STREAMLINING LOAs - d2nvf92ef53i1o.cloudfront.net Streamlining... · STREAMLINING LOAs Recent...

STREAMLINING LOAs

Recent updates to FAA guidance

on issuing RVSM letters

of Authorization Presented By:

David T. Norton, JD / MBA / ATP

Shackelford, Melton, McKinley & Norton, LLP

3333 Lee Parkway – Tenth Floor

Dallas, TX 75219

(214) 780-1407 [email protected]

Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.

Orange County Convention Center

Showalter Flying Service at Orlando Executive Airport

Orlando, Florida

mailto:[email protected]

Overview

Background

Review of Revised Guidance

Questions

Shackelford Melton McKinley & Norton LLP

NBAA 2014 Business Aviation Convention & Exhibition


I. Background



The Fundamentals: What are we talking about?

In 1940‘s, standard vertical separation was 1000 feet

By 1950‘s – separation of 2000 feet above FL 290 adopted due to technology of the day

By 1970‘s – efforts begin to reduce this separation back down to 1000 feet above FL 290 based on improved technology



The Fundamentals (cont.)

Through FAA‘s own work, as well as through ICAO /

international aviation agreements, standards were created

so that by 2005, full implementation of

Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM)

Airspace

became a reality.



The Fundamentals (cont.)

RVSM Airspace:

Created significant efficiencies in use of airspace

But, only works if every aircraft in the airspace

can meet the technical requirements

So – by definition – each individual operator /

airplane must be able to demonstrate compliance

in order to get authorization into the airspace



The Problem

Uncertainty (and resulting inconsistency) regarding

basic application of the regulatory requirements; and

Amount of time required to process RVSM Letters of

Authorization (LOA‘s)



The Industry’s and FAA’s Efforts

Ongoing dialogue over several years between NBAA

and various individuals within the FAA

Key turning point from NBAA perspective:

Implementation of Web-based Operations Safety

System (WebOPSS)

The issue of multiple operators arises!



The Industry’s and FAA’s Efforts (cont.)

Culminates in NBAA meeting with AFS-1 (John Allen), Spring, 2012

After meeting, at direction of AFS-1, the standing Performance-Based Operations Advisory Rulemaking Committee (the ―PARC,‖ an official FAA-industry working group under direction of Associate Administrator-Aviation Safety (AVS-1 – Peggy Gilligan)) created the:

―RVSM LOA Process Enhancement Team‖

(a/k/a the ―Action Team‖)




Action Team:

Initially composed of 18 members:

½ FAA and ½ Industry

FAA representatives: HQ personnel plus FL, KS and MN FSDO‘s, among others

Industry representatives – operators, management companies and manufacturers, among others




Action Team given three basic charges by PARC:

Review existing regulations and related guidance;

―Evaluate various options to improve the RVSM authorization process and develop recommended enhancements to the RVSM authorization process‖

Create a ―summary report providing rationale and reasons behind the Action Team‘s recommendations‖




Progress of the Action Team:

Initial conference call meeting – June 27, 2012

Initial in-person – July 26, 2013 – Washington, DC

Monthly meetings after that – mostly telecom, at least two more in-person, plus ―tiger team‖ calls in between

Significant Consensus Achieved




Culminated in Official Report and Recommendations to the PARC

Presented on May 16, 2013

Adopted without change by PARC

PARC recommended to AVS-1 to adopt and process through normal FAA channels

FAA team members have worked to push it through the system – final approval delayed by government shutdown



Where do we stand today?

Final guidance adopted as proposed and incorporated into FSIMS

FAA Order 8900.1 Chg 324

Volume 4 – Chapter 10 – Sections 4-1231 through 4-1242

January 24, 2014



II. Review of (Proposed)

Guidance



Initial Process Followed

Recognition of good things

Program works – high level of safety

FAA recognition of inefficiencies in process



Initial Process Followed (cont.)

Recognition of bad things

Lack of efficiency

Lack of clarity – what should be submitted and how should it be processed?

