Source: http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/oswg/oswg%20minutes%202012-02.htm
Timestamp: 2018-10-21 03:30:41
Document Index: 485095440

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 129', 'art 129', 'art 121', 'art 97', 'art 97', 'art 121', 'art 121', 'art 121', 'art 129', 'art 135', 'arts 121', 'art 129', 'art 121', 'art 129', 'art 121', 'art 135', 'art 121', 'art 129', 'art 121', 'art 121', 'art 129', 'art 129', 'art 121', 'art 121', 'art 129', 'art 6', 'art 11', 'art 129', 'arts 121', 'art 121', 'art.\n2', 'art 129', 'art 129', 'art 129', 'art 23', 'art 25', 'art 91', 'art 129', 'art 129', 'art 129', 'art 129', 'art 91', 'art 121', 'art 121']

FAA/Aviation Industry Meeting Minutes from
Ops Spec Working Group (OSWG) 2012-02
April 17th and 18th , 2012
* Tues. Apr. 17th, 2012 - 9:00 am - noon Domestic Industry Pre-meeting
Wednesday, April 18th : 9:00 AM - NOON - Joint Session
Wednesday, April 18th : 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM – International Session
IFO/IFU/SEA FSDO Representatives to the Part 129 OSWG: David Krueger (DFW IFO), Dave Henthorn (LAX IFO), Rolfe Dinwoodie and Bob Bianco (ROC and ALB IFU), Herbert H. Herzog III, W. Scott Schweizer and Patrick Crowley (ANC IFU), J.J. (MIA IFO), Robert L. Jaffe (NY IFO), and David May (SEA FSDO)
Operators for whom the U.S. is The State of the Operator
Foreign (Non U.S.)
Air Carriers & Persons
Operators for whom the
The State of the Operator
2. WebOPSS Update
2. Ops Specs B034, B035,
3a Ops Spec C050
3. ICAO Register of AOCs
3. Ops Spec D092
3b. Ops Spec C050
4. EASA third country operators
4. Ops Spec B039
4. Ops Spec A010
5. Ops Spec A029
5. Ops Spec B046
5. Ops Spec C081
6. Ops Specs A003/C091
6. Part 129 Rulemaking
6. Ops Spec C073
7. Ops Spec D301 Update
7. Ops Spec A001 (129.14 template)
7. Ops Spec C054
8. Ops Spec C063
8. Ops Specs A006
(agent for service in US)
8. Ops Spec A001
9. Ops Spec C055
9. Ops Spec C054
9. Ops Spec A025
10. Ops Spec C059
10. Ops Specs A036 & A040
10. Ops Spec B343
11. Ops Spec C051
11. Ops Specs C056 & C057
11a. Ops Spec C300
12. Ops Spec C067
12. Ops Specs C075
11b. Ops Spec C300
13. Ops Spec A027
13. Ops Specs B051 & B056
12. Ops Spec B041
14. A3XX (WSDDM)
14. Ops Spec B031
13. Ops Spec D081
15. Ops Spec B046
15. Ops Spec A028
14. Ops Spec D084
16. B046
16. Ops Spec C060
15. Ops Specs B036/B054
17. FSIMS, and faa.gov, and Federal Register subscriptions
16. Ops Spec A117
17. NOT an Ops Spec S400
18. Day 1 Closing Remarks
17 April 2012 1- 4:30pm
1. Convening Administrative Remarks
Casey Seabright, Industry Chairperson: A copy of this meeting’s Roster will be sent in a separate electronic file to all those on the OSWG email distribution list. If you did not attend and wish to be on the roster, please contact the applicable FAA or industry chairperson. (Default: Rich.Yuknavich@aa.com ).
2. Convening Chairperson’s Remarks
Bob Davis, FAA Chairperson thanked the Navy Memorial staff for their support. Bob also thanked all the out-of-towers for traveling to D.C. He mentioned that having the meetings permanently in D.C. permits more FAA headquarters. Bob recognized the increased expense to carriers and CMO/FSDO members, and hoped that participants tried to save hotel expenses by staying in Crystal City or Alexandria.
3a. C050: Special Pilot-in-command Qualification Airports (KMMH)
Meeting Discussions: Steve Bush described details of his on-site airport assessment. Please contact Steve if you have specific questions.
3b. C050: Special Pilot-in-command Qualification Airports (BAIR)
FAA Lead: Bob Davis, AFS-260 Industry Lead:
Add Akureyri, Iceland (BAIR) to the Special Pilot-In-Command Qualification list maintained by AFS-200 in association with C-050.
Above proposal is in process. Bob Davis reminded industry reps that proposals to remove upgraded airports are also part of the Ops Spec C050 process.
Industry Lead: Casey Seabright, Delta
As of the last meeting in January 2012, most of the draft guidance was e-mailed to OSWG members for review. The guidance is still being formatted and will hopefully be ready for posting on the FAA public site on or about the time of the April 2012 OSWG meeting.
If formatting isn’t complete in time for the meeting, we will email the OSWG members when we have posted everything to the public site for final comment. Bob Davis reported that the changes are in the final AFS-1 signature process.
