Source: http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/oswg/oswg%202010-01%20agenda.htm
Timestamp: 2018-02-20 13:48:33
Document Index: 129376842

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 121', 'art 129', 'art 121', 'art 135', 'art 121', 'arts 61', 'art 129', '§ 129', 'art 121', 'art 121']

OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) 2010-01
Tuesday, January 19: 1:00 PM-5:00 PM
Wednesday, January 20: 9:00 AM – NOON
Hosted by Amerijet, Miami, Florida
Wyndam Miami Airport
Tuesday, January 19, 2010—9:00 am – noon Industry Premeeting
Most items represented by the tables in the draft can be properly placed in other specs.
OSWG 2010-01
AmeriJet, Miami, FL
April 20 – 22, 2010
OSWG 2010-02
July 22 – 23, 2010
OSWG 2010-03
October 19 – 21, 2010
OSWG 2010-04
January 19 – 20, 2011
Chairpersons: U.S. Domestic
Steve Kuhar, FEDEX, Industry Chair
Meeting Location: Wyndam Miami Airport
Topic pg. Topic pg.
11. Stakeholder Survey 11
12. WebOPSS Update 11
3. A030 4
13. A008 11
4. A025 4
14. D091 11
5. A012 5
15. D172 12
6. B044 5
16. C384 13
7. B343 6
17. B036/B054 13
8. B342/344 B055 7
18. B032/B034/B035/C063 13
9. A061 8
19. A003 14
10. C052/C053/C074/C055 8
20. B050 14
21. C050 15
2a. NEW AGENDA ITEM: April OSWG 2010-02 sponsored by FAA, scheduled for Washington, DC.
2b. July OSWG – need a volunteer to host.
FAA is revising Order 8260.19 and Order 7400.2. When these are updated, FAA will finalize PL #98 through the MMEL IG.
See draft available on Op Spec.com > MMEL > Draft Comments > Policy Letters.
2d. OpSpec D085 and Special Flight Authorizations.
AFS-300 is reviewing the language in both the guidance and the template for D085 and A510 (Special Flight Authorization (SFA) for Ferry Flights).
2e. From AA: OpSpec A013, Operations Without Certain Emergency Equipment: Minimum altitude restriction of FL250 for limited overwater equipped aircraft probably dates to older aircraft. Can we re-analyze for modern aircraft capabilities?
May have been tied to: MEA for VHF voice/nav reception?
1. Glide distance?
2. DC-9 driftdown?
AFS-200 will research this.
2f. OpSpec C060, Category III Instrument Approach and Landing Operations.
FAA Lead : Mark Fox, AFS-410
AFS-410 plans a revision in 2010. FedEx has submitted initial comments indicating that the paragraphs stating the requirements for different RVR values (c1 – c4) should all indicate that an operator is issued the lowest authorization, and all higher RVR authorizations are also authorized based on operational equipment for that approach.
FedEx comments:
Currently OpSpec C060 provides “Required RVR Reporting Equipment” in paragraph c. There are four categories depending on the aircraft capability:
c(1) Fail-passive Landing Systems Not Using Rollout Control Systems
c(2) Fail-passive Landing Systems Using Rollout Control Systems
c(3) Fail-operational Landing Systems Using Fail-passive Rollout Control Systems
c(4) Fail-operational Landing Systems Using Fail-operational Rollout Control Systems
These are obviously from least capable to most capable, with c(1) being the least capable and c(4) being the most capable.
c(2), c(3) and c(4) all have a paragraph (c) that states: “Operations may be conducted in accordance with the RVR limitations set forth in subparagraph c(1).” This indicates that the higher capable aircraft can always use the lower RVR capability for the least capable aircraft, i.e., Fail-passive Landing Systems Not Using Rollout Control Systems.
Following this philosophy of allowing use of lower capable RVR requirements, it appears that paragraph (c) of paragraphs c(3) and c(4) should read: “Operations may be conducted in accordance with the RVR limitations set forth in subparagraph c(1) and c(2).
Either this, or paragraph (c) should be deleted from c(2), c(3) and c(4), with the assumption that an operator is always authorized to use a lower capability.
As an example. The newer Boeing products have three autopilots and are certified to Fail-operational Landing Systems Using Fail-operational Rollout Control Systems. However, if they have an autopilot and or autothrottles deferred, the aircraft is now a Fail-passive Landing System Using a Rollout Control System. The current wording of the OpSpec would lead one to believe that the only option if the Operator is authorized to utilize paragraph c(4), but loses the fail-operational landing capability, is to revert back to paragraph c(1). In reality, in this situation, the Operator should be able to utilize paragraph c(2).