It takes too long to process – for both sides!




Recognition of bad things (cont.)

Core Issue: Current guidance treats each request for authorization as if it were a new operator flying a new

airplane with a new maintenance program using untrained pilots, with the predisposition built into the

current guidance that everything must be reviewed in its entirety as if it‘s the very first authorization ever being given, even if the only thing triggering the request is a

change of the aircraft tail number!




Suggestions for Improvement:

Craft better / clearer guidance

Recognize that not all requests for authorization are the same and that sometimes one or more of the key elements have already been looked at by the FAA

Based on commonality of key elements, shift the predisposition to being able to accept those pre-existing elements, absent evidence to the contrary, so they don‘t require another full-blown review

Educate, educate, educate!!!!!




Resulting approach:

Substantial Rewrite of:

FAA Order 8900.1,

Volume 4 (Aircraft Equipment and Operational

Authorizations),

Chapter 10 (Evaluate Operator‘s Application to

Conduct Flight in Reduced Vertical Separation

Minimum Airspace)



New Guidance: What is Not Changing

Basic Regulatory Requirements

Operator – must have authorization to operate in RVSM Airspace (see 14 C.F.R. Part 91, Appendix G, Section 4)

Airplane – must comply with 14 C.F.R. Part 91, Appendix G, Section 2

Maintenance program – must comply with 14 C.F.R. Part 91, Appendix G, Section 3

Pilot knowledge – must comply with 14 C.F.R. Part 91, Appendix G, Section 3

Existing LOA‘s! (new guidance will apply only to new or amended authorizations)



New Guidance: What is Changing

Clarification and ―Streamlining‖

New Paragraph 4-1233(C)(3): ―The core of these guidelines are the recognition of the three key elements of any RVSM authorization—an RVSM-Compliant Aircraft . . ., an RVSM-Approved Maintenance Program . . ., and properly trained aircrew who have met applicable RVSM-Knowledgeable Pilots requirements . . . —and a ―decision matrix‖ . . . that will allow the FAA to more efficiently direct attention to only those elements that require initial review. An RVSM-Compliant Aircraft, an RVSM-Approved Maintenance Program, and RVSM-Knowledgeable Pilots . . . are also referred to in this guidance individually or together as an ‗RVSM Authorization Element‘ or the ‗RVSM Authorization Elements.‘‖



New Guidance (cont.)

Step 1: Recognize and better define the three key RVSM Authorization Elements:

RVSM-Compliant Aircraft

Two basic ways:

Manufactured compliant under TC—confirmed through review of AFM or TCDS with appropriate action by the MIDO

Brought into compliance under SB, SL or STC—confirmed though review of applicable documentation




Step 1: Recognize and better define the three key

RVSM Authorization Elements:


Note: Review and determination can be

accomplished through document review – does

not necessarily require physical inspection of

aircraft






Note: ―An aircraft retains its status as an RVSM-Compliant Aircraft only so long [as] that aircraft continues to conform to its RVSM approved design, and continues to meet all applicable maintenance requirements.‖






RVSM-Approved Maintenance Program

Aircraft RVSM design holder‘s ICA

(instructions for continued airworthiness)

provides basis for programs






RVSM-Approved Maintenance Program

Program not required to include unrelated

elements, but must include all required elements

AAIP‘s / manufacture‘s programs often

insufficient here because often do not include all

required elements

Operators can use CAMP if all elements included





RVSM-Knowledgeable Pilots

―For an applicant that is operating only under part 91, demonstrating that it has RVSM-Knowledgeable Pilots will consist of providing sufficient evidence that each pilot has an adequate knowledge of RVSM requirements, policies and procedures as required in 14 C.F.R. part 91, Appendix G, Section 3(c)(2).‖





RVSM-Knowledgeable Pilots

―For an applicant who operates under 14 CFR part 91K, 121, 125 or 135, in addition to meeting the adequate knowledge requirements for part 91 operators, that applicant will need to provide sufficient evidence of initial and recurring pilot training requirements as well as policies and procedures that will allow the operator to conduct RVSM operations safely as required in 14 C.F.R. part 91, Appendix G, Section 3(b)(2) and (3) in order to demonstrate that they are using RVSM-Knowledgeable Pilots.‖




Step 2: Clarify Issues regarding ―Operator‖:

Who is the operator?

