Op Specs HELP please

[nibake]

I am at odds with my ACP, CP, and now DO on what appears to be clear as mud legalese to me...

C057 covers the basics for takeoff minimums. It allows us to use standard (did we really need an authorization for that, anyway?) and finally, it gives us paragraph C, the center if this great debate. In my opinion, C gives us a limitation, in everyone else's, it gives us an authorization.

The paragraph starts out with "when," which to my untrained eyes looks a lot like and "if" statement. As in: IF you are authorized to do this elsewhere, great, here is a limitation to apply to that other authorization.

Everyone else is reading paragraph C as being an authorization in itself.

That is the heart and soul of the argument. Of course, naturally we go to C079 and find that yes, we do have an authorization for lower than standard minima, but that has the limitation of needing two pilots.

I have been told 135 operators everywhere are interpreting this the way that everyone else in my company is interpreting it, which doesn't make me feel any better.

If I am right, then C057(c) is an if statement that does not apply when we are single pilot and not an authorization, therefore, despite paragraph (c) we are still stuck at standard minimums. If the others are right, paragraph (c) actually authorizes us to fly as low as the lowest applicable approach mins even in times when C079 does not apply (single pilot.)

@MidlifeFlyer

 

[nibake]

I am at odds with my ACP, CP, and now DO on what appears to be clear as mud legalese to me...

C057 covers the basics for takeoff minimums. It allows us to use standard (did we really need an authorization for that, anyway?) and finally, it gives us paragraph C, the center if this great debate. In my opinion, C gives us a limitation, in everyone else's, it gives us an authorization.

The paragraph starts out with "when," which to my untrained eyes looks a lot like and "if" statement. As in: IF you are authorized to do this elsewhere, great, here is a limitation to apply to that other authorization.

Everyone else is reading paragraph C as being an authorization in itself.

That is the heart and soul of the argument. Of course, naturally we go to C079 and find that yes, we do have an authorization for lower than standard minima, but that has the limitation of needing two pilots.

I have been told 135 operators everywhere are interpreting this the way that everyone else in my company is interpreting it, which doesn't make me feel any better.

If I am right, then C057(c) is an if statement that does not apply when we are single pilot and not an authorization, therefore, despite paragraph (c) we are still stuck at standard minimums. If the others are right, paragraph (c) actually authorizes us to fly as low as the lowest applicable approach mins even in times when C079 does not apply (single pilot.)

@MidlifeFlyer

@Roger Roger I think you are single engine, but do you know of any 135 single pilot dual engine guys who could weigh in?

 

[Roger Roger]

@Roger Roger I think you are single engine, but do you know of any 135 single pilot dual engine guys who could weigh in?

i feel like @gotWXdagain would know this-every airplane I’ve been on hasn’t had lower than standard other than the ILS mins exception.

FWIW I had the impression that you need an SIC with a set of copilots flight instruments to do lower than Cat I ILS vis takeoffs (1800 RVR).

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Can't help with this one. Sorry.

 

[deadstick]

From FSIMS...

OPSPEC C057, IFR TAKEOFF MINIMUMS, PART 135 OPERATIONS

—ALL AIRPORTS. C057 is issued to all part 135 operators who conduct IFR airplane operations to authorize an operator to use takeoff minima equal to the lowest straight‑in landing minima (part 135, § 135.225(h)).

A. C057 is issued for conducting IFR standard takeoff minima which are defined as 1 statute mile visibility or RVR 5000 for airplanes having 2 engines or less and 1/2 statute mile visibility or RVR 2400 for airplanes having more than 2 engines. RVR reports, when available for a particular runway, shall be used for all takeoff operations on that runway. All takeoff operations, based on RVR, must use RVR reports from the locations along the runway specified in this paragraph.
B. The POI, principal maintenance inspector (PMI), and principal avionics inspector (PAI) must coordinate the issuance of OpSpec paragraphs A046, Single‑Engine IFR (SEIFR), C057, and D071, Additional Maintenance Requirements, once the operator has met the requirements for SEIFR operations. All three OpSpec paragraphs must be issued for SEIFR authorization.