3. A 030, Part 121 Supplemental Operations.
History: 2010-01
FAA Lead: Theo Kessaris, AFS-260; Dave Morton and Leo Hollis, AFS-220
There are approximately 66 A030 OpSpecs currently issued. Out of those 66, approximately 15 have nonstandard language which allows for additional authorizations. AFS-220 is seeking to rationalize the many versions of nonstandard text. To that end, AFS-220 and AFS-260 will work to create standard language that takes into account the different versions of nonstandard language in attempt to create a level playing field among operators and also to incorporate the recent legal interpretation regarding the carriage of the manual required by 121.139.
4. A025, Electronic Record Keeping Systems.
History: 2009-03
FAA Lead: AFS-260 – Theo Kessaris
Industry Lead: Casey Seabright, NWA, Jim Winkelman, Alaska Airlines
FAA is proposing to amend the A025 template include tables for specific approvals such as flight planning systems, training record repositories, and other electronic/software applications.
AFS-260 to brief.
A025 is generally considered to be a dumping ground for many assorted items.
Much of Industry’s concern regarding this OpSpec centers around Operators being required to list flight planning software applications, etc. in the OpSpec.
Industry believes that FAA’s concern (whether the software performs the intended task correctly?) will not be resolved by simply listing a software application number in the OpSpec.
The FAA intends ensure that certificate holder’s are using this OpSpec to list only those system specified in FAA Order 8900.79 and ACs 120.78 and 21.35 (electronic record keeping systems, electronic signatures and manuals). The FAA will work with certificate holders to remove any other electronic systems such as those that provide calculations.
In addition, after conferring with Headquarter Legal Council (AGC) the FAA (Flight Standards) has decided to create a new OpSpec as a method of granting authorization to certificate holders who use electronic systems as a means of compliance with regulations such as 121.645, 121.471 and 121.197, which require calculations of fuel, time and performance.
The FAA will establish this new OpSpec in accordance with 119.49(a)(14) and 119.49(b)(14).
Guidance and an Advisory Circular will also have to be developed to provide information to FAA and industry regarding the substantiation of systems that provide calculations and how a certificate holder obtains authorization to use those systems as well as what the FAA needs to know in order to grant that authorization.
NOTE: The update of A025 and the creation of the new OpSpec (A0xx?) will be delayed for at least 6 months due to the need for further coordination with AGC who has a very busy calendar due to current rule making projects.
5. A012, Domestic Operations to Certain Airports Outside the 48 Contiguous United States
History: 2009-04
FAA Lead: AFS-260 – Theo Kessaris, Leo Hollis, AFS-220, Gordy Rother MSP FSDO
Industry Lead: Mindy Waham, Alaska;
Alaska requests that the FAA remove limitation and provision (4) regarding the carrying of alternate airports from October 1 to May 1.
Current weather reports in the state of Alaska are as accurate as those obtained at destinations of similar size which are located in the lower ’48.
What is it about Alaska that makes the weather reports less reliable?
i. FAA responded by stating they would like to see “data” to substantiate the claim that the reports are just as reliable.
The OpSpec has been updated to replace the maximum 2hrs flight time from the territorial limits of the 48 Contiguous United States to a maximum distance of 2350nm or total flight time of 5 hours, which ever is the lesser. This change was prompted by an extensive review of the A012 paragraphs currently issued to certificate holders, which revealed lack of adherence to current guidance regarding the issuance of the OpSpec.
6. B044, Re-Dispatch
FAA Lead: Gordy Rother, MSP FSDO, Theo Kessaris and Leo Hollis, AFS-220
Background: Gordy has been reviewing B044. Currently B044 references Section 121.645(c) which should now be Section 121.645(f) . Subparagraph 8 in the OpSpec states that the certificate holder shall not conduct planned re-dispatch/re-release en route operations using fuel less than the fuel supplies required by the basic provisions of Section 121.645 , without a deviation. The reason carriers use B044 is to deviate from Section 121.645 en route reserves, specifically Section 121.645(b)(2) . A quick check in the OPSS deviation database only shows a deviation from Section 121.645(b) for B043. This should also be amended to allow for a deviation from Section 121.645(b)(2) (4) specifically and not from “1-4”.
B-044 is essentially finished but will still need a few adjustments from what is now currently on opspec.com.
Outstanding comments will be handled in the guidance materials rather than within the OpSpec.
Comments on the re-dispatch event:
There was ambiguity on whether you should upload a new flightplan to the flight deck for fuel burn based on actual weight.