First Note: It is the applicant‘s obligation to

list or ―propose‖ the correct operator – not the

FSDO‘s!






For parts 91K, 125 (non-LODA) and 135:

applicant and operator is program manager

or certificate holder






For part 91 and 125 LODA holders:

Generally is: registered owner or a ―dry‖ lessee, but only so long as they are ―legal‖ Part 91 operators

Should not be: owner trustees, part 91 management companies, or holding companies – beware the ―flight department company‖ trap!






Note: ―It is both possible and common to have multiple operators for part 91, 91K and/or 125/135 aircraft over a short period of time and on a non-exclusive basis (for example, multiple dry leases for the use of any one aircraft can be in place at one time). In such instances each individual operator is required to have an appropriate RVSM authorization issued in its own name in order for that operator to have access to RVSM airspace.‖





“Responsible Person”

Has adequate knowledge of RVSM

requirements, policies and procedures plus on-

going knowledge of operations of the aircraft

under RVSM authorization





“Responsible Person” (cont.)

Has legal authority to sign RVSM authorization on behalf of operator

Individual (natural person) operator

Officer, etc., of business entity operator

Someone under contract (such as management company) given specific authority to sign on behalf of operator





“Point of Contact” – optional additional designation

Has adequate knowledge of RVSM requirements, policies and procedures plus on-going knowledge of operations of the aircraft under RVSM authorization

If separate from Responsible Person, does not have legal authority to sign RVSM authorization on behalf of operator, but is the person who has day-to-day knowledge of RVSM aircraft operations and maintenance status

If separate POC designated, that is who FAA should start with regarding operations and maintenance status questions





Additional Requirements / Monitoring Appropriate use of MEL

Crew notification of RVSM status

Monitoring plan:

Every 2 years / 1000 hour (whichever longer)

Can establish 6-months post authorization

Successful monitoring transfers to new owners / operators




Step 3: Basic responsibilities and actions regarding operator, aircraft, maintenance programs and pilots:

Regarding the applicant: New Paragraph 4-1233(C)(6): ―[T]he applicant will obtain and submit all documents that establish the eligibility of its aircraft as an RVSM-Compliant Aircraft. Operators are encouraged to use the Job Aid in subparagraph 4-1237C. Operators should contact the PAI/PMI to discuss early in the applications process what documents may be needed to establish eligibility of an aircraft. The applicant will submit to the FAA evidence that it is capable of operating and maintaining each aircraft or aircraft group for which it applies, and an RVSM maintenance program for acceptance as an RVSM-Approved Maintenance Program. The applicant will establish that each pilot has adequate knowledge of RVSM requirements and procedures through submission and acceptance of RVSM-Knowledgeable Pilots.‖




Step 3: Basic responsibilities and actions regarding operator, aircraft, maintenance programs and pilots:

Regarding the FAA: For example – new Paragraph 4-1234(C): ―If (1) a subsequent applicant seeks a new authorization for the operation of an aircraft that has been previously determined by the FAA to be an RVSM-Compliant Aircraft, (2) the new RVSM authorization applicant provides a written statement of compliance documenting that no modifications have been made to the aircraft that would changes its status as an RVSM-Compliant Aircraft [with, for example, affirmative statements that aircraft does have required equipment and has met all maintenance requirements], and (3) no other information is provided or comes to light that calls into question the status of the aircraft as an RVSM-Compliant Aircraft, then the PAI/PMI should designate that aircraft as an RVSM-Compliant Aircraft with respect to the new applicant.‖




Step 3: Basic responsibilities and actions regarding

operator, aircraft, maintenance programs and pilots:

Similar treatment for RVSM-Approved Maintenance

Programs

Note: May also be able to use Aircraft

Manufactures Recommended Maintenance

Procedures (ICAs) for newly manufactured aircraft

Similar treatment for RVSM-Knowledgeable Pilots

But beware – 2 categories of pilots!




