Source: http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/oswg/oswg%202012-04%20minutes.htm
Timestamp: 2018-02-18 22:21:05
Document Index: 185720222

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 121', '§ 121', 'art 121', 'art 121', 'art 121', 'art 91', 'art 91', 'art 121', 'art 91', 'art 121', 'art 121', 'art 129', 'art 121', 'art 135', 'art 129', 'art 121', 'art 121', 'art 129', 'art:\n8', 'art 25', 'art 129', 'art 129', 'art 129', 'art 121', 'art 129', 'art 121', 'art 129', 'art 129', 'art 129', 'art 121', 'art 129', 'art 97', 'art 129', 'art 129', 'art 121', 'art 129', 'art 121', 'art 129', 'art 129', 'art 129', 'art 129']

FAA/Aviation Industry Notes from OpSpec Working Group (OSWG) 2012-04
Oc tobe r 16 t h a nd 17 th , 20 12
Tue sda y , Oc tob e r 16 th : 1: 00 P M – 5:00 P M ( Dome stic S e ssion)
We dn e sd ay, Oct ob e r 17 th : 9: 00 A M - NOON ( Join t S e ssion )
W e dne sda y , Oc tobe r 17 t h : 1: 00 PM – 5: 00 P M ( In ter n at ion al S e ssion)
Hoste d by FAA
He ritage C e nte r ( N av y Me morial ) 701
Pe nnsy lv ania Av e nue , N W W ashington, DC 2004 ( Phon e : 202- 737 - 2300 )
Ch air p er son s
U.S . Dome st ic ( Par t 121 , an d 135)
C a se y Se a br i g ht, De lta A ir Lines, I ndustr y C ha ir
R ic h Yukna vic h, Amer i c a n Air line s, I ndustr y Vic e C ha ir
B ob Da vis, A F S - 260, F A A C ha ir
In ter n at ion al ( P a r t 129)
B r ia n Mile s, Emira t e s, I n dustr y C ha ir
Da vid Oliver , Q a nta s Air wa y s L imite d, I ndustr y Vic e C ha ir
Da nuta P r onc z uk, AF S - 5 2, F AA C ha ir
Mike Fra nk, AF S - 52, F A A Vic e C ha ir
AF S Air T r an sp ort a t ion Division M an age r
Mr . L e s S mith
AF S In t e r n at ion al P r og r a m s an d
P olic y Division M an age r
Mr . J ohn B ar ba g a llo
IF O/I F U/SE A F S DO R e p re se n t at ives t o t h e P ar t 129 OS WG : Da vid Kr ue g e r ( D F W I F O ), Da ve H e nthor n ( L A X I F O) , R olf e Dinwoodie a nd B ob B ia nc o ( R OC a nd A L B I F U) , Her b er t H. Her z o g II I , W . S c ott S c hwe iz e r a nd P a tr ick C r owle y ( ANC I F U) , J .J . ( M I A I F O) , Ni c hola s Tsokr is ( NY I F O) , a nd D a vid Ma y ( S EA F S DO )
IAT A Re p re se n t a t ive
J effr e y T. Mille r
February 5-6, 2013 (OSWG 2013-01)
May 7-8, 2013 (OSWG 2013- 02)
August 6-7, 2013 (OSWG 2013-03)
November 5-6, 2013 (OSWG 2013-04)
5. OpSpec C055 ETOPS
7. OpSpecs C091
12. OpSpec D095
14. OpSpec C055 (Alternates)
17. OpSpecs B034 & B035
18. OpSpec C051
19. OpSpec D084
20. OpSpec C051
20. Opspec C052
21. OpSpec D084
21. New Items & Closing Remarks
Day 1 - AFTERNOON SESSION – 16 October 2012
Bob Davis Remarks:
- Regarding WebOPSS, do not expect any major upgrades to the system in this current austere funding environment.
- Answer to query about deletion of Print Date from bottom of pages. The print date was removed to eliminate confusion that frequently occurred in the past between effective date on the last page and the print date which was a variable. The related enhancement was the ability to disassociate the effective date from the FAA signature which permits variable sequencing of signatures instead of requiring FAA to sign last.
- Ops Spec S400 CAST database test. U.S. Air and AMR Eagle have completed their portion of the test which consisted of doing an adoption analysis of three CAST safety recommendations and entering the airline adoption or rejection rational into the S400 database. American and United have not completed their analysis. There are approximately 75 published CAST recommendations. 50 or so relate specifically to operations or maintenance and about 25 relate to management.
Casey Seabright Remarks:
- Casey notified the FAA and industry representatives of the results of the elections for chairpersons. Chuck Schramek from Delta was elected to serve as the chairman and Andy Newcomer of UPS was elected co-chair. Chuck announced his desire to conduct FAA and industry meetings or teleconferences between the quarterly OSWG conferences in an attempt to accelerate the pace of progress on Ops Spec issues.
2. FAA to check into moving a non-airworthy aircraft to a place other than a maintenance or repair facility.
Mark Lopez (AFS-330) relayed remarks from Tim Holt. There is disagreement between the General Council Office and AFS-330. Until there is a final disposition, non standard language such as that which FEDEX currently has, may provide an interim resolution. There is a pending 8900.1 update to require a PMI review of any nonstandard language. Mark mentioned that Special Ferry permits may apply and may resolve some of these cases.
