FAA/Aviation Industry Agenda for
OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) 2012-03

July 17th and 18th , 2012

* Tues. July 17th, 2012 - 9:00 am - noon   Domestic Industry Pre-meeting

Tuesday, April 17th : 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM – Domestic Session

Wednesday, April 18th : 9:00 AM - NOON - Domestic Session


Hosted by FAA

Heritage Center (Navy Memorial)

Washington, DC



Meeting Schedule:

Domestic Sessions

July 17-18, 2012

OSWG 2012-03

Washington, D.C.

Domestic, Joint, and International Sessions

October – November TBD 2012

OSWG 2012-03

Washington, D.C.






                                                          U.S. Domestic (Part 121, and 135)

                                                          Casey Seabright, Delta, Industry Chair

                                                          Rick Yuknavich, American Airlines, Industry Vice Chair

                                                          Bob Davis, AFS-260, FAA Chair



AFS Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, Manager: Les Smith



Meeting Location: Heritage Center (Navy Memorial)

701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 2004

                                                        (phone: 202-737-2300)










Table of Contents



    1. Convene                                                                                

1.   Convene                                                                          

  2. Chairman’s Discussion                          

  2. Stakeholder Survey                                    

  3.   OpSpec C050                                                              

  3. WebOPSS Update                                      

  4.   OpSpec C081                                                              

  4. S400 CAST Safety Enhancements                                                    

  5.   OpSpec C073                                                              

5. ICAO Register of AOC’s

  6.   OpSpec A001

  5. EASA third country operators    

  7.   OpSpecs C300

  6. OpSpec A025                                                        

  8.   OpSpecs B036/B054

  7. OpSpec A010                                                        

  9.   OpSpecs B041

  8. OpSpec B343                                                        

10     OpSpec C063

  9. OpSpec A029                                                        

11. OpSpec C055                                                            

10. OpSpec A003/C091                                

12. OpSpec C067                                                            

11. OpSpec C054                                                      

13. OpSpec D301                                                            

12. OpSpec A051                                                        

14. OpSpec D081                                                            

13. OpSpec A027                                                                                                                          

15. OpSpec D084                                                            

14. OpSpec A3XX (WSDDM)                  

16. OpSpec D095                                                                

15. Closing

17. Closing                                                                                    







Opening remarks.


Roll call—

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 distribution list.


Chairperson’s discussion.


·              Ensure there is an Industry and FAA lead for each topic

·              Additional Agenda items


Emphasize the updated OSWG Procedures Guide


Clean up Roster


Bob Davis – Opening remarks.



3. C050: Special Pilot-in-Command Qualification Airports.

Standing Agenda Item:

FAA Lead:  

Industry Lead: Steve Bush


Issue Statement:

Mammoth Yosemite; (KMMH), Mammoth Lakes Calif., an airport with scheduled 121 passenger service, located in the Eastern Sierra Nevada Mountains, has many of the attributes that would qualify it as a Special Pilot-in-Command Qualification airport; however, this airport is not included on the list maintained by AFS-200 in association with C-050.



FAR 121.445 and 8900.1 4-602 guidance provides that certain airports, due to characteristics such as surrounding terrain, obstructions, or complex approach or departure procedures may be designated as special airports requiring the PIC to hold special qualifications prior to landing or taking off from that airport.

An airport assessment aid is provided as part of the 8900.1 guidance to assist in determining if an airport qualifies as a Special PIC airport. When considering the assessment aid coupled with the methodology used for conducting an airport assessment, it is clear that KMMH meets the criteria threshold for listing as a special PIC Qualification airport.

Being nestled on the eastern slopes of the central High Sierra Mountains, KMMH possesses the following characteristics that have a direct affect on flight operations.

Examples below:

·                High terrain in the immediate vicinity

·                Limited maneuvering area

·                Significant unlighted terrain affecting night operations

·                Complex instrument procedures

·                Significant winds, turbulence and windshear

·                Unique communications and surveillance considerations


Intended Outcome:

Add Mammoth Yosemite; (KMMH), Mammoth Lakes Calif. To the Special Pilot-In-Command Qualification list maintained by AFS-200 in association with C-050.


Status: Continuing.



4. C081: Special Non 14 CFR Part 97 Instrument Approach or Departure Procedures

FAA Lead : Kel Christiansen, AFS-470

Industry Lead : Jim Winkleman, Alaska Airlines


Issue Statement:

Who is responsible for maintenance, upkeep and the costs associated with Special flight Procedures (sometimes referred to as “Public Specials”).



A public instrument flight procedure (IFP) is one that has been promulgated under 14 CFR Part 97.     Often times Special instrument flight procedures that have been authorized for multiple users have been referred to as "Public Specials".   In actuality, these are not "public" procedures although some continue to refer to them as such.

The majority of those “Special” IFPs that have been authorized for multiple users are maintained by the Aeronautical Products Division of Mission Support Services, formerly known as AeroNav Services or the National Flight Procedures Office.

The Aeronautical Products Division enters into a reimbursable agreement to develop/maintain those Special IFPs used by a single operator. The issue concerning the appropriateness of seeking reimbursement (from operators) for Special IFPs that have been authorized for multiple users has been referred to Legal.