At the re-dispatch point is there the minimum fuel need by FAR to continue?
Andy newcomer (UPS) has volunteered to review the proposed guidance.
More discussion will continue off line.
This OpSpec is not closed.
7. Final version of OpSpec along with guidance to be inserted in 8900.1 and an accompanying NOTICE posted on opspec.com
7. OpSpec B343, Fuel Reserves for Flag and Supplemental Operations
Industry Lead(s): Steve Kuhar, FedEx
The FAA and industry are looking at the European Union metrics for justifying a 3% fuel reserve.
Collection of useful and sufficient data is a major challenge.
B-343 is currently on indefinite hold.
FAA is not currently accepting any new applications for this spec.
FAA will look at the EU numbers to see if they are valid.
i. More Data is sought by FAA.
What fuel reserves do part 129 carriers use when operating in the U.S.?
i. Do they use EU fuel reserves or those amounts required by FAR?
FAA should define more clearly exactly what data is needed?
i. En route portion (top of climb to top of descent or CLASS II phase)
1. 121.647 fuel only applies from top of descent to landing.
FAA is willing to show all data that has been collected so far to any carrier who wishes to see it.
8. B342/344 ETOPS /B055, North Polar Operations
FAA Lead: Jim Ryan and Dennis Mills, AFS-220, Theo Kessaris, AFS-260
BACKGROUND: The previous B042 is now four separate Operations Specification templates. There are two for Part 121 and two for Part 135 Operations, based upon the number of engines the airplane has. They are non-standard OpSpecs and are numbered B342 for two-engine operations and B344 for operations with aircraft with more than two engines. A draft of these was briefed at the last two OSWGs and has been posted to the web site.
B042 will be discontinued and replaced by B342 and B343.
These four OpSpecs were previously presented with no apparent objection; with the exception of Aircraft Make/Model/Series being duplicated in both ETOPS OpSpecs and D086. This issue is covered in the instructions contained in the 8900.1. The applicable part of the handbook as previously reviewed and accepted by the OSWG.
Theo Kessaris has developed the Notice and 8900.1 guidance and the OpSpecs will be rolled as soon as the guidance has completed coordination. The guidance is currently in coordination and should be published soon.
B055, North Polar Operations. This OpSpec has been presented for comment on two previous occasions. The only item that was presented for discussion was paragraph (8) which requires airplanes be equipped with a minimum of two cold weather anti-exposure suits so that outside coordination at a diversion airport with extreme climatic conditions can be accomplished safety.
The rule gives some relief during those periods of the year when the seasonal temperature makes the equipment unnecessary. Without scientific data to stipulate a specific period of time when temperatures will remain above hazardous levels, this relief must be given on a case-by-case basis and not included in the operations specification.
This is an MEL item and should be pursued through that process. Since no further data has been presented, we have drafted 8900.1 guidance and are preparing to roll the OpSpec.
9. A061, Authorization To Use An Electronic Flight Bag
FAA Lead: Steve Morrison, AFS-400
Industry Lead(s): Jackson Seltzer, CO
Currently only requires Class 3 be listed. However, once the trial phase is completed for a Class 2 unit, it must also be listed in the Ops Spec. Where would this be listed? This needs to be added to the agenda for rewrite.
Update: A061 has been sent for FAA coordination. All Class 2 and Class 3 EFBs, as well as Class 1 with Type B software, will be listed in the table in A061. They need to be listed by model, not by individual unit (50 identical units need only be listed once to denote authorization for that model). The final version is on OpSpecs.com.
10. C052/C053/C074/C055, Basic Straight-in Non-Precision, APV, and Category I Precision Approach and Landing Minima– All Airports.
FAA Lead : Mark Fox, AFS-410, Cathy Majauskas, AFS-470
Industry Lead: Stanley Finch, Steve Bush
C052/C053/C074 will be merged.
8400.13D is closely related to these OpSpecs – signed on October 22, 2009.
Will need to explore avenues for reducing T/O minima at certain airports – C078/SMGCS to be addressed in 2010.
CURRENT OPSPEC C052 AND RELATED REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE.
ACTION/Outcome: AFS-470 is continuing to rewrite the Inspector guidance for OpSpec C052. The old Job Aid and Inspector guidance will be combined. We are not recommending a new Job Aid for this specific OpSpec.
The OpSpec will also change to include the requirement for GPS approaches during recurrent training, and clarification of RNP APCH (AR).