4 C050: Special Pilot-in-command Qualification Airports (KMMH): CLOSED
Add Mammoth Yosemite; (KMMH), Mammoth Lakes Calif. To the Special Pilot-In-Command Qualification list maintained by AFS-200 in association with C050.
Bob Davis reported that both Mammoth Yosemite; (KMMH), Mammoth Lakes California and Akureyri, Iceland (BAIR) would be added in the next update to the PIC Special Qualifications Airport List.
4.a. C050: Special Pilot-in-command Qualification Airports (BAIR): CLOSED
Add Akureyri Airport, Iceland (IATA,AEY; ICAO BAIR) to the 14 CFR121.445 list.
This airport also has many of the attributes that would qualify it as a Special Pilot-in-Command Qualification airport. It is located on the Northern Icelandic coast. The airport is situated next to a river estuary with a north-south orientation (7874 ft.). There is steep terrain to the south. Bob Davis mentioned that the ILS may have as much as a five degree glideslope. The advantage of having a means of qualification for this airport is that it offers an alternative to Keflavik when that airport is affected by the occasional 40 mile an hour sea fog or volcanic ash inundation. During the last volcanic eruptions, due to favorable prevailing winds, Akureyri was unaffected. The downside is limited ramp space.
Add to the Special Pilot-In-Command Qualification list maintained by AFS-200 related to Ops Spec C-050.
5 C055: as it applies to ETOPS alternates
FAA Leads: Theo Kessaris (AFS 260); Steve Motes (AFS 220) and John Swigart (AFS-470)
Industry Lead: Rich Yuknavich/ Monty Montgomery
Is it permissible to use RNAV/GPS based minimums for ETOPS enroute alternates if a carrier already has RNAV/GPS or RNAV/RNP authorization.
Some carriers interpreted Paragraph 303.C.(5) to mean that Ops Spec C052 authorization for RNAV/GPS approaches constituted authorization for use of the provision in that paragraph for use of GPS based enroute alternate minimums:
(5) ETOPS Alternate Minima. A particular airport may be considered to be an ETOPS alternate for flight planning and dispatch purposes, if the latest available forecast weather conditions from the earliest time of landing to the latest time of landing at that airport, equals or exceeds the criteria detailed in the following table. Because OpSpecs alternate weather minima standards apply to all alternates, the following criteria is recommended for a typical certificate holder’s OpSpecs. An individual certificate holder’s OpSpecs must reflect current requirements (§ 121.625). Although no consideration for the use of GPS/RNAV approaches is presented here, operators may request to receive this authorization through the FAA. This authorization would be reflected in the operator’s OpSpecs. Appropriate ETOPS alternate minima for such operations will be determined by the Director, Flight Standards Service. The airport of departure (takeoff) and the destination airport (unless used concurrently as an ETOPS alternate) are not required to meet the weather minima for ETOPS alternates as these airports are subject to other regulations (e.g., §§ 121.617, 121.621, and 121.623).
This issue took on increased relevance with the recent and frequent out-of -service condition of the Midway island NDB. Midway has RNAV/GPS approaches.
Allowance for use of RNAV/GPS approach minima at enroute alternate airports.
Steve Motes (AFS 220) and John Swigart (AFS-470) stated that those carriers who interpreted AC 120-42B Paragraph as allowing Ops Spec C052 issuance as blanket authorization to use RNAV/GPS approach minimums for ETOPS enroute alternate suitability is a wrong interpretation. Special, specific HQ FAA approval is required. Such approval will likely not be entertained until the larger issues which are subject to the ongoing MITRE Corporation study, are resolved.
John related that there are GPS satellite coverage issues in various parts of the world such as the Pacific and South America that make a blanket allowance for worldwide RNAV/GPS approach minimums utilization without limitations and special provisions a imprudent course of action .
John Swigart said if a carrier could make a case for a special allowance such as Continental did for its Micronesian Island operations then some relief may be possible. In such cases, RAIM predictions and close monitoring of inflight performance would be expected.
6 C077: Terminal Visual Flight Rules, Limitations and Provisions: CLOSED
Status : CLOSED – opspec amended
This conundrum was fixed in Ops Spec C077 template revision 02b 8/16/2012 by retaining the term “VFR” in the second sentence of paragraph “e”, while defining VMC in the numbered subparagraphs that follow:
e. Terminal departures IFR. The flight crew must comply with the departure procedures established for a particular airport by the FAA if ATC does not specify any particular departure procedure in the takeoff clearance given for that airport. The flight crew may accept an IFR clearance containing a takeoff and climb in VFR conditions out to a specified point in the clearance, if the limitations and provisions of this subparagraph and subparagraph f. of this operations specification are met.
(1) Reported weather visibility must be as specified in Section 91.155, but not lower than the visibility criteria specified in Section 121.649.
(2) Reported ceiling must be 1,000 feet or greater.
(3) The flight crew must maintain the basic cloud clearance as specified in Section 91.155.
(4) The ceiling and cloud clearance must be as such to allow the flight crew to maintain the minimum altitudes prescribed in Section 91.129, 91.130, or 91.131, as applicable for the airspace class in which the flight is operated.