Intended Outcome:

Determine who is responsible for “Specials” or move them to the public domain.



AFS-470 is waiting for an interpretation from Legal.


Update to be provided by Kel Christiansen



5. C073: IFR Approach Procedures Using Vertical Navigation

FAA Lead : Kel Christianson AFS-470

Industry Lead : Joe Devito


Issue Statement:

The certificate holder is authorized to conduct the instrument approach procedures other than ILS, MLS, or GPS landing system (GLS) utilizing a visibility and a decision altitude/(height) [DA(H)] equal to the published visibility and minimum descent altitude (MDA) using the following aircraft and procedures as specified in this operations specification.



Based on near-term safety benefits of using a continuously defined vertical path to the runway, and a long-term goal of simplifying approach training and qualification standards, users have indicated their intent to begin additional use of VNAV capability for instrument approaches.


Intended Outcome:

Request update from FAA Lead

2012-01 – Kel Christiansen


Status: Waiting for signature from AFS-1




6. A001 Issuance and Applicability

FAA Lead: Bob Davis?

Industry Lead: Mike Keller


Issue statement:

The certificate holder is authorized to conduct flights under 14 CFR Part 91 for crewmember training, maintenance tests, ferrying, re-positioning, and the carriage of company officials using the applicable authorizations in these operations specifications, without obtaining a Letter of Authorization, provided the flights are not conducted for compensation or hire and no charge of any kind is made for the Conduct of the flights.



A Carrier had a flight diverted for mechanical issue. The passengers were off loaded and the aircraft was to be ferried to a major maintenance facility. The divert airport had no capability to off-load the cargo. American did not charge for the convenience of the cargo. An inspectors interpretation is that there was still a violation of maintenance ferry flight restrictions because a cargo fee rebate engenders good will for the with the customer and would probably generate future revenue.



Intended Outcome:

See if a remedy to this situation is possible through exemptions or Ops Spec non-standard language



Bob Davis researching remedy. Update at meeting



7. C300: Part 97 NDB, NDB/DME, VOR, and VOR/DME Instrument Approach Procedures Using Substitute Means of Navigation

FAA Lead: John Swigart, AFS-470

Industry Lead: Jim Winkleman, Rich Yuknavitch, Jackson Seltzer


Issue Statement:

Suitable Navaid substitution authorizations are needed in by operators in certain circumstances or areas of the world.



C300 was developed to provide standard methodology for authorizing navaid sub procedure for approach operations. The current template does not necessarily meet the needs of all operators or provide the latitude necessary for certain circumstances.

John Swiggart AFS-470 briefed that there are no plans to make any immediate changes to the Ops Spec, but AFS-470 would entertain submission of non-language language for special cases. John suggested that carriers, especially those without Ops Spec C300 make maximum use of the provisions outlined in AC90-107 for RNAV substitution. Depending on the final analysis of the MITRE study AFS-470 may first allow use of C300 for alternate approaches


Intended Outcome:

Provide a mechanism to authorize navaid sub procedures that meets the needs of both Industry and FAA.


Status: Open/Monitor

Update from AFS-470, Jim Winkleman, Rich Yuknavitch.

Status of Mitre study.



8. B036/B054: Class II Navigation

FAA Lead: Madison Walton

Industry Lead: John Cowan


Issue Statement:

Both of these OpSpecs include the same provision in paragraph b. (4) which refers to a required gross navigation error check using an “airways navigation facility”. GPS is understood to be an accepted “airways navigation facility” and as such, a clarification is needed to prevent misunderstandings. Additionally, while OpSpec B036 includes no reference to plotting or adherence to AC 90-79, the “job aid” inappropriately requires the Inspector to ensure that the procedures included in the AC are used, thus causing differing expectations.



Where the FAA does not desire the operator to consider GPS as an acceptable airway navigation facility, the clarifier “ground based” is used. Several readers have incorrectly interpreted this provision with the same “ground based” mind set which has led to confusion when GPS equipped aircraft are concerned.

Since a job aid for an OpSpec should not contain provisions, limitations or requirements that are not also contained in the OpSpec, the B036 job aid should be revised to match the OpSpec:

  1. The principal operations inspector (POI) must ensure the operator’s LRN program incorporates the practices and procedures recommended in the most recent version of Advisory Circular (AC) 90-79, Recommended Practices and Procedures for the Use of Electronic Long-Range Navigation, or the operator has approved procedures equivalent to or exceeding those in AC 90-79 or other applicable ACs.


Intended Outcome:

Clarify the provision to specify that it is referring to non GPS equipped aircraft as follows:


b. (4) Prior to entering any airspace requiring the use of a non GPS based long-range navigation system, the aircraft position shall be accurately fixed using airways navigation facilities or ATC radar. After exiting this airspace, the aircraft position shall be accurately fixed and the long-range navigation system error shall be determined and logged in accordance with the operator's approved procedures.


Job aid:

The Principal Operations Inspector (POI) must ensure the operator’s LRN program incorporates practices and procedures that include crosschecking to identify potential navigational errors in sufficient time to prevent deviations. Advisory Circular (AC) 90-79, Recommended Practices and Procedures for Use of Electronic Long-Range Navigation, provides examples of such procedures but does not represent the only means of compliance.


b. (4) Prior to entering any airspace requiring the use of a non GPS based LRNS, the aircraft position shall be accurately fixed using airways navigation facilities or ATC radar. After exiting this airspace, the aircraft position shall be accurately fixed and the long-range navigation system error shall be determined and logged in accordance with the operator's approved procedures.