The question was asked why a separate table item was necessary for severe weather notification and forecasting. Leo Hollis stated that the requirement is set forth in 14CFR121.101 but there has not been a tracking mechanism in the Ops Spec.
Intended Outcome: After template and guidance publication certification by POIs or dispatch inspectors should not be onerous.
Theo Kessaris;
FAA Lead: Kel Christiansen, AFS-470
Kel Christiansen sounded positive about a final assessment from legal soon. .
Kel Christiansen
6. C073: IFR Approach Procedures Using Vertical Navigation (VNAV)
Industry Lead: Joe Devito
Kel Christianson reminded those carriers with fleets NOT equipped with VNAV but using CDFA procedures (Constant Descent Final Approach) that they must still add 50 feet to the published MDA.
AFS 470 plans to post draft on web site for comment
Kel Christianson AFS-470
7. C054: Special Limitations and Provisions for Instrument Approach Procedures and
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.
Bryant Welch stated that the proposed draft is posted on the draft document website:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/opspecs/
The changed text is as follows:
Bryant said he would entertain suggested language that harmonizes with recent Ops Spec C060 revision.
UPS (Steve Kuhar) 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).
Similar concerns were voiced by John Cowan of United.
Bryant Welch said he would consider all comments concerning the draft change to the Ops Spec,
Remove ambiguity in the current Ops Spec concerning which CFR language is “Appropriate”.
Satisfy industry concerns about application of 14CFR121.195 (b).
Send comments concerning draft proposal to Bryant Welch
8. A001: Issuance and Applicability
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. The carrier 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.
Bob Davis researching remedy. The focus now is to determine if additional or revised 8900.1 guidance will provide a solution short of CFR changes.
Allow for some reasonable flexibility in application of the rules.
9. 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 digital document or program 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.
Mike Keller:, American: In past discussions, requested a very generic high level approach to recording recordkeeping since new technology virtually requires electronic recordkeeping for most processes.. The technology, stability, and reliability are no longer in question and should become accepted (at some level) as the norm.
Steve Kuhar, FEDEX, suggested a separate Ops Spec for electronic manuals or allowing a general authorization for electronic manuals without requiring a specific Ops Spec listing for each new manual. Eventually all manuals will only be electronic.
Casey Seabright, Delta, (OSWG Chair) volunteered to work with Jim Winkleman, Alaska, and Theo Kessaris to draft guidance proposals.
Possible teleconference discussions.
FAA: Theo Kessaris
Industry: Casey Seabright;
10. B343: Fuel Reserves for Flag and Supplemental Operations.
Carriers which have not been issued Ops Spec B343 (All except two have not) are frustrated at the extremely slow pace of progress in expanding the option to more carriers.
Ops Spec 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) highly publicized low fuel event caused the FAA some concern. Hence, for now the FAA will not consider allowing less than a 5% fuel reserve and, is not granting any new approvals.
The FAA would like to table this issue until ICAO performance parameters are agreed upon.
Steve Kuhar, FEDEX, expressed frustration at linking additional approval to a slow ICAO process.
John Cowan, United, and Rich Yuknavich, American, asked for and received confirmation that their carrier track records using five percent authority has been excellent
PBM Fuel Reserves availability for all US carriers
Review draft Annex 6 and comment through IATA or ATA.
Industry provide feedback to chairpersons on whether to temporarily table this issue.
FAA: Gordy Rother, Dave Burnham, Leo Hollis
Industry: Steve Kuhar,
Casey Seabright, Andy Newcomer
11a. C300: Part 97 NDB, NDB/DME, VOR, and VOR/DME Instrument Approach
Procedures Using Substitute Means of Navigation
Industry Leads : Jim Winkleman, Rich Yuknavich, Jackson Seltzer
John Swigart 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
See Item 11b
Awaiting completion of FAA Ops Safety Assessment
Jim Winkleman, Rich Yuknavich, Jackson Seltzer
11b. C300: Part 97 NDB, NDB/DME, VOR, and VOR/DME Instrument Approach
Industry Leads : John Cowan
There is confusion as to if a reference in C300 to “an alternate airport” is intended to include ETOPS and Takeoff Alternates (which was never the intent).
C300 was developed to provide standard methodology for authorizing NAVAID sub procedure for approach operations. The current template is unclear as to the specific type of alternate airports for which its limitations apply.
General industry satisfaction with small gain in flexibility.
Clarify the Ops Spec reference to read “a destination alternate airport” as shown below:
(11) These procedures may not be used for planning purposes at a destination alternate airport unless the operator conducts these operations with RNAV equipment using WAAS as an input
12. B041 North Atlantic Operations with Two-Engine Airplanes Under Part 121
FAA Lead: Gordy Rother Industry Lead: Steve Kuhar
Issue Statement: There is industry opinion that B041 needs to be revised greatly or actually archived.
An FAA representative mentioned that Ops Spec B041 is needed if for no other reason than to keep track of how many carriers are using non-ETOPS planning for the North Atlantic. With upcoming changes in the CPCLD and ADS-B environment such carrier tracking is critical
To determine: Is the To determine: Is the Ops Spec relevant to operations today?
relevant to operations today?