6a. C077 TERMINAL VISUAL FLIGHT RULES, LIMITATIONS AND PROVISIONS:
Tabled and removed from next Agenda
FAA Lead: John Swigart (AFS-470)
Industry Lead: Joe Divito (JetBlue); Brian Will (American)
RVFP’s differ in that the aircraft authorized to conduct these approaches are equipped with RNAV systems capable of providing lateral, vertical, and airspeed guidance/reference and when conducting the procedure, the flight crew must fly the procedure as provided in the database.
The flight crew may accept a visual approach, CVFP, or a RVFP provided all the following conditions exist.
The flight crew may not accept a visual approach, CVFP, or RVFP unless the limitations and provisions of subparagraph f. of this operations specification are met.
(4) For a visual approach without a CVFP or RVFP - The flight crew must be able to establish and maintain visual contact with the airport or maintain visual contact with the traffic to be followed as directed by ATC. In addition, the following provisions and weather conditions at the airport during the approach must be met:
(b) When in the terminal area with the reported visibility not lower than three miles and ceiling not reported, the flight crew may continue to a landing if the runway of intended landing is in sight and the flight crew can maintain visual contact with the runway throughout the approach and landing, and
(c) Ceiling and cloud clearance must be as such to allow the flight crew to maintain the minimum altitudes prescribed in Section 91.129, 91.130, or 91.131, as applicable for the airspace class in which the flight is operated
(5) For a CVFP - The flight crew must be able to establish and maintain visual contact with the airport or the charted visual landmark(s) for the CVFP throughout the approach and landing. In addition, the weather conditions at the airport at the time of the approach must be reported to be at or above the weather minima established for the CVFP, but never lower than the VFR landing weather minima stated in Section 121.649 in uncontrolled airspace.
(6) For a RVFP – the flight crew must be able to establish visual contact with the airport or preceding aircraft to accept clearance to conduct and RVFP. Once established on the RVFP, the flight crew must fly the published RVFP route, remain in VMC and, unless otherwise cleared by ATC, comply with charted mandatory altitudes and speeds. The weather conditions at the airport at the time of the approach must be reported to be at or above the weather minima established for the RVFP.
Since, as stated in FAA Order 8260.55 these procedures are not “public” in nature, approved via a process similar to that of “special” instrument approach procedures (IAP), the text should be “selectable”. RVFP are not “special IAPs” by definition therefore Ops Specs such as C081 do not directly apply.
John Swigart, AFS-470, stated that the 8260.54A design criteria and procedural rules governing visual approaches require that, during an RNAV visual approach, the cockpit crew must be able to simultaneously keep the runway in sight AND keep the preceding aircraft in sight. Otherwise, it is necessary for the pilot to immediately notify the airport tower for further guidance.
Status: Tabled and removed from next Agenda
Agreement to temporarily table the issue and discuss in a different forum such as CNS Task Force or a special working group. CNS taskforce Industry Chairperson was notified (Captain Brian Will, American Airlines)
Draft Ops Spec C054 has been posted for comment prior to the meeting.
Coby Johnson stated that Part 121/135 Ops Spec template changes are in process. Current language in C060 will be incorporated into other Ops Specs C054 and C059. Bryant Welch also mentioned that revised C059 will also harmonize with Ops Spec C060 by replacing the current advisory RVR visibility allowance with a no less than RVR300 for roll-out transmissometer. Current transmissometer substitution rules remain.
Status : Ongoing. Ops Spec template and 8900.1 changes are in process .
It appears FAA & Industry are using A025 as a catch-all for authorizations that may not be appropriate for this paragraph or may be appropriate but are listed individually versus categorically.
Potentially transform A025 from and keep it only as a depository for primarily electronic record keeping plus an optional storehouse for electronic signatures and electronic manuals.
The impetus for more specific guidance is increasing with the expanding adoption of cockpit Electronic Flight Bags (EFBs) with increasing transition from paper manuals to purely digital format manuals. The direction of some POIs and PMIs to list every digital document individually versus by class of documents is becoming more burdensome as the number of digital document continues to multiply. The opportunity for a between OSWG meeting conference did not materialize.
Volunteer participants still solicited. Contact Casey Seabright.
Numerous carriers want to be issued this Ops Spec which allows enroute reserves as low as five percent for that percentage of the total time required to fly from the airport of departure to, and land at, the airport to which it was released. Currently only two Part 121 operators, American and United have this Ops Spec.
The industry believes that the FAA should make every effort to provide a level playing field for the US carriers. The FAA contends that any operator may still apply for issuance, and if the requirements are satisfied, will eventually be issued.
Carriers are unable to meet requirements that do not currently exist.
2012-4 Meeting Discussion
FAA Officials recently participated in ICAO meetings regarding performance-based reserve fuel requirements.
10 D081: Parts Pool Agreement Authorization: CLOSED
Since this issue appears to be a single carrier concern, Bob Davis recommended that American Airlines coordinate directly with AFS-300 to attempt a resolution.
Intended Outcome: Determine who is responsible for “Specials” or move them to the public domain.
