PANS-OPS

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

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).

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