Gordy Rother
Steve Kuhar
13. D81: Parts Pool Agreement Authorization
FAA Leads: TBD AFS 300
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?
There was no AFS-300 representation at this meeting.
Rich Yuknavich, American, mentioned that, for each listed airport that is also a C050 PIC Special, they list the C050 issues and mitigation strategies, then address C081 special procedures and finally differentiate any other unique issues. This avoids confusion about which mitigation strategies apply.to which Ops Spec. Perhaps a combined Ops Spec would be work better, but it would be fairly long.
Determine if parts borrowing falls under the authority of parts pooling.
Ongoing FAA Research
Mike Keller;
Rich Yuknavich
14. D084 Special Flight Permit with Continuous Authorization to Conduct Ferry Flights
Industry Lead : Tom Taylor, FedEx Express
Ops Spec 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.
Ops Spec 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.
14 CFR 21.197 Special flight permits, item (c) allows certificate holders with a D084 Ops Spec 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 Ops Spec, to be issued to a base where repairs, alterations, or maintenance are to be performed or to a point of storage. Within the D084 Ops Spec 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 Ops Spec 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.
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.
- 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 Ops Spec c 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?
15. B036/B054: Class II Navigation
FAA Lead: Madison Walton Industry Lead: John Cowan
Both of these Ops Specs include the same provision in paragraph b. (4) which refers to a required gross navigation error check using an “airways navigation facility”:
(4) Prior to entering any airspace requiring the use of a 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.
GPS is understood to be an accepted “airways navigation facility” and as such, a clarification is needed to prevent misunderstandings. Additionally, while Ops Spec 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.
Since a job aid for an Ops Spec should not contain provisions, limitations or requirements that are not also contained in the Ops Spec, the B036 job aid should be revised to match the Ops Spec:
Meeting Discussions: Madison Walton, presented the verbiage below as a strawman for future discussion about revisions to B036/054:
(b) After exiting this airspace, the airplane position shall be accurately fixed and the LRNS error shall be determined and logged in accordance with the operator's approved procedures. An arrival gate position check satisfies this requirement.
For aircraft with GPS/GNSS or DME/DME automatic position updating, no exit position fix is required unless there is an indication of FMS system malfunction.
John Cowan, United, strongly urged that the related Ops Spec Job Aids and Advisory Circulars be amended also:
Intended Outcome: Update Coast-out/Coast-In procedures to reflect advances in navigation systems and still account for carriers with older equipment.
Provide comments to FAA Leads concerning the proposed Ops Spec verbiage and related guidance suggestions.
16. A117 Fatigue Risk Management
FAA Lead: Dale Roberts Industry Lead: TBD
Ops Spec 117 will become effective concurrent with effective dates of Rulemaking. There are three associated Advisory Circulars: AC 117-3 Fitness for Duty; AC117-2 Fatigue Training, and AC 117-1 Onboard Crew rest Facilities.
With the issuance and impending compliance date of the new regulations, it is imperative to provide guidance and implementation documents.
Meeting Discussions: Dale Roberts was not in attendance.
To develop information for both industry and FAA to implement the provisions of the regulation.
AC 117 -1 Onboard Crew Rest Facilities is posted on the draft document website.
Action Items: Industry submit comments on the draft AC 117-1
17. S400: CAST Safety Enhancements
Monty Montgomery, United; Rich Yuknavich, American; Mike Davis, U.S. Airways ABCDE
20. Chairperson’s Closing Remarks
No substantive remarks
Joint, (U.S. Domestic and International), Session
April 18, 9am – 12:30pm
Casey Seabright, (U.S Domestic Industry Chairperson), and Brian Miles (International Industry Chair), provided brief opening/welcoming remarks to all attendees. The international roster was sent around the room.
Casey Seabright,: A copy of this meeting’s Roster will be sent in a separate electronic file to all those on the OSWG email distribution list. If you did not attend and wish to be on the roster, please contact the applicable FAA or industry chairperson. (Default: Rich.Yuknavich@aa.com).
Self Introductions – all. [ Japan Airlines (All Nippon Airways CO., LTD), Avianca – Columbia, Antonov, Aer Lingus, Bahamas Air, Biman Bangladesh, Air Canada, Emirates, China Southern Airlines, China Airlines, Quantas, LAN, Volga-Dnepr, Russian Air Bridge Cargo, Delta, Fedex, United, UPS, Alaska, Net Jets, AmeriJet International, Inc., Southwest, …….. IATA, EASA, NBAA, ALPA, Hogan and Hartson, Alford, Clausen& McDonald, LLC, FAA subject matter experts from Flight Standards divisions (AFS-50, AFS-200, AFS-300, AFS-400..), FAA legal (AGC-200), IFO/IFU representatives (Miami, NY, Anchorage, ROC and ALB)….]
FAA Lead: Bob Davis AFS-260
Next program enhancement to the WebOPSS system should be implemented no later than the end of May. There will be three new features:
1. The effective date can be made to be different from the date on which the first digital signature was transcribed.
2. The system will be Internet Explorer 9 compatible.
3. There will be the capability to create a reports function output that contains all the information that the ICAO format Ops Spec synopsis contains.