John Swigart mentioned that it is his office desire that Ops Spec C081 be used to authorize and track RNAV Visual approaches. Previously it was stated that either a Letter of Authorization or an entry in C081 be used to authorize and track RNAV Visuals. It was suggested by industry that C081 be revised to create three different tables, one for Special approaches, one for RNAV Visuals, and one for RNAV/GPS--RNP approaches.
Order 8900.1 guidance will be revised to cover tracking of RNAV Visual approach and RNP-1 SIDs/STARs.
Methods to determine and assess carrier shared financial obligations are ongoing.
12 A010: Aviation Weather: CLOSED
FAA Leads : Ms. Theo Kessaris, AFS-260 – Leo Hollis, AFS-220
The new Ops Spec A010 template (030) was posted on WebOPSS with a date of 10/11/2012. The deadline for revision is 2/8/20113. Links to guidance documents are posted in the “Guidance “ links on the WebOPSS page.
13 A027: Land and Hold Short Operations (LAHSO): CLOSED
Status : CLOSED _____________________________________________________________________________________
14 B041: North Atlantic Operations with Two-Engine Airplanes Under Part 121
FAA is studying the issue.
15 A001: Issuance and Applicability
See if a remedy to this situation is possible through exemptions or Ops Spec non-standard language.
No progress on this issue. However, continuing review prompted Bob Davis to remind 121 carriers about the guidance in Ops Spec A001 Paragraph “d” which lists permissible Part 91 operations and also make the point that Part 91 operations are still to be conducted under Part 121 Operations Specifications:
“d. 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.”
FAA Lead : Madison Walton/ Greg Sparks (AFS-470) /Trent Bigler (AFS-460)
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.
At the insistence of carriers with all GPS equipage, the coast-in/coast-out Navigation Accuracy Check verbiage was changed to eliminate the provision for “DMD/DME automatic position updating”.
FAA briefed that the Ops Spec template tables will also include RNP 4 and RNP 10 time limits.
As soon as it is available Paul Lepine will make available for industry review Notice 8900.B036.
Continuing B036/B054: Class II Navigation and Oceanic Procedures
AC91-70 and Job Aids are being revised and Notice for Ops Spec Template changes is at AFS-1.
17 MSPEC B054: Class II Navigation Using Single Long-Range Navigation System (S-LRNS).
Option1: Update MB050 Authorized Areas of En Route Operations, Limitations and Provisions to include authorized areas for MB054 ~ OR ~
B054. Class II Navigation Using Single Long-Range Navigation System (S-LRNS)
Option1: Update Management Specification MB054 c. Special Limitations & Provisions (1) to include authorization in line with Operation Specification B045 Extended Overwater Operations Using a Single Long-Range Communication System language ~ OR ~
Option 2: Create Management Specification MB045. Extended Overwater Operations Using a Single Long-Range Communication System consistent with the Operation Specification B045 Extended Overwater Operations Using a Single Long-Range Communication System language.
Bob Davis stated that it is up to the POI and Carrier to associate MSPECS/Ops Specs with an area of Operations in B050.
Bob asked Monica G. to explore programing remedies.
18. C051: Terminal Instrument Procedures: CLOSED revised paragraph in WebOPSS
Ops Spec C051, Table 2 lists both statute and nautical miles.
No one can remember why there is both a statute and nautical miles listing.
Request to remove statute miles listing from C051.
Unanimous industry concurrence
Status: CLOSED for part 121 revised paragraph in WebOPSS
19. D084 Special Flight Permit with Continuous Authorization to Conduct Ferry Flights
3. 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.
4. 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.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES NOT ON THE AGENDA
B342 Extended Operations (ETOPS) with Two-Engine Airplanes Under Part 121
FAA Lead: Ms. Theo Kessaris
There is a duplicate/redundant listing of a carrier’s aircraft approved for ETOPS in Ops Spec B342 and D086.
Ops Spec D086, Maintenance Program Authorization for Two-Engine Airplanes Used in Extended Range Operation, contains the carriers list of aircraft approved for ETOPS operations. This same ETOPS aircraft listing was added to B342 a few years ago, and whatever the rational was at the time, apparently it is no longer valid.
Remove aircraft listing from B342.
Theo agreed to remove the aircraft table, and asked if any carriers objected to removal of the ETOPS alternate airport listing. Her idea is to move ETOPS alternates to Ops Spec C070 by assigning the applicable airports the code letter “E”.
Industry agreement was unanimous.
C052: Straight-in Non-Precision, APV, and Category I Precision Approach and Landing Minima – All Airports
Issue Statement: RNAV /PRM may be added as a pull-down menu option in Table 1.
Background: RNAV/PRM Approach option is under review.
No Industry objections
C384: OPSPEC/MSPEC/LOA C384, REQUIRED NAVIGATION PERFORMANCE PROCEDURES WITH AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED.
The revised guidance for C084 contains admonitions that POIs reevaluate carrier training scenarios and database audit processes.
C384 has been revised to harmonize with ICAO by removing acronym SAAAR and changing to AR. The terminology change is insignificant but the guidance that accompanies the change includes a strong recommendation for POIs to reexamination their carrier’s training and database audit processes. The emphasis for training is whether carriers are including sufficient simulator scenarios with degradation of navigation accuracy during the approach, and whether briefings emphasize crew situational awareness. The revised C384 (020) was issued on 10/12/2012. The deadline for approval of the revised template is 1/13/2013.