1. 
   
   • OpSpec paragraph A046, Single Engine IFR (SEIFR) Passenger‑Carrying Operations under CFR Part 135, contains specific maintenance and operational limitations and provisions necessary for authority to operate under IFR while carrying passengers in a single‑engine airplane.
   
   
   • The standard OpSpec paragraph C079, 14 CFR Part 135 Operations Lower Than Standard Takeoff Minimums, is not authorized for SEIFR operations. Single‑engine IFR Part 135 passenger‑carrying operations are not authorized lower than standard takeoff minima at any airport without concurrence and authorization from FAA headquarters. Thus for SEIFR operations there is no automatic relief from the requirements of § 135.225(e).
   
   
   • OpSpec paragraph D071, Additional Maintenance Requirements, contains requirements for airplanes operated in SEIFR operations.

C. The following subparagraph is selectable for issuance in C057, if applicable:
“c. When takeoff minimums are equal to or less than the applicable standard takeoff minimum, the certificate holder is authorized to use a takeoff minimum equal to the lowest authorized straight‑in CAT I IFR landing minimum applicable to the certificate holder for that particular airport. The Touchdown Zone RVR report, if available, is controlling.”
D. The following subparagraph is selectable for issuance in C057 for turbine‑powered singled engine airplanes only:
“d. Notwithstanding the requirements of the “NOTE” in subparagraph b above, the certificate holder is authorized lower than standard takeoff minimums for its part 135 single engine passenger‑carrying operations in its turbine‑powered single engine airplanes only per the limitations and provisions of C057 including subparagraph c.”
E. OpSpec C079 is applicable for authorizing the part 135 operator to use takeoff minima lower than 1/2 mile or RVR 1800. See AC 120‑29, Criteria for Approval of Category I and Category II Weather Minimums for Approach (current edition), for information concerning requirements an operator must meet before being authorized to use lower than standard takeoff minima.
F. C057 is not applicable nor available for part 91 subpart K program managers. See § 91.1039(e). For helicopter authorizations, see OpSpecs H106 and H116.

Ok...assuming you’re a single-pilot twin engine operation...
The first sentence sums it up

“C057 is issued to all part 135 operators who conduct IFR airplane operations to authorize an operator to use takeoff minima equal to the lowest straight‑in landing minima (part 135, § 135.225(h)).”

As long as the t/o mins are at or less than 1 sm, you can use the lowest straight in Cat 1 mins for a usable runway and an authorized IAP.

So winds are 180@20 and the runways are 18/36...

RW36 has an ILS that’ll take you to 200/1/2.
RW18 has a VOR that’ll take you to 500/1.5.
You can takeoff RW18 with 1sm vis as long as the published vis requirement isn’t greater that 1sm. If the min vis for departing RW18 is 1.5sm, then you need 1.5.

Scenarios based on this:
RW18 has an LPV that’ll give you the 200/1/2, but you don’t have it under APV (Column 2??) in your opspecs. You can’t apply the 1/2 mile vis. Not an authorized IAP.

Wind is 180/5. NOW you can depart 18 and plan to return on the ILS 36 because it is now suitable.

The runways have parallels. You want to depart RW18L (shorter taxi and has standard t/o vis requirements) and RW18R has an ILS with 200/1800RVR. You can depart 18L with vis down to 1800RVR (assuming you have the equipment) because of the Cat 1 mins for 18R and the verbiage is “for that particular airport” and not runway.

Once you get below the Cat 1 vis, 1800/2400 RVR, THAT is when 2-pilot truly “lower than standard” takeoff mins kick in. Just watch out for the higher than standard ones.

Hope this helps.

 

[Roger Roger]

After reading this in more detail, your management is correct. You don’t need to meet restrictions of C079 to go down to 1/2 or 1800 RVR if applicable to your airport, as long as you have the

“When takeoff minimums are equal to or less than the applicable standard takeoff minimum, the certificate holder is authorized to use a takeoff minimum equal to the lowest authorized straight‑in CAT I IFR landing minimum applicable to the certificate holder for that particular airport. The Touchdown Zone RVR report, if available, is controlling.”