Step 4: Acknowledge there are really three kinds of authorizations requests:

Administrative changes

Authorizations involving at lease one previously reviewed and approved RVSM Authorization Element; and

―Brand new‖ authorizations not relying on any previously reviewed RVSM Authorization Elements



The “Matrix”

Authorization Group I: RVSM Authorization

Amendments

Examples:

Changes in primary business

Change in RP and/or POC

Change in aircraft registration number



The “Matrix”


Amendments

Actions:

From applicant: Written submission

noting nature of change and that no

RVSM Authorization Elements are

changing and requesting amended LOA



The “Matrix”


Amendments

Actions:

From FAA: Review submission, and if

applicable, issue amended authorization

identical to original except for amended

data



The “Matrix”

Authorization Group I: RVSM Authorization Amendments

Actions:

From FAA: (cont.)

―If an existing RVSM authorization holder has made a written affirmation that none of the underlying previously accepted RVSM Authorization Elements has changed or will change, and there is no other information provided to the FSDO raising any questions or concerns with respect to the on-going validity or applicability of those RVSM Authorization Elements, then, subject to subparagraph 4-1237A(3), the CHDO should issue the requested amendment without further inspections being required.‖



The “Matrix”

Authorization Group II: Authorization Based

on One or More Existing Approve RVSM

Authorization Elements

Examples:

Change in entity status

New applicant using one or more existing

RVSM Authorization Elements with respect to

new authorization



The “Matrix”

Authorization Group II: Authorization Based on One or More Existing Approve RVSM Authorization Elements

Actions:

From applicant: Written submission with full documentation of existing RVSM Authorization Elements plus full documentation of new RVSM Authorization Elements, with request for new authorization



The “Matrix”


Actions:

From FAA: Review submission, and if applicable, issue amended authorization identical to original except for amended data



The “Matrix”


Actions:

From FAA: (cont.)

―To the extent the RVSM applicant has provided written documentation evidencing that the operator will be using a previously accepted RVSM Authorization Element, and accept that RVSM Authorization Element as a valid basis for the issuance of the new RVSM authorization, and to the extent the applicant has presented a proposed RVSM Authorization Element that has not been previously reviewed and accepted, conduct such additional review and research with respect to that RVSM Authorization Element only as is required to issue the new RVSM authorization.‖



The “Matrix”


Actions:

From FAA: (cont.)

―If an RVSM applicant has made a written affirmation that one or more of the underlying previously accepted RVSM Authorization Elements have not changed or will not change, there is no other information provided to the CHDO raising any questions or concerns with respect to the on-going validity or applicability of those RVSM Authorization Elements, and the applicant has otherwise presented sufficient evidence of compliance with the requirements of the remaining RVSM Authorization Elements, then, subject to subparagraph 4-1237A(3), the CHDO should issue the requested amendment without further inspections being required.‖



The “Matrix”

Authorization Group III: RVSM Authorization

Not Based on One or More Existing RVSM

Authorization Elements

Totally new application means full review!



Special Emphasis Notes

Emphasis and pre-disposition is now on ―giving

credit‖ for previously approved elements, but

Safety Inspectors always retain the right to conduct

more thorough review if documents, etc., presented

indicate the requirements are not being met



Pending Activity

Primary Business Address

Advisory Circular



QUESTIONS


STREAMLINING LOAs - d2nvf92ef53i1o.cloudfront.net Streamlining... · STREAMLINING LOAs Recent...

Documents

Transcript of STREAMLINING LOAs - d2nvf92ef53i1o.cloudfront.net Streamlining... · STREAMLINING LOAs Recent...