Carriers should review the training and database audit requirements stated in AC 90-101A, Approval Guidance for RNP Procedures with AR, 2/23/11. This AC was published after many carriers already had RNAV/RNP training and audit processes in place. That training and those processes may not satisfy the requirements of the revised Advisory Circular, and Order 8900.1 guidance.
There was not a discussion of this issue during the meeting.
A061. Use of Electronic Flight Bag
FAA Lead: Brian Hint (AFS-430)
Issue Statement: Update on Ops Spec A016 and AC 20-159
Intended Outcome: Program awareness
There are currently 1500 carriers with Ops Spec A061 authorization. Each month there are 150 more. With the expanding variety of hardware devices, the emphasis is on the software application authorizations. Type A is authorized for use anytime except critical phases of flight. Type B is authorized for use anytime, including critical phases of flight. Brian recommended review of recently revised AC 20-159B and submission of recommendations for next revision.
FAA Lead: Monica Grushe (AFS-260)
This was discussed at the meeting and Rich Yuknavich sent Monica a draft sample of the suggested header.
1. Convene. Opening remarks/welcome by industry Chairs and self introductions by attendees. Bob Davis announced the next set of OSWG sessions –
a. joint and international sessions scheduled for May 8th and November 6th 2013;
b. Casey announced new domestic industry chair – Chuck Schramek (Delta Air Lines) and new domestic industry assistant chair – Andy Newcomer (UPS). Brian Miles thanked Casey and Rich for their collaborative efforts on the OSWG. Danuta echoed Brian’s remarks and added a thank you to Bob and Paul for their continued support and work on the OSWG meetings, and process improvement.
Among those present were: American, Aer Lingus, Air Canada, Delta, DHL, Emirates, FedEX, LAN, Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS), Aeroflot Russian Airlines, Sky Bahamas, British Airways, Jet Airways (India) Limited, Columbia Helicopters (Peru), Avianca Airlines…, Hogan & Hartson LLP, International Air Transport Association, European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), International Air Transport Association (IATA), International Field Office(s)/Unit(s) – NY, DFW, and MIA, Aviation Groups and Trade Associations, Flight Standards organizations (International Programs and Policy Division, AFS-50, Technical Programs Branch, AFS-260, Aircraft Maintenance Division, AFS-300, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, AFS-400…).
Notes, agendas, ICAO and EASA presentations… from previous meetings may be found at the following link: http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=Publication&doctype=OSWG
Brief: no major changes, existing budget only allows day to day operational maintenance of the system, waiting on new budget to see if it is sufficient to allow the addition of new features.
Status: Continuing to monitor and plan future system improvements, and continuing daily operational maintenance.
Progress Recent Developments: International Register of AOCs. (Yuri Fattah, International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO updated the group on the full OASIS project). Presentation available on http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=Publication&doctype=OSWG
Refer to OSWG 2011-04 Meeting Notes for further background discussion
The system is operational. Press release scheduled for October 20, 2012. As of October 19th 2012 AOC data base is empty. Canada, UAE, Singapore started entering data. ICAO is looking to see if they can relax the ICAO standard that requires that a certificated copy of the AOC be carried on board be relaxed for those operators whose information is in the ICAO data base. Yuri confirmed that only States could upload the information to the database. US domestic industry asked if this could be expanded to operators uploading information as some States have differences – a State of the operator may not require the information/or a document that another State is requiring off the operator in order for them to operate in their State. Yuri noted the comment; at this time, this feature is not available.
5. EASA Third Country Operators – Arthur Beckland, EASA will provided an update.
FAA Lead : John Masters, AFS-51, Al Peyus, AFS-52
Industry Leads : Brian Miles Part 129 Chairman/Emirates Airlines.
Arthur Beckland (EASA rulemaking directorate) provided a Status Report on EASA intention to implement an assessment requirement for all Third Country Operators performing commercial air transport operations (for example: United, FedEx, UPS, Emirates, China Southern Airlines, ANA, Quantas, (Non-European Union member commercial air transport carriers.) Following are a few highlights from Arthur’s briefing:
Once the rule is out then one authorization from EASA, one standard – have to comply with the ICAO standard or in the absence thereof with the EU standard (right now only ICAO Standards would apply). This one authorization would include the 27 EU States, and the 4 States part of EASA family.
3rd country operators should submit an application for authorization within 6 months once the rule entered into force. Initially operators must continue to apply for an operating permit to Member States individually. In parallel operators should submit the application to EASA as well. The national level authorization once the rule is out will be good for 30 months or until the Agency has issued the authorization, whichever comes sooner. The reason for submitting the application to both EASA and at the National Level is to assure continuation of service, upon receipt of the application EASA will start its assessment process. The assessment should be understood as a validation process aiming at verifying the reliability of the certificates issued by the overseeing State. Operators must continue to apply for traffic rights at national level.
On site audit only on a banned operator, (EU Safety list) or when an enforcement measure has been taken, everyone else desk top audit
Audit may include on assessment of the oversight capabilities of the State and the State of Operator for an operator on the EU Safety list. EASA has found that usually an operator is on the EU Safety list because of issues with the State and not the operator.