Status: Open

Update on Proposed Language

Update from FAA on Operational Safety Assessment and harmonization issues relating to coast in/coast out nav accuracy checks and plotting.


Per Mark Steinbicker, AFS-402: the FAA is moving forward with the navigation accuracy check issue, mindful of workload for the personnel involved. The main intent is that for whatever new guidance is created, there will be an emphasis on application of existing procedures regarding the use of GNSS/SatNav for navigation (e.g., preflight/dispatch actions).

AFS-402 plans to start a revision of the 8900.1 in May that will address the OSA (now signed) and other SAO/Oceanic issues but don't have a revision to AC 91-70A scheduled. He does not view the AC language as a hindrance to moving forward with the alternate method and anticipates an AC revision once a number of other necessary changes are compiled (e.g., based upon updates to SAO airspace/procedures). The subject matter experts are fully engaged.



9. B041 North Atlantic Operations with Two-Engine Airplanes Under Part 121

FAA Lead: Gordy Rother

Industry Lead: TBD


Issue Statement:

There is industry opinion that B041 needs to be revised greatly or actually archived.


The requirement to remain within 60 minutes of an adequate airport for non ETOPS two engine aircraft is a worldwide requirement, but yet we have no worldwide OpSpec, only B041 for N. Atlantic.




The opspec was originally developed to provide an enhance means of safely conducting non-ETOPS operations in the North Atlantic and to address the specifically challenging areas of Greenland etc. The opspec adds weather mins to the "adequate airports" outlined in 121.161. It also states the airport has to be one where you can land the aircraft safely with an engine failed. When the FAA discussed this with the AEG, their position is that the operator must evaluate the engine fail/go around case for the airports. This was further discussed with Boeing who agreed that "alternates for the purpose of ETOPS" must consider the engine fail case." Since B041 is an en route alternate like B342 without the higher weather provision this would fall into the same category. An engine failure is probably the reason you are diverting there in the first place.

The FAA is doing some historical research into this paragraph but may not yield anything other than the fact that this area has limited resources for the pilot. The requirement to have landing weather minimums can be onerous given the climate in Greenland and Iceland. The good thing is the vast majority of the aircraft meet the ETOPS requirements and these airports are rarely considered in that calculation and B041 is not a common operation.   What does not make sense to some is why this was never moved into the North Pacific/Russian airspace.


Intended Outcome:

To determine: Is the opspec relevant to operations today?

If so, then expand the opspec to encompass other equally challenging areas of operation.

If not, and there is an equivalent level of safety then develop a timeline to archive the opspec.



Open for discussion



10. C63: IFR RNAV 1 Departure Procedures (DP) and Standard Terminal Arrivals (STAR)

FAA Lead: John Swigart, AFS-470

Industry Lead(s): Rich Yuknatvich


Issue statement:

Development of RNAV DPs/STARs utilizing RNP 1.0 and RF legs on fast track



The recent notice also announced the revision to all C063 templates. This is a non-mandatory revision. The current template will remain valid and will only need to be updated when one of the following occurs:

• The certificate holder/operator/program manager needs to make a change to the aircraft or systems on the template, or

• The certificate holder/operator/program manager applies for RNP 1 or TA authorization


Rich Yuknavich suggests It might be helpful to read the C063 guidance in Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Chap. 18, Sec 5 Change 188 (1/6/12) for an overview before referring to N8900.176.or the Advisory Circulars.



Intended Outcome:

Retain as discussion item for future feedback about approval process






11. C055: Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums.


FAA Lead : John Swigart, AFS-470

Industry Lead: Jim Winkleman, Andy Newcomer


Issue Statement:

Unmonitored navaids are a problem for industry and may be having an effect on reliability of service, especially for longer haul operations.



Historically navaids have been monitored by FAA or entities designated by the FAA. As more responsibilities are being contracted to third parties, the ability to monitor essential navaids is no longer possible under certain circumstances. The increase in the number of unmonitored navaids is beginning to have a negative effect on providing reliable air transportation.


Intended outcome:

Develop a solution that meets the needs of both Industry and FAA.

Mitre study to determine whether use of RNAV/GPS approaches at alternates affords an acceptable level of risk. A suggested interim mitigation strategy such as issuance of alternative missed approach procedures whenever NAVAIDs go unmonitored.




Open: AFS-410 is looking at possibility of using RNAV approaches for alternates.

In December 2011, a draft copy of the MITRE contractor study concerning feasibility and safety assessment of allowing alternate minimums based on GPS approaches was published. AFS-470 is reviewing the study. If it is determined that changes can be made to current policy, there will need to be harmonization between the different 14 CFR carrier types. Related guidance in the Instrument Procedures Manual and the AIM will also need to be updated. If GPS minimums are allowed, there is a possibility of two eligibility tiers for aircraft based on navigation system levels of fault detection and fault alerting. Similar RAIM prediction requirements as are in place for C300 may be required. (References TSO 196 for WAAS, TSO-129 for DME/DME updating.



