PANS-OPS

[Greg Farris]

Anyone know which places use PANS-OPS to define procedures and which use
TERPS, and why? Is there a historical or political context to this? Why
do international authorities go to such lengths to maintain two systems
which essentially accomplish the same thing?

I just got a bunch of stuff from France, listing the changes to be
implemented over the coming months in their approach plates, as a result
of the latest developments in PANS-OPS. Looks pretty good too - they're
putting grey shaded blocks in the profile view on non-precision
approaches to indicate minimum safe altitude for each segment - a very
readable solution for "dive and drive" operators.

GF

[[email protected]]

Greg Farris wrote:
> Anyone know which places use PANS-OPS to define procedures and which use
> TERPS, and why? Is there a historical or political context to this? Why
> do international authorities go to such lengths to maintain two systems
> which essentially accomplish the same thing?
>
> I just got a bunch of stuff from France, listing the changes to be
> implemented over the coming months in their approach plates, as a result
> of the latest developments in PANS-OPS. Looks pretty good too - they're
> putting grey shaded blocks in the profile view on non-precision
> approaches to indicate minimum safe altitude for each segment - a very
> readable solution for "dive and drive" operators.
>
> GF
>
PANS-OPS is the official ICAO instrument criteria document. It is
superior to TERPs in almost every way. But, there is a major caveat in
that PANS-OPS implementation is only as good as the host country's
aviation staff and facilities.

In places like Germany and France, it's great.

I can't tell you how many countries use TERPs. It seems to not be many.
Usually, it is countries where the U.S. has had a lot of influence.

TERPs evolved from the previous United States criteria for terminal
instrument procedures. The air carriers in this country wanted no part
of PANS-OPS because they felt it would restrict their domestic
operations too much. That was mostly a political and economic rather
than safety stance. Of course, the premise was that ILS would be used
for airline operations most of the time so TERPS or PANS-OPS made little
differnce for the ORDs and JFKs.

The very new FAA criteria for advanced RNP performance-based procedures
is a different matter. The U.S. industry and the FAA are out in front
on this one and ICAO will probably adopt the FAA criteria (FAA Order
8260.52).

[Greg Farris]

In article <MPRcf.328$7A.243@fed1read04>, says...
>
>
>Greg Farris wrote:
>> Anyone know which places use PANS-OPS to define procedures and which use
>> TERPS, and why? Is there a historical or political context to this? Why
>> do international authorities go to such lengths to maintain two systems
>> which essentially accomplish the same thing?
>>
>> I just got a bunch of stuff from France, listing the changes to be
>> implemented over the coming months in their approach plates, as a result
>> of the latest developments in PANS-OPS. Looks pretty good too - they're
>> putting grey shaded blocks in the profile view on non-precision
>> approaches to indicate minimum safe altitude for each segment - a very
>> readable solution for "dive and drive" operators.
>>
>> GF
>>
>PANS-OPS is the official ICAO instrument criteria document. It is
>superior to TERPs in almost every way. But, there is a major caveat in
>that PANS-OPS implementation is only as good as the host country's
>aviation staff and facilities.
>
>In places like Germany and France, it's great.
>
>I can't tell you how many countries use TERPs. It seems to not be many.
> Usually, it is countries where the U.S. has had a lot of influence.
>
>TERPs evolved from the previous United States criteria for terminal
>instrument procedures. The air carriers in this country wanted no part
>of PANS-OPS because they felt it would restrict their domestic
>operations too much. That was mostly a political and economic rather
>than safety stance. Of course, the premise was that ILS would be used
>for airline operations most of the time so TERPS or PANS-OPS made little
>differnce for the ORDs and JFKs.
>
>The very new FAA criteria for advanced RNP performance-based procedures
>is a different matter. The U.S. industry and the FAA are out in front
>on this one and ICAO will probably adopt the FAA criteria (FAA Order
>8260.52).

Thanks, Tim.
Informative, as always.

GF