EASA might raise fees;
It is expected that the Agency will issue the Opinion before the Christmas break. It will then enter the legislative process where it will be finalized by the European Commission assisted by Member States under parliamentary scrutiny.
Arthur’s presentation is available on http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=Publication&doctype=OSWG .
http:easa.europa.eu/approvals-and-standardisation/third-country-operators-authorisations/php .
6. A029: Aircraft Interchange Agreement for Part 121
FAA Lead: Craig Botko (AFS-200) for Part 135; Danuta Pronczuk (Part 129), Larry Buehler for part 121
Ops Spec A029 authorizes part 121, 135 certificate holders, and part 129 foreign air carriers to use aircraft interchange agreements with other operators or foreign air carriers.
Danuta briefly reviewed the issues, goal, and updated the group on status of the change. Namely, AFS-50 continues to meet and work with the office of chief counsel, AFS-300 and AFS-200 to dispose of the FAA internal formal coordination comments relating to the inspector guidance associated with the OpSpec change. Issue: more guidance clarification was necessary then previously existed, in particular reference maintenance program, MEL, ETOPS when the interchange is between a US operator and a foreign air carrier. The additional guidance does not change the policy or cause any further changes to the draft OpSpecs
Template is being revised to enable documentation of U.S. or Foreign Ownership.
7. C091: Airplane Authorization/Operational Requirements Airplane Design
Danuta briefly reviewed the issues, goal, and updated the group on status of the change. Namely, the OpSpec, and the associated inspector guidance was drafted, and informal FAA coordination had been initiated. In the process of this informal coordination, the following issue was raised. The existing limitation in OpSpec C091 states in part:
8. D301: Aircraft Network Security Program (ANSP): CLOSED
Some industry representatives asked why, instead of an Ops Spec directed toward operators, revisions to 14CFR Part 25 were not made to place the emphasis for compliance on the aircraft manufacturers.
This Ops Spec applies to any operator who has aircraft equipped with internet connectable systems.
Discussion: Mark Lopez reviewed intent of OpSpec and provided a status update. Atlas Air (121 operator, flies for DHL) has the OpSpec for their 747-8. United has applied for the OpSpec for their 787. Danuta confirmed that the OpSpec only applies to part 129 for those foreign air carriers or persons who have US registered aircraft. Currently, AFS-300 experiencing no significant issues with processing the OpSpecs requests, no significant issues were brought forth by industry.
John Swigart (AFS-470) mentioned that the Advisory Circular 90-105 1/23/2009 is still a valid reference.
Issue Statement part 129:
No equivalent part 129 OpSpec, Aer Lingus authorized by their CAA to use MDA as a DA requested the same for their US operations.
Background part 121 and 135:
Industry representatives asked for delay in the mandatory implementation date of the new template until the issue of Ops Spec language could be resolved. A C073 OpSpec for part 129.
Kel Christiansen relayed that revision to the part 121 template and guidance are in process to accommodate the realities of differences in Charting/FMS displays/database programming. Kel reviewed the 121 OpSpec to clarify what the OpSpec is for some of the part 129 foreign air carriers who were not as familiar with the authorization, confirmed that Part 129 stakeholders are requesting it and took IOU to work on an equivalent draft for part 129. .
Status: Ongoing. Current mandatory revision to part 121 template implementation date is 2/28/2013. More to come on the Part 129 draft at May OSWG meeting.
Status: Ongoing. Monitoring development and open for discussion.
12. D095. Minimum Equipment List (MEL) Authorizations
FAA Lead : TBD
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:
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.
Bob Davis (AFS-200/260) A D095 template change and accompanying Order 8900.1 guidance change is in process and will be in final coordination phase soon.
13. C300: Part 97 NDB, NDB/DME, VOR, and VOR/DME Instrument Approach Procedures Using Substitute Means of Navigation
Part 129: John briefed no other State to his knowledge has approved this type of procedure, which would involve training and fly ability. [OpSpec C-300 is for substitution in final approach segment when that navaid is out of service [D1] ].
Part 129 Status: Closed
Part 121 Refer to discussion under nest issue Ops Spec C055
14. C055: Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums
John Swigart: The revised MITRE study is completed, and the results will be published in an upcoming Federal Register.
Until it is determined whether policy changes are forthcoming, AFS-470 recommends maximum use of AC90-107 NAVAID substitution provisions as outlined in the AIM Paragraph 1-2-3.
15. Joint Session Closing Remarks
Day 2 - AFTERNOON INTERNATIONAL SESSION – October 17th 2012
Bryant Welch reviewed the proposed change, draft OpSpecs, and the final rule – removal of definition of Cat IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc. The FAA still using the same definitions, they are just not going to be defined in the FAA’s regulations. In the future, expect the NOS Charts to depict only one minima for Cat III.
Danuta updated no change, still planning to decommission, waiting on completion of OpSpec A003 so that all changes can be processed together, less overall work for the inspectors and foreign air carriers. Inspector guidance and relevant job aid (D092) drafted.
Danuta reviewed the new draft for incorporating OpSpecs: A014, B031 and C080; expects to have a draft for OSWG review by next meeting; iniated review with office of chief counsel, and AFS-400. The proposed draft will eliminated a significant number of cross referencing between OpSpecs and as such clarify the limitations to IFR and VFR enroute, correct the issues with B031.