Update on Mitre study requested.

What the parameters of the MITRE study are and can they be made available to industry?

Need list of unmonitored Navaids to be sent to Coby Johnson.



12. C067: Special Airport Authorizations, Provisions, and Limitations

FAA Lead:

Industry Lead(s): Jim Winkleman


Issue statement:

Concern that there two paragraphs (a & b) that address two different specific airport issues but a single table to list the airports.


Intended Outcome:

Inspector Scott Stacy requests that the issue be addressed and to consider adding a second table. The result would allow for one table for each specific issue.


Two tables may not be necessary. A single table may suffice if, for each airport, information could be inserted in horizontally rows that span the entire table/page width. With the current triple column formatting, 90% of the verbiage is contained in the last column which drives up the page count with mostly blank space on the left side of the table.


Status: Open

Update from leads



13. D301: Aircraft Network Security Program (ANSP)

FAA Lead: Rochelle Brisco (AFS-360)

Industry lead: TBD


Issue Statement: The FAA is concerned about the cyber security vulnerabilities of avionics systems. This Ops Spec authorizes the certificate holder to operate e-Enabled aircraft that have a manufacturer's recommended network security program.


                  Avionics and passenger systems now similar to a Local Area Network (LAN).


                  Aircraft have the capability to reprogram flight critical avionics components wirelessly and via various data transfer mechanisms.


                  May result in cyber security vulnerabilities from intentional or unintentional corruption of data and/or systems critical to the safety and continued airworthiness of the airplane.

                  Credible examples of potential misuse include the potential for:

§                Malware to infect an aircraft system

§                An attacker to use onboard wireless to access aircraft system interfaces

§                Denial of service of wireless interfaces

§                Denial of service of safety critical systems

§                Misuse of personal devices that access aircraft systems

§                Misuse of off-board network connections to access aircraft system interfaces

                  Applies to aircraft operated under 14 CFR parts 121, 121/135, 125, and 129.


                  Necessary to verify that operators have the skills, tooling, and procedures in place to accomplish the requirements of the manufacturer’s aircraft security document.


                  Aircraft that require an ANSP include any aircraft produced or modified that requires the manufacturer to provide operator guidance documentation for FAA approval. The FAA requirement is in the form of Special Conditions.

§                Boeing provides this guidance in an ancillary document referred to as “Airplane Network Security Operator Guidance (ANSOG).” Airbus includes “Aircraft Information System Security” guidance in Part 6 of Aircraft Limitations Section (ALS) of the aircraft maintenance manual.

                  No longer a physical partition between avionics and passenger electronics.

                  Examples of e-Enabled aircraft: Boeing 747-800 and 787, Airbus A350 and A380, Bombardier CS100 and CS300



Background: FAA determined that manufacturers, carriers, and regulators were not paying enough attention to security issues in development and intended use of new systems. FAA observed that avionics evolution is away from hard-coded ROM circuit card hardware toward generic black boxes whose functions are defined by the software loaded into those boxes. The immediate concerns are with current E-enabled aircraft such as the 747-800 787 A350 and A380. However some future STC modifications may place current aircraft under Ops Spec D301 coverage. Carriers will be required to incorporate manufacturers’ security document procedures into carrier manuals. Currently, overall maintenance program manuals are accepted versus approved documents. Under Ops Spec 301 the subset of manuals applicable to avionics becomes approved publications. There are reporting requirements outlined in the draft Ops Spec.


Uplinked tailored arrival technology is not considered to fall under D301 guidelines.

The FAA intends to create guidelines for security provisions in the development and use of aircraft software interfaces. Encourage participation by air carrier IT and avionics departments.

Special Committee 216 has been formed. Coordinating with EUROCAE WG-72 Group.

Draft Ops Sec D301, Aircraft Network Security System, and accompanying Notice is posted on http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/opspecs/. The comment period officially ended in May 2011.


Intended Outcome:

OpSpec that will require carriers to incorporate manufacturers’ security document procedures into carrier manuals. Currently, overall maintenance program manuals are accepted versus approved documents. Under Ops Spec 301 the subset of manuals applicable to avionics becomes approved publications. Reporting requirements are outlined in the draft Ops Spec.


Status: Open


Update from AFS-360


14. D081: Parts Pool Agreement Authorization

FAA Lead: tbd

Industry Lead: Mike Keller, American

Issue Statement:

Does D081 allow for “parts borrowing” or not?



Can “AJ Walters” be added to the Ops Spec if possible to be able to borrow parts from them internationally. AJ Walters is a parts supplier and not an airline which seems to be the issue. AJ Walters is an associate member of the IATP as well. Some other airlines may be utilizing AJ Walters, but under what authority?

If a supplier such as is not a certificated entity then pooling under D081 would not apply.


Intended Outcome:

Determine if parts borrowing fall under the authority of parts pooling?


Status: Ongoing research

Industry requests an update




15. D084 Special Flight Permit with Continuous Authorization to Conduct Ferry Flights

FAA Lead:  

Industry Lead: Tom Taylor, FedEx Express


Issue Statement:

1.            OpSpec D084 item b. does not provide wording to allow ferrying an aircraft to storage or to a place where the aircraft will be donated, scrapped, sold, etc.