Portion in C057 . The C079 only kicks in if a) your departure airport does not have an ILS or b) you want to go below 1/2 or 1800.

It appears you’re misreading the portion after the “when”. C057c is referring to when the runway you’re departing from has standard or lower mins allowed on the DP or takeoff mins page.

I’ll try to type out a real world example using our ops specs tomorrow when I’m on day shift.

 

[nibake]

“C057 is issued to all part 135 operators who conduct IFR airplane operations to authorize an operator to use takeoff minima equal to the lowest straight‑in landing minima (part 135, § 135.225(h)).”

That wording: "C057 is issued...to authorize an operator" sure sounds a lot like an authorization, right? The problem I am having is that within the actual text of C057 I don't see specific wording authorizing the lower minima. When we get down to paragraph C and it says "When takeoff minimums are" this is key, but how can I ever find takeoff mins that are lower than standard? The takeoff mins page will simply say nothing at all if there is not a need for higher mins, from what I have seen. I have never known it to say, for example, RWY 31 TO mins: 1800 if allowed by op specs. So this is my question. Where, other than C079, can I find these minimums? Where can I find a text that says I can go down to 1/2 or 1800 in the first place? If I had that, I could make sense out of the whole thing. Without it, I'm still searching for something that is written as an authorization (which is apparently the intent, looking at the FSIMS quote).

C057c is referring to when the runway you’re departing from has standard or lower mins allowed on the DP or takeoff mins page.

 

[Roger Roger]

That wording: "C057 is issued...to authorize an operator" sure sounds a lot like an authorization, right? The problem I am having is that within the actual text of C057 I don't see specific wording authorizing the lower minima. When we get down to paragraph C and it says "When takeoff minimums are" this is key, but how can I ever find takeoff mins that are lower than standard? The takeoff mins page will simply say nothing at all if there is not a need for higher mins, from what I have seen. I have never known it to say, for example, RWY 31 TO mins: 1800 if allowed by op specs. So this is my question. Where, other than C079, can I find these minimums? Where can I find a text that says I can go down to 1/2 or 1800 in the first place? If I had that, I could make sense out of the whole thing. Without it, I'm still searching for something that is written as an authorization (which is apparently the intent, looking at the FSIMS quote).

The mins are on the Jepp page or the takeoff mins page or the departure procedure plate.

Though this is a bad example since because there is no ILS you can’t use the C057c exemption. To go below 1 mile off of 26 you need C079.

 

[Roger Roger]

Look now at PANC 7R.

Assuming we meet the climb gradient, standard to mins are authorized. That means if we have C057c we can use the ILS mins as departure mins without meeting requirements of C079.

Lookie here, the ILS shows 1800 RVR. That means that under C057c we can use 1800RVR to depart runway 07R even in a single engine turbine or a single pilot aircraft. You can’t go below 1800 RVR without C079.

Edit: it says for the AIRPORT. That means that if ANY runway has an ILS to 1800 RVR, you can use 1800 RVR to depart any runway that has standard t/o mins.

 

[Roger Roger]

If you haven’t already, please please go through the Austin’s Very Easy Guide #1.

 

[deadstick]

@nibake im not sure if this is what you’re looking for, but read the top of A004 (a) “The certificate holder, in accordance with the reference paragraphs, is authorized to:” and you should see C057 there. The opspec is issued to your certificate holder and the fact it’s in there is the authorization to apply the terms of it.

AND in paragraph (c) “...a takeoff minimum equal to the lowest authorized straight‑in CAT I IFR landing minimum.”

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2011/lavenson%20-%20(2011)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf

On the other hand you have (b) “The certificate holder is not authorized and shall not...”

 

[nibake]

That all makes sense, and yes, I have read the pdf. It does appear the intention is to authorize this. What bothers me is that it is embedded in wording that starts with a conditional statement "when T/O mins are" and I can't fulfill that condition, therefore, (c) should not apply to me if I have nothing whatsoever that says "here is a minimum equal to or lower than standard." I'm looking for it, I can't find anything outside of C079.