Danuta reviewed the change since last meeting. Namely: Removed the requirement to carry on board U.S. issued OpSpecs to 129.14. It is the State of the Operator’s responsibility to issue AOC and associated OpSpec to be carried on board. (See ICAO Annex 6, 4.2.1 and Appendix 6).
Note: foreign air carriers or persons must continue to comply with the part 129 section 129.14 requirements.
Danuta also reviewed a new proposal submitted to AFS-50 and requested OSWG feedback - Add responsible FSDO/IFO/IFU details to include office name, addresses and principal inspectors (PI) details. Feedback from the floor was to go ahead and add as proposed. Danuta took IOU to incorporate as recommended and post the OpSpec for comment within the next few weeks at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/129opspecs/ .
Danuta briefly reviewed the issue, and provided a status update. AFS-50 has not received any safety study to indicate a need for further review. Danuta checked with the OSWG to see if anyone had conducted any studies in this area that would require further review, still had any concerns that were not resolved. With no objections from the floor, Danuta moved the item to close.
FAA Lead: Bryant Welch, Danuta Pronczuk, Mike Frank, Chris Hope
Chris updated the group on the change to C051:
· Removed nautical miles from table two
· Added 1400 feet to 450 meters RVR conversion
· Added the following language revised from C054:
No pilot may continue an approach past the final approach fix (FAF) or where a final approach fix is not used, begin the final approach segment of an instrument approach if the reported weather is below landing minimums. If the pilot has passed the FAF or begun the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure and then receives a weather report indicating below-minimum conditions the pilot may continue the approach to minimums.
Danuta added that the reason the language was necessary was because those are the requirements prescribed by the Adminstrator for U.S. air carriers and it differs from the ICAO Annex 6 standard. The ICAO standard (Annex 6 part I, 4.4.1) uses 1000 feet AGL to determine if a non precision approach can be continued.
Look for posting for public comment expected in the next couple of weeks at: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/129opspecs/ .
Danuta checked to see if there were any problems, questions or concerns with the decommissioning or processing the change. No new issues. Agenda item was closed.
No changes in status, except that Mike Frank is the FAA lead with Danuta as his backup.
Status: Rulemaking is currently on hold due to other priorities. FAA internal rulemaking team continuous to meet. Only the US agent for service in the US must be listed in OpSpecs. No dual delivery at this time.
11. OpSpec C050 [Special Pilot In- Command Qualification Airport List], and C067 [Special Airplane Authorizations, Provisions, and Limitations for Certain Airports ]: Special Airport Authorizations, Provisions, and Limitations
Gordy reviewed the OpSpecs proposed change. OpSpec C067 is used to authorize special airport operations if the airport has special requirements beyond the PIC qualification requirements of C050 and to establish the requirements for the use of certificated U.S. land airports and any authorization to use uncertificated U.S. land airports. OpSpec C050 must also be issued for “special PIC qualification airports” authorization. An example of an airport with a special airport Authorization (C050) is San Francisco. Gordy already completed a first draft of the combined OpSpec. John Conlon volunteered to be industry lead. Danuta took IOU to review/work with Gory the draft that Gordy put together for Part 121, to tailor it to Part 129. Expect to have the draft of the combined OpSpec at the next OSWG meeting.
Chris reviewed the OpSpec changes: new minima, terminology…. Significantly, since last meeting added 300/300/300 with HUD (same limitations as those imposed on US domestic air carriers), inspector guidance has been precoordinated between AFS-50 and AFS-400. John Conlon added that he reviewed the revised draft and it looked good from the industry perspective.
Look for the updated draft to be posted for comment in the next couple of weeks at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/129opspecs/
Danuta presented new draft language :
· addition of aircraft while the foreing air carrier’s State has been assessed by the FAA as Category 2 – not meeting the minimum ICAO standards. [Same make model series and configuration of aircraft typically for inspection, maintenance or alterations – may be added with written approval of the AFS-50 division manager].
· Deleted redundancies,
· added plain language.
Look for the updated draft to be posted for comment in the coming weeks at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/129opspecs/
Danuta checked to see if there were any problems, questions or conserns with the non mandatory changes. No new issues. Agenda item was closed.
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 for some 60 foreign air carriers that are not authorized IFR enroute), and the accompanying decommissioning of A014. Meetings with the chief counsel had been initiated, and continuing. Danuta expects to finalize the draft in the next couple of months.
Put the processing of the change on hold until OpSpec A029 is finished processing, and the provision of aircraft with crew guidance is out to prevent any confusion in inspector guidance, specifically version control. No adverse comments on the draft OpSpec posted for comment.
Mike reviewed as follows: Ops Spec B034 does not apply to part 129, needs to be decommissioned. (B034 designed for US operators operating in Europe). Ops Spec B035 needs further review. RNAV below 18000 feet not addressed in B035. Reviewing to see if we need Q – route identified?
OpSpec Change goes together with the proposed D092 draft change.
Danuta reviewed the revised draft, additional edits since last meeting, gave credit to Michael for his research into last meetings proposal, update to last column, and coming up with a single word (Maintenance) to automatically load aircraft M/M/S, Registration, and serial numbers into the table without interfering with other templates.