FAA Lead: Danuta Pronczuk, Bob Davis
Industry Leads: Henry Defalque, International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO
Jeff Miller, Susan Pfingstler IATA
Progress report on developments of an International Register of AOCs.
(Update for the briefing was provided/coordinated with International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO).
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 of 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 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)
Susan Pfingstler, IATA, provided an update to the group on the latest developments. Testing on going. The plan is to progressively add more member States so as not to overwhelm the system. Brian Miles added that Emirates scheduled to have their information uploaded shortly.
Henry Defalque also provided the following update via e-mail on 04 03 2012:
The software application is under test by ICAO IT people and some States and should be migrated to ICAO servers by mid-April. Testing is thus on-going, including an XTML exchange system for uploads. ICAO will normally open the access to more and more States as the application is maturing with full access normally scheduled by end of summer.
The second Phase is being worked upon with IATA and ICAO developers. This will gradually accept more documents uploaded by the operator. If the document is not in English, the operator has all to gain to provide a translation in English.
The search engine will be developed with users’ inputs. Guessing that the documents will be held in a series of standard directories such as: Insurance, flight operations documents, …
Q. John Cowan, United asked what is the target date for final implementation.
A. No estimate at this time.
Elimination of requirement to carry onboard each aircraft, a copy of all the certificating country Operations Specifications or a synopsis of the Ops Specs in the ICAO format.
Danuta Pronczuk, Bob Davis Monica G.
Arthur stated that the reason that EASA is pursuing this assessment methodology is that they have issues with the current international assessment methodologies;
USOAP is too limited in scope
The IOSA program is limited to assessment of individual airlines and does not address the soundness of the national civil aviation authority.
For most carriers and countries the assessment would be little more than a desktop review. The next more involved level is detailed consultation and audits. The most demanding assessment methodology would be on-site visits by inspection teams. There may be assessment fees involved with the initial application and renewal, (flat fee estimated at $1500 euros for fast track review, or an h ourly rate). There is provision in the EU law for charging fees for such assessments. There is also the possibility that the cost of these assessments will be born by the EU taxpayers, no cost to the third country operator.
The question was asked whether the rumor that EASA would be issuing pilot licenses is true. Mr. Beckland stated that it was not true.
Brian Miles of Emirates asked what the carrier certification fees would be. No estimate. Brian also asked if an operator has a place of business in EU would that exclude the operator from the third country requirement. Arthur said that since it would not be the principle place of business then no, the operator would still have to comply with the third country requirements.
Monitor status. Update at the Oct. 17th 2012 meeting.
John Masters, Darcy Reed, Danuta Pronczuk
5. A029: Aircraft Interchange Agreement for Part 121
FAA Lead: David Catey (AFS-200) for Part 121; Danuta Pronczuk for Part 129; Larry Buehler for part 135
Industry Lead: Rich Carpenter
Authorizes parts 121, 135 and Part 129 to use aircraft interchange agreements with other operators , and foreign air carriers.
Danuta Pronczuk: The associ ated guidance that goes with this OpSpecs has undergone significant revision. AFS-50 is waiting on final formal coordination comments from the office of chief counsel. Final comments are expected in the next couple of weeks. The OpSpec is expected to be rolled out before October 18th 2012.
Correction to definition of primary operator to all templates, the addition of aircraft serial number and registration to the Part 121 template, corrections to the OpSpec references in all templates, and corrections to inspector guidance.
Danuta Pronczuk (Part 129)
David Catey (Part 121)
Larry Buehler (Part 135)
Rich Carpenter (Part 121 and 135)
6. A003/C091: Airplane Authorization/Operational Requirements Airplane Design
Industry Lead: David Oliver (Part 129)
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..
New Ops Spec language for Part 121, revised Ops Spec language for Part 129
(To incorporate the B-747-8 requirements)
Danuta Pronczuk and David Henthorn (Part 129); Jerry Ostronic (Part 121)
Rich Carpenter (part 121); David Oliver (part 129)
7. D301: Aircraft Network Security Program (ANSP)
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.
 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
 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.
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.
Meeting Discussions: Rochelle Brisco was not able to attend.
Danuta briefly reviewed the reason for the new OpSpecs, (the lack of a physical partition between avionics and passenger electronics, the ability to order parts wirelessly poses security risks), and the regu latory basis for the OpSpecs (14 CFR 21 section 21.16, and 14 CFR part 11, section 11.19).
Danuta also gave the group an update based on the latest update (April 13th) received from Rochelle. For Part 129 significantly a correction has been made by AFS-360 clarifying that OpSpec D301 applied only to US registered aircraft. For parts 121, 121/135,125 and 129 section 129.14, the update is as follows: FAA formal coordination comments have been disposed of by AFS360, the document is back at AFS-140 who is working on making the changes as disposed of by AFS-360, after which time the document is expected to go for signature….The OpSpec may be expected to be rolled out before the October 17 th meeting. Special conditions have been published in the Federal Register for the B 747-8, A-380, and B 787. Aircraft Certifications is working on special conditions for the A-320 and G-650.
An Ops Spec 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.
