaska would like to have paragraph “C” removed.
The FAA has started the draft mode of 8400.13C and should have it available by the April meeting. The FAA is developing a draft Notice to remove it.
17. OpSpec/MSpec A025/A061, Electronic Record Keeping System A025 and/or Electronic Flight Bag A061
FAA Lead : Wayne (Coby) Johnson/Dave Burr, AFS-260/AFS-220/AFS-250/AFS-820
Industry Lead: Steve Kuhar, FEDEX
Background: Notice 8200.98 was published containing the JobAid for the electronic flight bag.
Desired Outcome: The Notice 8200.98 for EFB is 65 pages long and deals mostly with certification. The AC is 120-76A and the Order is the companion piece for it. A new OpSpec/MSpec A061 will allow the use of Class I & II EFB (and associated software) to be selected by the operator with the CMO accepting its use for a distinct purpose. A separate paragraph will allow FAA approval of a Class 3 devise with FSB involvement.
A draft NOTICE is posted on the website that removes the listing of electronic flight bag approval in Ops Spec A025 and provides for a new OpSpec/MSpec A061.
The class 3 with type certificated software are the only ones that have a certification requirement. These are installed in the aircraft and can send and receive data.
The AC for the EFB is approximately four years old. Problem is that technology has passed this guidance. A Notice N8400.XXX (Revised Guidance for Authorizing the use of Electronic Flight Bags) is in coordination and will trump the AC. It will also explain the new paragraph A061 for the EFB. A revised AC will be completed at a later date.
The paragraph will be changed go included type “C” software with a Class I or II unit.
18. 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. Meanwhile, operators are encouraged to Operation/Management Specification paragraph C382 to record their voluntary commitment to this practice.
During the Runway Condition Determination, Reporting, and Report Dissemination Workshop the FAA 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 those recently distributed by the workshop committee.
Desired Outcome: Encourage as many operators as possible to use the standardized braking action table and comply with the voluntarily SAFO 06012. ( A quick survey of carriers represented at the October 2006 meeting indicated that most all carriers plan to comply with the SAFO with one exception; carriers operating older fleets for which manufacture data is not available plan to “exempt” those fleets. At this time, no carrier is planning on applying for OpSpec C382.)
Status Report on the following:
· 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?
Bob Reich stated that the ARC charter has been sent to the 10th floor for signature. From there it goes to the Federal Register. The Administrator will then appoint members of the ARC. This is probably a 2 to 3 year process.
The 1.6 multiplier for older aircraft places those operators at a disadvantage. Bill Cook (UPS) gave an example for the DC-8 that after takeoff, using the 1.6 it could end up with no legal place to land. This aircraft has operated for almost 50 years and has not had a problem. They would like the FAA to revisit this. Bob Reich believes that this is a perfect issue for the ARC.
Please provide me with the status of the following open items from our workshop last summer.
1. Change the braking action term "Fair" to "Medium".
2. Change the requirement for "braking action advisories" from less than "Fair" to less than "Good". (When will the ATC Controllers Handbook be revised and what about the AIM?)
3. Publish an FAA approved Braking Action definition/equivalent table.
Additionally, the introduction of new Landing Distance assessment guidance has exposed a few OpSpec issues that need review and clean up. Relying on OSWG agendas, meetings and minutes has not yielded productive attention.
Therefore, the industry needs your help with some behind the scenes effort. When we have developed appropriate recommendations, we can share them with the group and see if they float. If there is someone else that you would prefer I work with on one or all of these issues, please have them contact me. Otherwise, let John Cowan know how we can best proceed. The issues include:
Ø Some less than ideal wording in C054 could cause some to think the 15% additional landing distance factor required for low minimums (less than 4000 RVR) should be increased by an additional 15% if the runway is also wet. This interpretation is incorrect and the text requires revision to prevent such errors.
Ø Once an air carrier makes the transition to the new process (outlined in C382) there is no justifiable need for the LM landing distance assessment required by C054, C059 or C060. Additionally, with the need to account for MEL performance and actual autoland air distance considerations, the 1.3 landing distance factor found in C060 is without merit. (We need to eliminate "dual" landing distance assessments for those who volunteer to comply with the new guidance. Simplicity in the cockpit is in everyone's best interest.)
Ø The 1.6 landing distance factor for "Poor" (when no manufacture "advisory" data is available) seems to cause excessively large numbers when compared with advisory manufacture data. We need to review and re-validate the 1.6 factor.