2. Explore possible specific deviation avenues to the rule thus allowing for operators to continue conducting GPS approach operations? Industry would like to arrange a meeting with FAA (possibly AFS-210/AFS-250) and anyone else concerned to talk through this issue and to explore possible resolutions
C052 guidance has been re-written to reference regulatory requirements and the requirements for training programs:
D. Crew Training and Qualification. Crew training and qualification for all authorized instrument approach operations should meet the requirements in Volume 3, Chapter 19, Training Programs and Airman Qualifications; AC 120-53 (as revised); Crew Qualification and Pilot Type Rating Requirements for Transport Category Aircraft Operated under FAR Part 121 ; 14 CFR parts 61 , 91 , 121 , 125 , 129 , and 135 ;; and Advanced Qualification Program requirements, if applicable.
AFS-210 will address recent comments from NBAA and Jet Logistics.
Other aspects of C052 discussed:
1. Inspector guidance for C052 currently is vague and confusing.
2. The OpSpec is being rewritten to reflect the requirement to sample all NP approach types.
C053/C074 Current
A revision to C074 should be available by the next meeting. The 15 knots will then only be a limitation below 1800 RVR. 1400 RVR requirements will be included in the initial draft.
Changes to the text that is currently in C053 will implement harmonized CDFA minima when procedures are produced based on TERPS 20 criteria.
1. The new draft should have the 15 knot crosswind limit removed for 1800 RVR (Reduced Precision CAT I landing Minima). The current C-052 draft appears to have this limitation removed.
2. A selectable will provide for 1400 RVR (Special Authorization CAT I).
3. New template will contain a visibility penalty for non-precision approaches if a Continuous Descent Final Approach (CDFA) technique is not used on non-precision approaches which have been recalculated using TERPS 20 criteria.
a. 1/8th for CAT A or B aircraft, or ¼ mile decrement for CAT C or D aircraft.
b. Lyle Wink briefed OSWG on this harmonization agreement in 2007.
C052 is in FAA coordination, expecting signature prior to April OSWG meeting.
OpSpec C055 issues:
C055 has been adjusted to state that one piece of concrete will suffice and this will align it to the ETOPS AC. We also modified the “Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums” table to align it with the ETOPS Alternate Minimum table, as recommended by the ETOPS ARAC. Several questions have been raised regarding the table. These items have been addressed and accepted by the OSWG and the template has been updated.
OpSpec C055 is in FAA coordination – expecting signature prior to April meeting.
11. 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.
12. WebOPSS Update. Bob Davis, AFS-260, to brief.
13. A008, Operational Control
Industry Lead: Mike Nickols, NBAA
The FAA is still working on the guidance to match the rule. A direct employee is not an agent for service, but someone who works for and is paid by the operator. This employee does not have to be full time.
The issue of what is a direct employee is addressed by InFO 08005:
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2008/info08005.pdf
CLOSE. Published as N8900.95, dated October 19, 2009.
14. D091, Substantial Maintenance and all other Outside Maintenance Providers
Published as N8900.102, dated November 25, 2009
15. D172 Incorporation of Aircraft Electrical Wiring Interconnection System Instruction for Continual Airworthiness Into the Operation’s Maintenance Program/ CAMP.
FAA Lead: Fred Sobeck, Tim Holt, AFS-300; Dr. Gary Layton, AFS-50
Industry Lead: Tom Taylor FedEx
Part 129 , § 129.111 require that operators of transport aircraft with a type certificate (TC) issued after 1958 and a seating capacity of 30 or more seats or a max payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or more incorporate inspections and procedures for the electrical wiring interconnection systems (EWIS) into their maintenance programs by March 10, 2011.
The EAPAS/FTS rule requires that operators must submit EWIS maintenance program changes and any later EWIS revisions to the principal inspector (PI) for review and approval. The PI will approve the EWIS maintenance program changes, which include the operator’s initial incorporation and any revisions, on OpSpec D071. Guidance for both principal maintenance inspectors (PMI) and principal avionics inspectors (PAI) to determine operator compliance is contained in Order 8900.1, volume 6, chapter 11, section 24, Evaluate/Inspect Part 121 and 129 Operators’ Electrical Wiring Interconnection System Instructions for Continued Airworthiness/Revisions. The FAA will publish draft Advisory Circular (AC) 120-EAPAS, Incorporation of Electrical Wiring Interconnection Systems Instructions for Continued Airworthiness into an Operator’s Maintenance Program, as a method of compliance for operators.
Status: in coordination.
AFS-300 to brief.