2.            OpSpec D084 item d. does not provide wording to allow ferrying to storage on the way to a repair facility to have an expired AD complied with or to a place where the aircraft will be donated, scrapped, sold, etc.



1.            14 CFR 21.197 Special flight permits, item (c) allows certificate holders with a D084 OpSpec to issue a Special Flight Permit for the purpose of flying aircraft to a base where maintenance or alterations are to be performed. Item (a) (1) of the same CFR allows for Special Flight Permits, outside of the D084 OpSpec, to be issued to a base where repairs, alterations, or maintenance are to be performed or to a point of storage. Within the D084 OpSpec and item (c) of the CFR, the words repair and storage are left out. It could be argued that maintenance and repair are one in the same therefore the word repair was left out, therefore it could also be argued that the intent of the abbreviated verbiage in OpSpec D084 and item (c) of the CFR is not intended to prevent moving an aircraft to storage on its way to a maintenance facility to have the required work accomplished when a maintenance slot becomes available.

2.            14 CFR 39.23 Airworthiness Directives, starts out with a question – [May I fly my aircraft to a repair facility to do the work required by an airworthiness directive?]. The answer is yes, but it also states the aircraft can be flown to a repair facility to do the work required by an Airworthiness Directive. Like stated above, there is no mention of flying the aircraft to a place of storage while awaiting a slot at a maintenance facility where the AD can be complied with.



Intended Outcome:

FEDEX Express is seeking an Ops Spec provision or CFR exemption relief.

Is it the FAA’s intent that a certificate holder with a D084 OpSpec cannot ferry an aircraft to storage for any reason? Is it also the intent that no one, certificate holder or FAA, can issue a Special Flight Permit, with an expired AD, to a storage facility while awaiting a slot at a maintenance facility where the AD can be complied with or to a place where the aircraft will be donated, scrapped, sold, etc.?


- Need an FAA legal interpretation of items 1 and 2 above.

- If a FAA legal interpretation allows a certificate holder to ferry an aircraft to storage in both cases above, we would like to see the D084 OpSpec revised with language addressing the issue of flying to storage in both cases as well as flying to a place where the aircraft will be donated, scrapped, sold, etc.

- If item 1 and 2 above does not allow the aircraft to be flown to storage, or flown to a place where it will donated, scrapped, sold, etc. we would like to see an exemption issued that allows it?



Status: Ongoing research

Request status update




16. D095 . Minimum Equipment List (MEL) Authorizations


Industry Lead: Mike Keller/Rich Yuknavich


Issue Statement:

Ops Spec D095 Maximum times between deferral and repair are not the same as stated in MMEL Policy letter 25 January 2012. The Ops Spec language for Category A items does not specifically state that the day the malfunction is recorded is excluded in counting maximum numbers of days as does the MMEL Policy Letter and as do Ops Spec D095 paragraphs b(2), (3) and (4):




D095 Verbiage:

b. Maximum Times Between Deferral and Repair. Except as provided in subparagraph d, the certificate holder shall

have items repaired within the time intervals specified for the categories of items listed below:

(1) Category A. Items in this category shall be repaired within the time interval specified in the remarks column of the

          certificate holder's approved MEL.


MMEL Policy Letter Revision 17 20Jan2011:

22. Repair Intervals: All users of an MEL approved under 14 CFR 121, 125, 129 and 135 must effect repairs of

inoperative systems or components, deferred in accordance with the MEL, at or prior to the repair times

established by the following letter designators. 14 CFR 91 MEL users do not need to comply with the repair

categories, but shall comply with any provisos defining a repair interval (flights, flight legs, cycles, hours, etc).

The letter designators are inserted adjacent to Column 2.


Category A. Items in this category shall be repaired within the time interval specified in the remarks column of

the operator's approved MEL. For time intervals specified in “calendar days” or "flight days," the day the

malfunction was recorded in the aircraft maintenance record/logbook is excluded. For all other time intervals

(flights, flight legs, cycles, hours, etc), repair tracking begins at the point when the malfunction is deferred in

accordance with the operator's approved MEL.


Intended Outcome:

Change Ops Spec D095 Paragraph b(1) verbiage and in the interim specifically address the Category A disparity in a revised MMEL Policy Letter..


Status: New Item




17. Day One: Closing Remarks









Day 2 Session

April 18, 2012

9:00 – 12:00







Stakeholder Survey

The FAA has asked each meeting participant to fill out an OSWG Customer Survey. Results of previous survey will be available at the next OSWG meeting.




WebOPSS Update:

Standing Agenda Item:

FAA Lead : Bob Davis – AFS-260



·                Current status

·                Near term developments

·                Far term developments






S400: CAST Safety Enhancements

FAA Lead: Bob Davis

Industry Leads: Monty Montgomery, United; Rich Yuknavich, American; Mike Davis, U.S. Airways.


Issue Statement:

The FAA has made a financial commitment to CAST, the Commercial Aviation Safety Team program and oversight agencies would like a means of gauging the overall acceptance and success of CAST,



Bob Davis.