Rochelle Brisco
8. C063: IFR RNAV 1 Departure Procedures (DP) and
Standard Terminal Arrivals (STAR)
Industry Lead: Rich Yuknavich
For those carriers concerned about crews mistakenly flying a not-yet-authorized RNAV RNP-1 SID/STAR, not to worry, there are none published yet, These procedures will start out as ”private” approaches requiring an Ops Spec C081 listing. After a year of so testing the procedures will probably revert to public.
John recommends cross checking the AC90-105 Compliance Table for your aircraft’s RNAV RNP capabilities. GPS is required for RNP-1 approval. DME/DME systems are sometimes accurate enough but there are nav accuracy alerting issues without GPS.
Carriers which already have RNAV/RNP approach authorization, C384, should cite that approval in their application for RNP-1 approval.
9. C055: Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums.
FAA Lead: John Swigart, AFS-470 Industry Lead: Jim Winkleman, Andy Newcomer
Unmonitored NAVAIDS are a problem for industry and may be having an effect on reliability of service, especially for longer haul operations .
Meeting Discussions: John Swigart FAA AFS-470
John mentioned that the relevant Advisory Circular 0000-00 is going to be revised to harmonize with AC120-42B ETOPS requirements .
Several Industry representatives expressed frustration at the proliferation of unmonitored NAVAIDS which often renders reasonable distance alternate airports unusable. Additional angst is generated by the delay in authorizing what appears to be an obvious mitigation strategy: the use of RNAV/GPS or RNAV/RNP or Ops Spec C300 overlay GPS approaches.
One suggestion advanced was the adoption of Canadian model whereby GPS approaches can be used for either destination or alternate minimums but not both.
There was general industry agreement that John Swigart is a stalwart FAA professional in weathering industry displeasure at this issue which is recognized to be beyond his immediate control.
Action Items: Coby Johnson AFS-410 still wants to be made aware of any unmonitored or out-of-service NAVAIDS that are impacting use of ILS approaches at destination or alternate airports.
Jim Winkleman, Andy Newcomer
10. C059: Category II Instrument Approach and Landing Operations
FAA Lead: TBD Industry Lead: Steve Kuhar
The charting requirement to have the statement “Category II ILS – Special Aircrew & Aircraft Certification Required" is superfluous and unneeded.
If it is critical to alert a flight crew that the approach chart is to be used only by special aircrew why not also alert the pilot that “only instrument rated pilots are authorized”, or for that matter “only used by licensed pilots”. This is an unreasonable charting requirement which only serves to clutter the chart.
Bryant Welch stated that thought the note was more for General Aviation pilots.
Is it possible to include verbiage in future C059 and C060 allowing Part 121/135 carriers to tailor CAT II & III charts to eliminate this note?
Meeting Discussions: This is more appropriate for the Charting Forum.
Intended Outcome: Remove the requirement for this chart notation
11. C 051: Terminal Instrument Procedures.
FAA Lead: TBD Industry Lead: Andy Newcomer
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.
Action Items: Open
FAA Leads: Gordy Rother, Scott Stacy
Industry Lead : Jim Winkleman
A survey of the issued C067s shows that there is extreme variability in the content of the Ops Spec, even among carriers using similar destination airports.
There was a proposal to combine C050/C081/C067 since they all concern special situations.
Provide an easy-to-use table format, and more specific guidance about content.
Gordy Rother, Scott Stacy
13. A027: Land and Hold Short Operations (LAHSO)
Ops Spec and 8900.1 language are inconsistent
Inconsistent or conflicting language is inviting confusion.
Status: Bob Davis: Inspector Guidance revised. Reviewing all other guidance for additional inconsistencies. AFS 260 researching
Requesting clarification regarding this topic
14 A3XX. Utilization of a Weather Support for Deicing Decision Making (WSDDM)
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 A3XX indicates one approach, a “300” series, FAA HQ approval level Ops Spec. Carriers affected would be 121, 125/135
LWE, Liquid Water Equivalent: Definition :
Meeting Discussions: Most of the assembled FAA inspectors did not see a need for a separate Ops Spec.
The Air Canada representative stated that Transport Canada is enthusiastic about these devices and is deploying then rapidly.
Either develop a new Ops Spec or develop standard, non-standard verbiage in the current deicing Ops Spec which would allow 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.
Charles (Chuck);
J Enders, Craig Botko,
Warren Underwood, James (Jim) Riley
15. B046 Operations in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) Airspace
ICAO issued and the U.S. adopted a recurring aircraft Fleet accuracy assessment process.
REDUCED VERTICAL SEPARATION MINIMUM (RVSM) MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
1. The height-keeping performance of aircraft is a key element in ensuring the safe operations of RVSM airspace. The RVSM monitoring standards established in paragraph 3 are considered the minimum requirement needed to maintain the safety of operations in RVSM designated airspace.
2. In conjunction with internationally agreed upon changes to ICAO Annex 6, Operation of Aircraft, Parts I & II, applicable on 18 November 2010, the following standard and recommended practice was adopted by ICAO:
Operators, that have been issued an U.S. RVSM approval, shall ensure that a minimum of two airplanes of each [RVSM] aircraft type grouping of the operator have their height-keeping performance monitored, at least once every two years or within intervals of 1,000 flight hours per airplane, whichever period is longer. If an operator aircraft type grouping consists of a single airplane, monitoring of that airplane shall be accomplished within the specified period.