16. C384, Required Navigation Performance Procedures with Special Aircraft and Aircrew Authorization Required.
FAA Lead: Cathy Majauskas, AFS-470
There seems to be some inconsistencies with the limitations in Table 1. Some carriers have a limitation on RPAT / RPA approaches, while others don't have any limitations. Some of the early obtainers of this opspec were given limitations that were not given to later applicants as the guidance material changed over time as RNP SAAAR developed.
Bob Davis said to apply to POI to remove limitations. The current limitations that we have are selectables in the new system.
There is no guidance on what is required of a carrier to remove the limitation(s).
It appears that the first carriers that applied for it have the limitations while others that were a couple of years later do not. By then the draft AC 90-RNP was replaced by AC 90-101 and it did not mention RPA or RPAT so Nothing was limited in the OpSpec.
As the industry lead in RNP it seems odd that Alaska has limitations that Other carriers do not (Continental, American). Did they provide anything additional in their original applications that we would need to refer to in an request to amend ours?
N8900.99 was published. However, FAA still working on details of releasing OpSpec template and 8900.1 Handbook guidance.
17. B036/B054, IFR Class II Navigation Using Long-Range Navigation Systems (LRNS)
FAA Lead: Cathy Majauskas, AFS-470, Mark Fox, AFS-410
Industry Lead(s): OJ Treadway, AA
Discussion: AFS-470 is in the process of combining OpSpecs B036 and B054 to make a new B036 – IFR Class II Navigation Using Long-Range Navigation Systems (LRNS). Work continues with this effort.
From AA: Para b.(4) of B036 requires position check using airways nav facilities or ATC radar prior to entering Class II airspace. I believe this is an outdated requirement from the days of LORAN and OMEGA. Modern GPS navigation systems are much more accurate than either ground navaids or ATC radar. It doesn’t make sense to fix a position using less accurate methods.
18. B032/B034/B035/C063, IFR Class I Terminal and En Route Navigation Using Area Navigation Systems
FAA Lead: Cathy Majauskas, AFS-470 , Mark Fox, AFS-410
DISCUSSION: AFS-470 was in the process of combining OpSpec B034, B035, and C063 to make a new B034 – IFR Class I Navigation Using Area Navigation (RNAV) Systems. An intermediate step was necessary to update B034 with the addition of RNAV 5. This is in coordination now and we will continue with the combining of the three OpSpecs when the new B034 is published.
The FAA wants to combine all RNP into two groups: B034/B035/C063 all with class I, and Class II B036/B054. This would group into a nav class. Steve Bush will work with the FAA on this.
The intent is to combine all en route and terminal RNAV opspecs into possibly just two:
19. A 003, Airplane/Aircraft Authorization.
FAA Lead: Jack Pinto, AFS-260
Industry Lead: Jim Winkelman, Alaska Airlines
Changes to guidance to clarify demonstrated seats versus certificated seats.
A draft is posted on OpSpecs.com and it is ready for internal FAA coordination.
Jack Pinto to brief.
20. B050, Authorized Areas of En Route Operations, Limitations, and Provisions.
FAA Lead: Jack Pinto, John Blair, AFS-260
Industry Lead(s): Chuck Schramek, Delta
The B050 areas of en route authorization were reorganized for the new WebOPSS application. The areas of en route authorization have been consolidated, reducing the number of areas from 73 in OPSS/IOPSS to 33 areas in WebOPSS.
· Sample of the WebOPSS B050 showing all available areas attached
· Listing of countries within each area attached
· Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 18 being updated to reflect the reorganized areas.
The B050 WebOPSS area redesign is complete. Draft Notice, Order 8900.1 guidance and sample B050 template is in coordination with AFS-140. The following draft documents are posted on Opspec.com for comment;
B050 Notice
Listing of Countries in associated Authorized Area (available in WebOPSS guidance tab)
Sample part 121 B050 template
Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 18, Section 4 guidance. Notable changes to the guidance are:
Each authorized area is referenced and includes a short explanation of the area, Headquarters approval requirements, Navigation Specialist requirements, Applicable 14 CFR parts, required reference paragraphs, optional reference paragraphs, and special notes.
A Table for ETOPS validation testing requirements.
A new paragraph called “Adding Areas with Limited FAA Oversight” (Added by AFS-250).
Note: These draft documents are also available for reference in WebOPSS under guidance tab.
21. C050, Special PIC Qualification Airports—14 CFR Section 121.445 Airport List Review & Recommendation of OSWG to AFS-220:
FAA Lead: Dave Morton, AFS-220
Current list is dated July 2009.
Dave Morton, AFS-220, indicated that this will be finished soon.