S400 is not an Ops Spec. It is a document or perhaps multiple “S”-XXX documents to anonymously track carrier adoption of the voluntary Safety Enhancement recommendations of the Commercial Aviation Safety Team or CAST composed of FAA/Military/Manufacturers/Unions/Airline Industry/Trade Groups. The WebOPSS system is being used to leverage the capabilities of the system.


Meeting Discussions:

Phase I Beta testing has been underway with U.S. Airways and United. American and American Eagle Airlines will participate in Phase II testing. Only three of the currently published 75 SEs are being used for Beat testing, two concerning Ops and one concerning maintenance.

Intended Outcome: Identify problem areas during Beta testing.


Action Items:

Testing in process



Quality Management System










Title: OpSpec Template Feedback Survey

Date: 07/18/12

Page 1 of 1


1=Low                     2=Average                 3=High


1. What is your overall satisfaction with your interaction with FAA personnel related to OpSpec template and guidance development?

__1               __ 2             __ 3           __N/A


2. What is your overall satisfaction with the template and guidance development process?

__1           __2                   __3             __N/A


3. What is your overall satisfaction with the structure of the OSWG?

__1                   __2                   __3                   __N/A


4. What is your overall satisfaction with the quarterly OSWG meetings?

__1                   __2                   __3                   __N/A


Please provide comments for any question you marked 1 (low).





4                ICAO Register of AOCs


Progress Recent Developments: International Register of AOCs. (Update for the briefing was provided/coordinated with International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO).


FAA Lead : Danuta Pronczuk (AFS-52) for Part 129,

Industry Lead : Henry Defalque, International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO


From 2011-04 meeting:


a.           Late June – Pre-final Software developed
b.         Late June until mid-July – CAUC (Civil Aviation University of China) internal student to internally do beta-testing and simulate simultaneous data entering  
c.           Late July – Present the final product to Nancy Graham/ICAO
d.         August – CAUC to come to Montreal to present the final Product
                            i.         Invite Canada for 1st Beta-Testing at the same time (TC – Transport                                                                                         Canada- is onboard)
                              ii.       Other states willing to participate: Australia, Singapore at this time.
e.         Until end of 2011 – Beta-testing with different selected States
f.           The aircraft information DB is operational since November 2010, and we hope that the Intl Registry of AOC will be operational at the end off 2011 or Q1 2012. The Civil Aviation University of China will install it on our server by mid-November... then it is internal testing and then testing by a few States (Australia, Canada, Singapore, UAE, and hopefully a European State). (Update from Henry D., provided on 10/01/2011)


The developers are scheduled to deliver the product in November. ICAO will then install it on its servers and open it up for beta testing to the States that have volunteered for this process. Barring any major issues, it should go live as planned. (Update from Tom Mistos, ICAO, 10-13-11).


The ICAO aircraft information database that will be linked to the AOC database is operational and contains aircraft from 22 States already with more pending (Update from Henry, July 2011). The aircraft registry application is slowly getting more input from States. There had been two issues holding ICAO back, a bug/issue with the Excel template upload facility and the IRCA update process (those States that will be sending their input via IRCA need to sign a release form with IRCA giving them permission to send us the State’s data). The first issue has been resolved, however IRCA is still waiting for permission from many States. (Update from Tom Mistos, ICAO, 10-13-11)


Status : Open


5. EASA Third Country Operators.

FAA Lead: John Masters,  AFS-51, Darcy Reed, AFS-52

Industry Leads: TBD


Issue Statement:

Status Report on EASA intention to implement an assessment requirement for all Third Country Operators (for example: United, FedEx, UPS, Emirates, China Southern Airlines, ANA, Quantas,

(Non-European Union member commercial carriers.)



Presented by EASA representative, Arthur Beckland, a Dutch attorney who has been with EASA for six years, currently with the EASA rulemaking directorate.


The proposal for one authorization for operations in the EU, one assessment methodology, (a validation process that aims at verifying the reliability of the originally certified information), was first promulgated in April of 2011.

It is still in the prepatory process for eventual submission to the European Parliament for ratification. The target date for that is estimated to be towards the end of 2013 or early 2014. Until then individual country national rules and ICAO rules apply. After implementation, if any aspect of operations is not covered by ICAO standards then EASA standards will apply. After ratification, there will need to be a period of harmonization with current bilateral agreements between EU and other non-EU countries.

There may be some bilateral agreements between the EU and certain third countries (for example the US and the EU), with both parties agreeing to accept the others authorizations with no added assessments necessary.


Ramp inspection will continue to be performed by national aviation officials but they should use EASA checklist criteria, and not country specific audit criteria. However there is no guarantee that individual countries will not use their own inspection criteria instead of using the EASA standards.


For more detailed information and status updates, Arthur recommended the following EASA website:



Intended Outcome: update/educate, clarify rulemaking changes, and answer questions relating to EASA third country operators.


Status: Arthur Beckland should be on hand to provide an upadate and answer questions.





6. A025: Electronic Record Keeping Systems.

FAA Lead: Theo Kessaris AFS-260

Industry Lead: Casey Seabright, Jim Winkelman


Issue Statement :

A025 has become a dumping ground for many authorizations that may not be appropriate for this paragraph.


Background :

An audit of operator’s A025 show significant variability in the items placed in this paragraph.