RVSM LONG TERM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
1. The Federal Aviation Administration will implement the standard above for RVSM Monitoring requirements. Operators that have been issued an U.S. RVSM authorization will be required to conduct initial monitoring within six months of date of issue and must conduct monitoring every two years or within intervals of 1,000 flight hours per aircraft, whichever period is longer, in accordance with the aircraft categories as presented in the current version of the (North American) RVSM Minimum Monitoring Requirements chart.
2. The RVSM Minimum Monitoring Requirements chart is coordinated with the North American Approvals Registry and Monitoring Organization (NAARMO) and updated periodically to reflect changes in aircraft data. The RVSM Minimum Monitoring Requirements Chart is posted to the FAA RVSM Webpage in documentation section “Monitoring Requirements/Procedures”.
1. The Monitoring requirements become applicable on 18 May 2011 and operators have until 18 Nov 2012 to comply. Download info and relay to your POI..
North America RVSM Reports Website:
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/separation_standards/naarmo/rvsm_approvals/
Carriers connected to OSWG; get connected to above site for RVSM test data.
Casey Seabright, U.S. Industry Chair, announced proposal to hold the next joint meeting on October 16-17, 2012. (Tuesday-Wednesday). This so as not to interfere with elections. Brian Miles, Part 129 Industry Chair, thought that the date was good, did not see any conflict for international. No objections from the floor. Both FAA Chairs agreed to the proposed date, to aim for October 16-17th 2012. Bob announced the availability of the Asiatic Fleet Room for any additional discussions. Danuta confirmed the start of the international session.
April 18, 1:30pm – 5:00pm
2. Ops Spec B034, B035: IFR Class I En Route Navigation Using Area Navigation
Systems and Class I Navigation in the U.S. Class A Airspace Using
Area or Long-Range Navigation Systems
Ops Spec B034 does not apply to part 129, needs to be decommissioned. Ops Spec B035 needs further review. RNAV below 18000 feet not addressed in B035. Do we need Q – route identified?
B034 designed for US operators operating in Europe. Last meeting decided to decommission B034.
Reviewed revised draft OpSpec B035, (amended to incorporate RNAV below 18000 feet, rewritten to plain language…). Once the draft B035 completes preordination it will be posted for comment, expected in the next couple of months.
New revision to OpSpec B035 and the decommissioning of OpSpec B034
Post draft for comment, develop guidance, and initiate formal coordination.
Mike Frank, Rolfe Dinwoodie
Capt. Harold Cardona Henao
3. Ops Spec D092: Maintenance Program Approval for U.S. Registered Airplanes
FAA Lead: Danuta Pronczuk, and Madison Walton
Industry Lead: N/A
Maintenance function relating to MNPS and RNP needs to be covered in D Ops Specs. Need to also cover B-RNAV and P-RNAV for US registered aircraft.
Preliminary draft reviewed at the November 2011 OSWG meeting.
Danuta and Madison reviewed draft OpSpec D092 changes since last meeting. The updated draft was posted for comment at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/129opspecs/
Comments due 07/11/2012. Proposal from the floor to rename the OpSpec from “Maintenance Program – U.S. Registered Airplanes” to “Continuous Airworthiness Program – U.S. registered (dry lease)”. Reason = annex 8, continuous airworthiness, and to prevent any confusion if the U.S. registered aircraft was operated under a wet lease agreemement. Danuta took IOU to review proposal.
Danuta Pronczuk, and Madison Walton
4. B039: Operations in North Atlantic Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications
(NAT/MNPS) Airspace with U.S. Registered Airplanes
FAA Lead: Madison Walton and Danuta Pronczuk
Can we decommission? Is subparagraph b (4) is part of aircraft certification and therefore not necessary to be carried over to D092 as selectable text.
At the November 2011 OSWG meeting reviewed the proposed change and regulatory references.
Subparagraph b (4) is not part of aircraft certification, needs/was carried over to D092 as selectable text. The revised A003 takes out the B039 and MNPS references. Reason – MNPS is outside the U.S., we do not issue OpSpec A003 to Part 129 section 129.14, our responsibility is in ensuring continuous airworthiness.
Decommission and incorporate navigation equipment and restrictions (entire NAT/MNPS, routes published in the U.S. International Flight Information manual as Special Contingency Routings,…) into D092, revise A003.
Madison Walton and Danuta Pronczuk
5. B046: Operations in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) Airspace of the
United States and Operations in RVSM Airspace by U.S. Registered Aircraft.
FAA Lead: Madison Walton, Danuta Pronczuk, Herb Herzog
Can we decommission? Are the elements of the independent altitude measurement system unique to US airspace? (Covered by AC 91-85; is it in the AIP?). Are they part of aircraft certification standards (Part 23 and Part 25), and therefore not necessary to be carried over to A003 as selectable text when decommissioning Ops Spec B046?
Reviewed regulatory references and the Ops Spec at the November OSWG meeting. (Majority of the Ops Spec covered by part 91, FAA AC 91-85 and JAA TGL 6).