19. OpSpec C054 Special Limitations and Provisions for Instrument Approach Procedures and IFR Landing Minimums
Industry Lead: John Cowan, UAL
FAA Lead: Ed Duchnowski, AFS-260 /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.
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:
During the last meeting Ed Duchnowski committed to review this request. What are the FAA’s intentions?
C054 has a flaw that could be misinterpreted in that it says 15% landing distance needed causing some to believe that a double additive is needed.
Bob Reich stated that this needed to be reviewed as we don’t know the history or the reason behind it. The FAA does not know what the original intent was but will have an answer by the April meeting.
20. OpSpec C060 Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations
Ø Applicability: 121, 135, 125, 125M, 91K, 91J
FAA Lead: AFS-410/420/ All Weather Ops ANM
C060 Background #1: KGEG runway 21 CAT III ILS approach 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
Desired Outcome: For authorizing KGEG, copy the restriction on the CAT III list and paste it into the limitations column of the OpSpec opposite the GEG.
The FAA is looking for a way to notify operators that a change had occurred to the C060 airport list. This would also be applicable to C059. The message screen of the http://www.opspecs.com site and the OPSS should work.
20. OpSpec A028, Wet Lease Arrangements
Industry Lead: Ron Priddy, NACA
FAA Lead: Rick Clarke, AFS-220/AFS-250/AFS-260
Background: Some countries in S. America will not accept the standard OpSpec A028 that is presently in our OPSS for parts 121 & 135 operations. A couple of years ago, Mr. Catey worked with our AGC, an affected operator, and that operator’s attorney to revise the Wet Lease Arrangement OpSpec to the satisfaction of those foreign countries.
Desired Outcome: Revise the existing OpSpec A028 to update it per the nonstandard A328 template. We have posted a draft notice with the revision to A028 and its corresponding guidance on the www.opspecs.com website for your review and comment.
Review draft notice on http://www.opspecs.com website. On this revised OpSpec you will show when you do and don’t have operational control.
21. A125M, 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.
A revision to N8700.46 which extends the deadline to March 2008.
The revision does 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.
22. A050, Helicopter Night Vision Goggles
Ø Applicability: Part 135
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.
DISCUSSION: Draft document is posted on the http://www.opspecs.com/ website for discussion.
ACTION/Outcome : Notice 8000.349 was published on January 12, 2007! This will be a mandatory roll with a 90-day compliance.
23. OpSpec A008, Operational Control
Ø Applicability: Part 135
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). The notice 8000.347 was published in December and the new mandatory OpSpec A008 for part 135 was rolled into the OPSS the first week of January 2007.
24. OpSpec/MSpec/LOA A005, Exemptions and Deviations—Just a constant reminder ( :
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/
ACTION/Outcome : Closed
25. [Standing agenda item] OpSpec C050, Special PIC Qualification Airports—14 CFR Section 121.445 Airport List Review & Recommendation of OSWG to AFS-220:
Ø Applicability: Part 121
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 b website
¨ Send email message to OSWG members
¨ Discussion of each individual assessment
¨ Recommendation for AFS-200
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.
FAA Lead : AFS-220 branch
Industry Lead: All
CURRENT for this Agenda: No requests were received since the last meeting.
Desired Outcome :
No new airport to review for this meeting.
26. General Information:
AA Safety Highlights
Biweekly news for FAA Aviation Safety (AVS) employees January 18, 2007
Attention Operations Inspectors : Mark Aldridge , Airman Testing Standards Branch (AFS-630), wants inspectors to know the following items have been updated and are available for use by inspectors (operations) and examiners: " Flight Instructor Instrument Practical Test Standards for Airplane and Helicopter" (FAA-S-8081-9C, effective January 2007) and " Flight Instructor Practical Test Standards for Rotorcraft, Helicopter, and Gyroplane " (FAA-S-8081-7B, effective December 2006).