Intended Outcome :

Transform A025 from being a dumping ground and keep it only as a depository for primarily electronic record keeping plus an optional storehouse for electronic signatures and electronic manuals.

Amend A025 to include tables for specific approvals such as flight planning systems, training records repositories and other electronic/software applications.


Status :On Hold – No change

Note: Industry would like to form a subgroup to help write the new OpSpec and

requests a very generic high level approach to recording recordkeeping since new technology virtually requires electronic recordkeeping for many applications. The technology, stability, and reliability are no longer a new approach and should become accepted (at some level) as the norm.



7. A010: Aviation Weather

FAA Leads: Theo Kessaris, AFS-260 – Leo Hollis, AFS-220

Industry Lead : Casey Seabright, Delta


Issue Statement:

This Ops Spec/MSpec/LOA has been revised to follow the regulatory requirements of 14 CFR parts 91, Subpart K, 121, 125 and 135. A table has been added for Adverse Weather Reporting and Forecast systems, and the QICP table has been removed due to lack of regulatory requirement. Guidance in 8900.1 Volume 3 chapters 18, 25 and 26 has been updated as well. The Ops Spec /LOA is no longer mandatory for part 125 certificate holders, and part 125 Letter of Deviation Authority Holders



As of the last meeting in April 2012, the draft guidance was posted to the FAA draft documents website and to the OSWG (NAME WEBSITE) to allow for public comment. In addition, the documents went through formal internal FAA coordination. Both the public and FAA comment periods have closed and. The FAA received only one comment from industry which was in the form of a question regarding the removal of the QICP table from the OpSpec. FAA internal comments are collected and organized by an internal support organization and then sent to AFS-200.


Meeting Discussions:


. As of July 12, 2012, AFS-200 is awaiting receipt of the final internal comments. We expect to have them by July 20, 2012. AFS-200 will review the comments and revise the draft guidance documents where appropriate.   Once that is accomplished, the documents will be reformatted one more time and then submitted to AFS-1 for final signature and publication. The estimated publication date is probably some time toward the end of September or beginning of October.


Intended Outcome:

Standardized OpSpecs authorizations for certificate holders conducting 91K, 121, and/or 135 operations that comply with the regulatory requirements of 91.1039, 121.101, 121.119, and 135.213, as applicable. ..


Action Items:

Final actions by FAA; certification efforts by carriers.




8. B343: Fuel Reserves for Flag and Supplemental Operations.

FAA Lead: Gordy Rother, MSP-FSDO, Leo Hollis, AFS-220, Dave Burnham, UAL CMO

Industry Lead(s): Steve Kuhar


Issue Statement:

A short statement summarizing the core issue is requested from the Industry lead.



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 and, until recently, was not granting any new approvals.


FAA is working toward a PBM fuel reserves model similar to the draft ICAO Annex 6. FAA requests that carriers review and comment on Annex 6 (draft) through IATA or ATA. Once the new Annex 6 is settles/issued, B343 should be resurrected.


Intended Outcome:

PBM Fuel Reserves availability for US carriers


Status: New AC being written to harmonize with ICAO


9.          A029: Aircraft Interchange Agreement for Part 121

FAA Lead: David Catey (AFS-200) for Part 121;;Larry Buehler for part 135

Industry Lead : Rich Carpenter


Issue Statement:

Definition of Primary operator is not correct.



Authorizes part 121 certificate holders to use aircraft interchange agreements with other operators.


Intended Outcome:

Correction to definition of primary operator, and the addition of aircraft serial number to the Part 121 template




Update from FAA leads





10. A003/C091 Airplane Authorization/Operational Requirements Airplane Design
                                                    Group VI (ADG-VI) Airplanes.

FAA Lead: Jerry Ostronic (Part121) Danuta Pronczuk and David Henthorn (Part 129)

Industry Lead:


Issue Statement:

Issues surrounding group VI aircraft operating into group V airports, specifically the B747-8 and the A-380.



Ops Spec C091 is required for anyone operating an A380. To date, only foreign air carriers were operating the A380. Foreign air carriers are already operating the B-747-8, Bob added that although no U.S. operator has a need for it currently; AFS-200 expects that to change in the future and as such will be adding this template to the Part 121 data base of available OpSpecs.

Danuta briefly reviewed the background on C091/the study of the group VI aircraft, (A-380 and B-747-8), operating into group V airports, issues surrounding group VI aircraft operating into group V airports, specifically the B-747-8 and the A-380. The limitations language has been agreed upon by both AFS-050 and AFS-200. After many hours of review, both divisions have agreed to keep the limitations on group VI aircraft operations into group V airports in OpSpec C091. The existing limitations for the A-380 have been rewritten into plain language, and the B-747-8 limitations language will be added. A revised draft OpSpec C091 is expected to be posted in the next few weeks. Limitations are based on the results of a study that was conducted – can the A-380, and B-747-8 safety operate on group V airports and under what conditions.



OpSpec C091 is required for anyone operating an Airbus A380, (currently in the Part 129 data base of available OpSpecs), and once the draft is rolled out it will also be required to be issued to anyone operating the B747-8.