Elements of the altitude measurement systems are not part of the certification standards. They are covered in the current edition of AC 91-85 and JAA Temporary Guidance Leaflet (TGL) 6. A reference to that effect was made in the draft A003. The OpSpec will be decommissioned at the same time as B046 is decommissioned and D092 is rolled out.
Madison Walton, Danuta Pronczuk, Herb Herzog
6. Part 129 Rulemaking - Update
FAA Lead: Darcy Reed, Lorna John
Industry proposed dual delivery on agent for service
Darcy Reed, Lorna John
7. Ops Spec A001 Issuance and Applicability
Need to revise the A001 part 129, section 129.14 template to incorporate in a standardized manner the new agent for service in the US rulemaking requirement, as well as review the template for outdated information…
Last revision to the template was in May of 2003.
Danuta reviewed revised draft which adds agent for service in the U.S. in the same format as OpSpec A006 for foreign air carriers that are operating to the U.S., deletes 9 subparagraphs (redundant covered by D085), and replaces “operator” with “person” (terminology used in the Part 129 regulation).
Danuta Pronczuk
8. Ops Spec A006. Foreign Air Carrier's Personnel, Designated Agent, and Other Persons
FAA Leads: David Henthorn, Mike Frank
Industry Leads: Jonathan Echmalian and Brian Miles
Issue Statement: is there a need to have so many individuals listed in the A006? Can we downsize? The ICAO AOC (Annex 6, 4.2.1.5 references the layout of Appendix 6, paragraph 2), has the operators telephone, fax, e-mail as well as operational points of contact (contact details include the telephone and fax number, including country code and e-mail (if available) at which operational management can be contacted without undue delay for issues related to flight operations, airworthiness, flight and cabin crew competency, dangerous goods and other matter, as appropriate.) Director of quality assurance in guidance but missing from the selectable for FAA Recognized Position Title in Edit personnel in WebOPSS.
Last reviewed at the November 2011 OSWG meeting.
Director of quality assurance was added to the selectable for FAA Recognized Position Title in Edit personnel in WebOPSS. The form and manner in which application is made requires the POI to obtain from the applicant for US issued Opspecs all the personel currently captured in OpSpec A006. Yes, at this time, we need to list of those individuals. The decision was made based on 129.7, Annex 6, Part I, ICAO document 8335 (Chapter 3, 3.1.2 f)), and field input.
Intended Outcome: Review downsize proposal for the new A006 and coordinate the addition of director of quality assurance to the selectable for FAA Recognized Position Title in Edit personnel in WebOPSS.
Action Items: Closed
David Henthorn, Mike Frank
9. Ops Spec C054: Special Limitations and Provisions for
Instrument Approach Procedures and IFR Landing Minimums
FAA Leads: Danuta Pronczuk, Bryant Welch
Issue Statement: Can we decommission? Is it adequately covered by regulation?
There are 422 foreign air carriers who are currently issued Ops Spec C054.
Preliminary review appears that we can proceed and decommission. Reviewed the following Annex 6, Part I references, that together with 14 CFR Part 129 Section 129.5 support decomissioning:
Intended Outcome: Decommissioning of Ops Spec. Need industry lead.
Danuta Pronczuk, Bryant Welch
10. Ops Specs A036 and A040: Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), and Aircraft Radio Equipment
FAA Leads: David Henthorn (LAX IFO), Danuta Pronczuk (AFS-52), Roger Sultan and Wayne Gallo (AFS-430)
Industry Leads: Eva Stahlemar and Brian Miles
Issue Statement: Industry proposed that the new A036 be issued only to IASA Category II countries, that TCAS requirements are not unique to US airspace. Proposal from the floor to hold off on issuing the new A036 until the issue is reviewed.
Background: Reviewed the decommissioning of Ops Spec A040 and the draft revised Ops Spec A036 at the November 2011 OSWG. FAA agreed to hold off on the release of the new A036… pending further review.
Upon further review the international programs and policy division together with the flight technologies and procedures division has determined that TCAS requirements were not unique to US airspace. The Annex 6 standard and US regulations, (Part 91 and 129), covered the TCAS requirements, the previously experienced TCAS address code issues were at less then 1% (based on a study by Lincoln Labs). Formal coordination is in process to decommission both OpSpec A036 and A040.
Intended Outcome: Decommission draft Ops Spec A036 for foreign air carriers from IASA Category I.
David Henthorn, Danuta Pronczuk, Roger Sultan and Wayne Gallo
Eva Stahlemar and Brian Miles
11. Ops Specs C056 and C057: IFR Takeoff minimums all U.S. Airports and
Alternate Airports for Departure
FAA Lead: Danuta Pronczuk (AFS-52) and Bryant Welch (AFS-410)
Issue Statement: Combine the two Ops Specs and update. New questions: Is it takeoff run or should it be takeoff roll? Visible centerline lights – is it the entire runway? Operative runway edge lights at night for the 1000/1000/1000, INFO 07009 recommends them, should the Ops Spec as well? Is it certificated seats or actual? Small aircraft 100 hour PIC requirement questioned.
Reviewed revised draft C056 which incorporated Ops Spec C057.