FAA Proposes Raising Mandatory Retirement Age for U.S. Airline Pilots . In a Jan. 30 speech, Administrator Marion Blakey announced the FAA will propose raising the mandatory retirement age for pilots from 60 to 65. Blakey said FAA plans to propose adopting the new International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standard that allows one pilot to be up to age 65 provided the other pilot is under age 60. As noted in the FAA news release, FAA plans to issue a formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) later this year. Supporting the rulemaking effort will be Larry Youngblut, Glen Herpst, and Greg Kirkland from Flight Standards; Judi Citrenbaum from Aerospace Medicine; and Cindy Nordlie from Rulemaking. Last September, Administrator Blakey convened an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) of airline, labor, and medical experts to recommend whether the U.S. should adopt the new ICAO standard and determine the necessary actions should FAA change its rule. While the ARC, co-led by Jim May of the Air Transport Association and Duane Woerth of the Air Line Pilots Association, did not reach a consensus, it provided perspective that will be helpful as the FAA develops a rule. The Nov. 29, 2006, Age 60 ARC report, along with appendices and public comments, is available at http://dms.dot.gov, docket number 26139. As FAA proceeds with the NPRM, it is asking the ARC to reconvene (via telecon) and for ARC members to provide specific economic data. Federal Air Surgeon Fred Tilton, M.D. said, “The aviation medical community has been in support of such a change for a number of years.” Tilton noted that the Civil Aviation Medical Association has stated, “There is no convincing medical evidence to support age sixty, or any other age, for mandatory pilot retirement.” One refreshing aspect of this announcement was the positive USA Today editorial that concluded, “With its announcement Tuesday, the FAA aligns the United States with the rest of the world, acts in the best interest of passenger safety and puts veteran pilots who want to keep flying where they belong: in the cockpit, not out to pasture.”
Positive Feedback On New Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) Weather Tool . In the Nov. 30, 2006 FAA Safety Highlights we wrote about this new experimental guidance material for HEMS that can only be used in VFR operations and only in the context of supporting a ‘no-go’ decision. It collects weather data in 5 x 5 kilometer blocks and estimates data missing between reporting stations. Jeff Trang (ASW-111) recently got some positive feedback on this tool from a Maryland State Police pilot who appreciated the additional weather information. As Dave Downey (ASW-100) explained, “Short version is that the mission was turned down based on the tool giving the crew graphical weather information that the weather was below minima at the accident site although the two closest reporting stations showed weather that would have been appropriate for a launch. Twenty-four minutes after the ‘no-go’ decision the weather did deteriorate below minima. There is no category to report a mission scrub, but clearly the FAA, in collaboration with the HEMS community, has made an important step in aiding decision-making.”
Sport Pilot Update . The four-day U.S. Sport Aviation Expo at Florida’s Sebring Regional Airport ended Jan. 14. AVweb, the online news site, reports the Expo “drew record crowds … more than 100 aircraft were displayed, and probably half that many were flying.” We checked in with Larry Clymer, Manager, Light-Sport Aviation Branch (AFS-610), who was in Sebring to conduct seminars on the Sport Pilot rule. He said the first deadline for ultralight pilots, which is Jan. 31, 2007, was “a big topic of discussion” at the seminars. This is when ultralight pilots, who were registered on or before Sept. 1, 2004, with one of the four FAA-recognized organizations (Experimental Aircraft Association, Aero Sports Connection, U.S. Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association, and U.S. Ultralight Association), are required to transition to a sport pilot certificate. For more information, here’s a paper that Clymer wrote about “What really happens to a transitioning ‘Ultralight Pilot’ on January 31, 2007?” At the Expo, Clymer said there was “a lot of interest” in the Cessna Light Sport Aircraft prototype. This week, Clymer, along with other AVS leaders, was in Oshkosh, WI, at the EAA/FAA Recreational Aviation Summit for a productive session about a host of safety issues, including sport pilot/light-sport aircraft, experimental/amateur-built aircraft, and training.
Flight Standards Holds New Technologies Workshop . Last week, Flight Standards (AFS-400) held its third New Technologies Workshop. In his keynote address, Nick Sabatini spoke about the vision of the future — the Next Generation Air Transportation System — and how, “Every decision we make today must be made in the context of the future…At every decision point, we must know how the decision will affect every other part of the system.” The presentations on a host of topics — from ADS-B to Unmanned Aircraft and more — are available on the conference web site.
27. Paragraphs/Templates revised during the last quarter:
Additions/revisions to the OPSS CHDO Active paragraph inventory for this quarter. For an explanation of revisions, please review the respective Revision History document for each paragraph, available through the documentation within the OPSS CHDO application. Refer to the OPSS Guidance Subsystem under the Paragraph Menu, Guidance Documents, for documentation that may be associated with each of these paragraphs:
- Advisory Circulars
- OpSpec JobAid
- Handbook Bulletins
- Handbook Guidance
- Revision History
Summary of Changes to Templates in last quarter :
Ø A001(129) - Revised to incorporate A039, B050 and C070. This revision will eliminate the need for these paragraphs. ICAO Three letter identification and Radio Call Sign added at ATO Systems Ops and Security request.