11. C054: Special Limitations and Provisions for Instrument Approach Procedures and IFR Landing Minimums

FAA Lead: POC from AFS-410 TBD

Industry Lead : John Cowan


Issue Statement:

C054 needs to be more specific in its reference to “the landing field length specified for the destination airport by the appropriate Sections of the CFR”.



Many readers are unsure of what specific section of the CFR is being referred to, which leads to confusion. Jackson Seltzer (United) recommended standardization between C054 and other Ops Specs governing approach criteria. Suggestion by Bob Davis was for coordination with industry and participation by Brant Welch, Gordy Rother and Jerry Ostronic


Coby Johnson pledged support for harmonization guidance among Ops Specs C054, C059, and C060



Intended Outcome:

Industry proposed draft language for Ops Spec Paragraphs and applicable guidance


Adding an appropriate reference (121.195b) as shown below.


(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:

(a) Fifteen percent additional runway length is available over the landing field length specified for the destination airport by (14 CFR) § 121.195(b).


UPS believes the language in b (2) (a) is still a problem for when the landing data as required by 14 CFR 121.195(b) should be applied. UPS interprets the language, as it is currently written in section b, Limitation on the Use of Landing Minimums for Turbojet Airplanes, sub-section (2), line (a), that prior to approach, the PIC must apply the 115 percent of the runway field length as defined by 14 CFR part 121.195(b).  
UPS recommends that the language that is currently in the draft of C060 Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations, section c, Required Field Length and Special Operational Equipment and Limitations, be used as a model for this paragraph. This clarifies exactly when the 115 percent is to be applied and when the AFM limitations should be applied (with operational procedures and consideration to aircraft equipment status).


Status: Open

Draft opspec C054 has been posted for comment

Update from FAA Leads


12. C051: Terminal Instrument Procedures


FAA Lead:  

Industry Lead: Andy Newcomer


Issue Statement:

Update language in C051 due to JAR-OPS has been replaced with EU-OPS effective July 16, 2011



As per Commission Regulation (EC) No 859/2008 of August 20, 2008. See Official Journal of the European Union, September 9, 2008.

AFS 410 mentioned that a revision to this Ops Spec language is needed to update terminology PANS-OPS to EU-OPS.


As a side note, 051 may be combined with C052 in the future.


Intended Outcome:

Replace reference of JAR-OPS with that of EU-OPS.


Status: Open

Per Industry Lead Andy Newcomer: Through discussions with the FAA some thought should be given to removing C051 as the paragraph may not even be required anymore. If it is, the replacing JAR-Ops with EU-Ops will be no problem. The FAA may consider expanding it to include MIPS (Military Instrument Procedure Standard) and some langue to include “Any approach procedure approved by AFS-400.”




  1. A027 Land and Hold Short Operations (LAHSO)


FAA Lead: AFS 260

Industry Lead : Steve Kuhar


Issue Statement: OpSpec and 8900.1 language are inconsistent.


Background : Inconsistent or conflicting language is inviting confusion.

example: 8900 says “LAHSO is prohibited on contaminated runways”; however, the Op Spec says “LAHSO on wet runways is prohibited”. There’s a discrepancy in the windshear guidance also under LAHSO.


Intended Outcome:

Requesting clarification regarding this topic.


Status: AFS 260 researching

Update Requested








  1. A3XX. Utilization of a Weather Support for Deicing Decision Making (WSDDM) System


FAA Lead: Possible: Charles (Chuck) J Enders, Craig Botko, Warren Underwood, James (Jim) Riley


Industry Lead: Andy Newcomer, UPS


Issue Statement:

The accumulation of ice on aircraft prior to take off has long been recognized as one of the most significant safety hazards affecting the aviation industry today. As little as 0.08 mm of ice on a wing surface can increase drag and reduce airplane lift by 25%. Acutely aware of the impacts these icing hazards can have on aviation, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) began supporting ground de–icing research at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)*


To further the use of these systems the FAA and US Air Carriers should develop a means of authorization to use these systems where available. WSDDM system



The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has been working with the FAA, airlines, and airports focused on developing two new systems in support of Ground Deicing operations. The Liquid Water Equivalent (LWE) system combines a Hotplate and GEONOR snow gauge, a Vaisala PWD–22 precipitation type sensor, a Campbell freezing rain sensor, a Vaisala WXT wind, temperature, and humidity sensor, and a Decagon Leaf Wetness Sensor to estimate a real–time liquid water equivalent precipitation rate. This rate is a critical component of the Checktime System, a UCAR patented technology for aircraft ground deicing operations, that determines when deicing/anti-icing fluids applied to aircraft are close to failure based on temperature measurements and precipitation rates that are updated every minute from the LWE system. Checktime is aircraft independent and only requires the end user to know the time that the aircraft was deiced.

Liquid Water Equivalent: Definition:

The liquid content of solid precipitation that has accumulated on the ground (snow depth). The accumulation may consist of snow, ice formed by freezing precipitation, freezing liquid precipitation, or ice formed by the refreezing of melted snow.


Intended Outcome:

Develop a non-standard opspec which allows for use of these devices by interested industry participants as requested/desired by both FAA and Industry to demonstrate the system under an equivalent level of safety.


Status: Open for discussion.




15. Day Two – Closing Remarks