New questions (see issue statement above)
The international programs and policy division and the flight technologies and procedures division, has reviewed the issues brought forth at the November 2012 meeting, and on behalf of both Bryant and herself Danuta briefed as follows:
Takeoff roll;
Certificated seats;
Need to see enouph centerline lights to see maintain centerline. Required runway length for your aircraft, the greater of accelerate stop, accelerate go and normal takeoff to 35 feet. Annex 4 (Charts), Annex 14 (Airports), Annex 6, and terps. Annex 6, part I:
Deleted the 100hr PIC requirements based on 129.5, Annex 6 Part I, 4.2.8.2 and 9.3.
Decommission C057 and revise C056
Danuta Pronczuk and Bryant Welch
12. C075: Circling Maneuvers and/or Contact Approaches at U.S. Airports
FAA Lead: Danuta Pronczuk, Robert Jaffee
Issue Statement: Is it risky for large aircraft to conduct circling to land below 1000 and 3? Has anyone conducted any risk analysis?
Ops Spec last reviewed at the November 2011 OSWG meeting, (incorporated contact approaches – decommissioned C076).
Rich (Part 121, US domestic industry) confirmed that most US air carriers to his knowledge limit circling in large aircraft due to the wide spread availability of ILS, a lack of need to circle. Mike pointed out training cost as a factor in the lack of authorizations to circle for US large aircraft. Rich agreed. Aer Lingus brought up the fact that they have been denied the authorization by NY to circle, need it to get in to JFK, have been authorized by their CAA, and spent money on pilot training. Rob Jaffee, (NY IFO) took the matter into a side bar, where the issue was resolved. For the immediate future AFS-50 will work with NY on nonstandard text appropriate to the Aer Lingus situation. No risk analysis from the floor.
Obtain risk analysis data on large aircraft circling below 1000 and 3.
Danuta Pronczuk,
13. B051 and B056: Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Limitations and Provisions – Airplanes and Helicopters
FAA Leads: Scott Switzer and Danuta Pronczuk
Issue Statement: Can we combine the two Ops Specs; need to update references – SFAR 71, B050…
Reviewed at the November 2011 OSWG meeting.
Danuta briefly reviewed the issues. Nonmandatory revisions to both OpSpecs have been submitted for processing. Expected to be out in the next 1-2 weeks.
Intended Outcome: Coordinate an editorial update to Ops Specs B051 and B056
Scott Switzer and Danuta Pronczuk
October 17th , 2012
14. B031. IFR En Route Limitations and Provisions
FAA Leads: Rolfe Dinwoodie and Danuta Pronczuk
Danuta briefed the draft change. Incorporation of B031 into A003, (this cuts down on 6 references to other OpSpecs which helps to understand the limitations more readily, and eliminates the VFR issue), and the accompanying decommissioning of A014. A limitation would be added to subparagraph b of OpSpec A003 when a foreign air carrier is not authorized to operate IFR en route in class G (uncontrolled) airspace. The new text is still being finalized; expected to be posted for comment in the next couple of months.
Either revise the current B031 or incorporate the limitations to A003.
Rolfe Dinwoodie and Danuta Pronczuk
Jorge I. Londono
15. Ops Spec A028: Aircraft Wet Lease Arrangements
Issue Statement: Proposed to replace airworthiness control with maintenance control. Primary operator terminology in wet lease and interchange (same terminology different meaning – operational control and maintenance control does not shift based on who is operating the aircraft in a wet lease, in an interchange the operational control shifts with the operator who is operating the aircraft).\
Reviewed proposal at the November 2011 OSWG meeting
Replaced airworthiness control with maintenance control and posted the updated draft for comment at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/129opspecs/
Intended Outcome: Revise Ops Spec A028
16. Ops Spec C060. Category III Instrument Approach and
Landing Operations – U.S. Airports
FAA Lead: Mike Frank, Bryant Welch
Ops Spec has not been revised since 2003; need to be updated, recent revision to the Part 121 template.
Briefed at the joint session at the November 2011 OSWG meeting.
Reviewed draft template. (Template still in draft.)
Revise the template as appropriate.
17. FSIMS, FAA.gov, and Federal Register subscriptions
Issue Statement: Some industry members said that they did not know how to subscribe for information that would help and alert them of information that could have an impact on their operation in the U.S. (for example rulemaking changes, draft OpSpecs ….)
At the November 2012 meeting a request was made by industry for a handout with directions on how to subscribe to FSIMS, FAA.gov, and the Federal Register.
Handouts with directions on how to subscribe to FSIMS, faa.gov, and the Federal Register were provided to industry attendees as requested.
Danuta made a short demonstration of how to subscribe to faa.gov, and pointed out the directions for the remaining websites to include OpSpecs for comment. Action item was closed.
Intended Outcome: Handout to industry with direction on how to subscribe to FSIMS, faa.gov, and the Federal Register.
Need an Industry Lead on combining C050, (Special Pilot In- Command Qualification Airport List), and C067, (Special Airplane Authorizations, Provisions, and Limitations for Certain Airports). Final questions. Danuta thanked all attendees for their contributions and closed the meeting with a reminder that the next joint session is scheduled for October 17th 2012.