Ø A023(129) - Revises paragraph to no longer require foreign air carrier manual reference. Imposes specific requirements on foreign air carrier for operations in ground deicing condition in U.S., including training of personnel including contract personnel. Several selectable paragraphs added to allow for small VFR only airplane and helicopter operations, as well as allow operators who operate in areas not subject to ground icing conditions to operate without a system in their manual.
Ø C358 – Nonstandard Initial release.
Ø A332 – Nonstandard Initial release.
Ø B035 & C063 - Changes per HBAT 05-04A – Moving RNAV Q-Routes reference from C063 to B035.
Ø B057 - Changes per Notice 8000.342.
Ø A007 - Added Table to collect SAFO and/or INFO email addresses.
Ø A125M - Notice 8000.345 effective 12/21/06 revises guidance on issuing 14 CFR Part 125M LODA with corresponding LOAs. Notice 8000.345 cancels Notice 8700.46.
Ø A008 - Changes associated with the release of Notice 8000.345.
Ø A009 - Changes associated with the release of Notice 8000.345.
Ø A010 - Changes associated with the release of Notice 8000.345.
Ø A002 (121/135, 135) - Added Agent(s), Authority, Duty, Lease, Responsibility, and Sustainable Transfer in association with revision 020 to A008.
Ø A008 - Changes as described in Notice 8000.347.
Details of Changes to Templates in the last quarter include:
Control Always Auth./
Para FFR Rev Date Optional Type of Change
A001 129 040 10/19/06 Always Auth. Mandatory
A039 129 N/A 10/20/06 Always Auth. ARCHIVED
B050 129 N/A 10/20/06 Always Auth. ARCHIVED
C070 129 N/A 10/20/06 Optional ARCHIVED
H120 129 N/A 10/20/06 Optional ARCHIVED
A023 129 020 10/26/06 Always Auth. Mandatory
C358 121 000 11/06/06 Optional New Template
A332 121 000 11/20/06 Optional New Template
C358 91 000 11/28/06 Optional New Template
C358 91K 000 11/28/06 Optional New Template
C358 121/165 000 11/28/06 Optional New Template
C358 125 000 11/28/06 Optional New Template
C358 125M 000 11/28/06 Optional New Template
C358 135 000 11/28/06 Optional New Template
B035 91K 010 12/01/06 Optional Mandatory
B035 121 010 12/01/06 Optional Mandatory
B035 121/135 010 12/01/06 Optional Mandatory
B035 125 010 12/01/06 Optional Mandatory
B035 125M 010 12/01/06 Optional Mandatory
B035 135 010 12/01/06 Optional Mandatory
C063 91K 010 12/01/06 Optional Mandatory
C063 121 010 12/01/06 Optional Mandatory
C063 121/135 010 12/01/06 Optional Mandatory
C063 125 010 12/01/06 Optional Mandatory
C063 125M 010 12/01/06 Optional Mandatory
C063 135 010 12/01/06 Optional Mandatory
A332 121/135 000 12/04/06 Optional New Template
B057 91 020 12/18/06 Optional Mandatory
B057 121 040 12/18/06 Optional Mandatory
B057 121/135 040 12/18/06 Optional Mandatory
B057 135 040 12/18/06 Optional Mandatory
A007 91K 010 12/19/06 Always Auth. Mandatory
A007 121 020 12/19/06 Always Auth. Mandatory
A007 121/135 020 12/19/06 Always Auth. Mandatory
A007 125 010 12/19/06 Always Auth. Mandatory
A007 125M 010 12/19/06 Always Auth. Mandatory
A007 133 010 12/19/06 Always Auth. Mandatory
A007 135 020 12/19/06 Always Auth. Mandatory
A007 137 010 12/19/06 Always Auth. Mandatory
A007 145 030 12/19/06 Always Auth. Mandatory
A125 125M 010 12/21/06 Always Auth. Mandatory
A008 125M 010 01/03/07 Always Auth. Mandatory
A009 125M 010 01/03/07 Always Auth. Mandatory
A010 125M 010 01/03/07 Always Auth. Mandatory
A002 121/135 011 01/04/07 Always Auth. Mandatory
A002 135 011 01/04/07 Always Auth. Mandatory
A008 121/135 020 01/04/07 Always Auth. Mandatory
A008 135 020 01/04/07 Always Auth. Mandatory
A055 121 010 01/11/07 Optional Mandatory
A055 121/135 010 01/11/07 Optional Mandatory
A055 135 010 01/11/07 Optional Mandatory