Once again, here https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_8900.393.pdf

OpSpec C079 is an optional paragraph that is to be issued to authorize a certificate holder to utilize lower-than-standard takeoff minimums at visibility values less than the lowest straight-in landing minimums

This supports what you guys are saying and it makes sense. I don't think the intention was to embed the authorization in a conditional statement that doesn't have a specific fulfillment, but people make mistakes.

 

[Roger Roger]

That all makes sense, and yes, I have read the pdf. It does appear the intention is to authorize this. What bothers me is that it is embedded in wording that starts with a conditional statement "when T/O mins are" and I can't fulfill that condition, therefore, (c) should not apply to me if I have nothing whatsoever that says "here is a minimum equal to or lower than standard." I'm looking for it, I can't find anything outside of C079.

Once again, here https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_8900.393.pdf


This supports what you guys are saying and it makes sense. I don't think the intention was to embed the authorization in a conditional statement that doesn't have a specific fulfillment, but people make mistakes.

Once again, YOURE LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACE. C057c isn’t referencing ops specs, it’s referencing airports and runways. C057c IS the authorization to go lower than standard under very controlled circumstances without utilizing C079. It literally says on the plates that standard T/O mins are authorized.

“When takeoff minimums are equal to or less than the applicable standard takeoff minimum”
Where do you look to determine whether a runways takeoff mins are equal to standard takeoff mins? You look on the chart, not in your ops specs.

 

[nibake]

Nothing would make me happier right now than to see a chart that shows takeoff mins below standard.

 

[Roger Roger]

Nothing would make me happier right now than to see a chart that shows takeoff mins below standard.

“EQUAL TO or less than”. The chart doesn’t need to show lower than standard to use 1/2 or 1800. The public use NACO charts don’t show lower than standard even for eligible runways, some of the Jepp stuff or airline specific ones might, or ones issued by other countries.

 

[Roger Roger]

“EQUAL TO or less than”. The chart doesn’t need to show lower than standard to use 1/2 or 1800. The public use NACO charts don’t show lower than standard even for eligible runways, some of the Jepp stuff or airline specific ones might, or ones issued by other countries.

Here ya go. Here’s one that shows lower than standard.

 

[ppragman]

Operations conducted using the provisions of C057 are using standard takeoff minimums.

A takeoff with 3/4 mile vis from an airport with an ILS that gets you down to 1800RVR and has standard takeoff minimums published is not below standard takeoff minimums. A takeoff from that same airport at 1800RVR is at standard takeoff minimums.

You're confusing standard takeoff minimums with 1SM visibility and they're not quite the same thing.

If you wanted to depart from an airport below standard takeoff mins, then C079 applies.

 

[nibake]

Thanks @Roger Roger. It makes sense reading the phrase as a whole. I was getting hung up on the fact that I have never seen anything below standard ever published, maybe that's not a thing in the US? At any rate, since it is an OR statement, that doesn't really matter, as long as standard mins exist (nothing higher), then the condition is satisfied and the authorization is applicable. Thanks for the help!

 

[nibake]

Operations conducted using the provisions of C057 are using standard takeoff minimums.

A takeoff with 3/4 mile vis from an airport with an ILS that gets you down to 1800RVR and has standard takeoff minimums published is not below standard takeoff minimums. A takeoff from that same airport at 1800RVR is at standard takeoff minimums.

You're confusing standard takeoff minimums with 1SM visibility and they're not quite the same thing.

If you wanted to depart from an airport below standard takeoff mins, then C079 applies.

It does contribute to the confusion when the op spec starts with "Standard takeoff minimums are defined as 1SM visibility..."

 

[ppragman]

It does contribute to the confusion when the op spec starts with "Standard takeoff minimums are defined as 1SM visibility..."

Right.

Standard takeoff minimums are 1SM (in aircraft with 2 engines or less), paragraph (c) (and the provisions for single engine turbine stuff) basically says "use straight in category I minimums as standard takeoff minimums if applicable."

Standard takeoff minimums are 1SM, but 1SM does not necessarily mean standard takeoff mins if that distinction makes sense.