To go along with new ICAO terminology, see Annex 6, navigation specification rephrased the heading for the last two columns to: For requiring a lateral navigation specifications. Also rephrased the last column in the OpSpec to: Performance specification, again this to go along with the new ICAO terminology.
ICAO has multiple references to maintenance program and continuous airworthiness. The FAA uses the term CAMP – Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program. To rename the OpSpec as proposed could create confusion with CAMP and give the impression that the OpSpec was only for dry leased aircraft that are U.S. registered. The FAA is looking at the following title: “Continuous Airworthiness – Maintenance Program – U.S. Registered Airplanes.”
In coordination with Madison the associated inspector guidance and OpSpec job aids have also been drafted. The updated drafts are expected to be posted for comment in the next couple of weeks at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/129opspecs/
Trent briefed the group on the OpSpec the FAA currently issues on Data Link Communications. Currently there is no OpSpec for Part 129. Trials are underway for Data Link Communication over US airspace. Michael clarified that for US registered aircraft pending results of the trials; data link over US airspace there may be a need to amend D OpSpecs as they relate to the maintenance program and data link communications. (References to the issuance of OpSpecs or an amendment to existing OpSpecs for data link communications prior to the foreign air carrier operating a data link communication-equipped aircraft in domestic U.S. airspace reference any future changes).
AFS-400 is aware that AC is out of date, will update as appropriate. References to the issuance of OpSpecs or an amendment to existing OpSpecs for data link communications prior to the foreign air carrier operating a data link communication-equipped aircraft in domestic U.S. airspace.
The Fans Operations Manual (FOM) was replaced by Global Operational Data Link Document [GOLD] over a year ago. (GOLD is the source document for Controler Pilot Data Link Communication (CPDLC) and ADS-C. OpSpec A056 issued to US operators covers ADS-C (oceanic, US operators going to Europe). OpSpec A353 issued to US operators covers ADS-B (Gulf of Mexico, Hudson Bay, Greenland and Island)
FAA Lead: John Blair, Chris Hope
Chris updated the work group on the LDA for runway 28L and the ILS for runway 28L OTS at SFO for runway construction. The loss of these navigation aids will eliminate the ability for SFO to conduct PRM approaches during Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approach (SOIA) operations. The FAA plans to publish RNAV (GPS) PRM procedures prior to this navigation aid shutdown that overlay the OTS approach courses so that SOIA can be conducted during the construction period. After the construction is complete, the RNAV (GPS) PRM approaches will be available in the event of an unplanned loss of a ground based navigation aid, or as an alternate method for conducting a SOIA approach when cleared to do so by ATC. The changes in OPS SPECS to include RNAV (GPS) PRM are applicable to operations where closely spaced approaches are conducted, and where RNAV (GPS) PRM approaches are published. Operators who have C052 authorization to conduct both, PRM and APV RNAV (GPS) approaches are authorized to conduct RNAV (GPS) PRM approaches without the need for OpSpec modification. However, if operators wish include RNAV (GPS) PRM (combined) as an additional approach type, it is available in, Table 1, “Approaches With Vertical Guidance (APV)” column. If RNAV (GPS) PRM is selected in C052, then A002 must also be reissued to contain the definition for RNAV (GPS) PRM. No specific date, for about three months in mid-year 2013. Questions from the floor on the specific date of closure. Chris took IOU, no exact date, expected after the new year. Question from Brian, part 129 chair – is the FAA going to publish a Notice to inform the 129s about the RNAV PRM changes to the OpSpecs so that the word gets out. Chris replied – Yes, a notice has been drafted.
Post meeting update from John : Notice announcing the change was put into coordination the week of 10/23/2012. The implementation is planned for June 2012. As far as getting the word out (in addition to the Notice), AFS-400 is briefing at:
SFO delay forum –done
October OSWG – done
Aeronautical Charting forum – done (10/24/2012)
Communication Navigation and Surveillance Task Force (CNS) – November 2012
Updating the AIM and Instrument Procedures Handbook. Future updates to AIP and the FAA PRM website.
Jeff Miller IATA brought up request for more standardization quicker turnarounds of OpSpecs request. Danuta reminded the work group to review 129.11 (d) which states in part that:
· a foreign air carrier or foreign person must file an application to amend its operations specification …at least 90 days before the date proposed by the applicant for the amendment to become effective in cases of mergers, acquisition of airline operational assets….
· at least 30 days before the date proposed by the applicant for the amendment to become effective in all other cases.
JJ stated that applications can not be processed without all the information provided. Danuta also asked that air carriers when adding an aircraft …provide the office with as much advanced notice as possible and not wait until the last minute to help with expeditious processing of requests, and make sure that air carriers are trained on and have the digital signature for WebOPSS. Mike also stated that OpSPecs that require headquarters approval take longer to process.
Comment from the floor – RNP AR approval takes a long time. Question from the floor – RNP AR:
· What is the process – Chris Hope took the IOU to research;
· When does a special nonpublic become public? Chris Hope briefed that some specials will never be public due to the number or the nature of TERPS waivers. Chris will do further research and brief the group at the next OSWG on specials converting to public approaches
Air India recommended that the FAA combine OpSpec for Cat 2 and Cat3. Chris Hope responded that AFS-400 would consider combining the two OpSpecs.