FL420
Blues vs. Birds-Tailhook
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Posts
- 626
TERPS or PANS-OPS
The USA and a few foreign countries use TERPS as the set of standards to which they design published instrument procedures, including Instrument Approach Procedures. Most, but not all, ICAO member countries use PANS-OPS as the set of standards to which they design published instrument procedures. IIRC, some countries may have some IAP’s designed to TERPS standards while other IAP’s may be designed to PANS-OPS standards.
Jeppesen is well along in the process of adding the acronyms “TERPS” or “PANS-OPS” to the lower left corner of IAP plates as they are replaced during the normal revision process. If you fly in Mexico or the Caribbean, you will encounter both and should know the procedural differences between them. For example, I have flown with a number of pilots who only thought they knew how to fly a PANS-OPS VOR approach when the on-field VOR is the IAF and the FAF. The VOR approach at St. Lucia is one of those where you must fly a holding pattern racetrack to align yourself with the outbound course unless you initially cross the VOR IAF heading within 30 degrees of the outbound course.
Here is a link to a UK CAA notice with more information:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200313web.pdf
FLIGHT OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION - 13/2003
IN THIS ISSUE
1 INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES DESIGNED TO TERPS CRITERIA
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 As a result of a B767 accident at Busan, South Korea on 15 April 2002, it has become apparent that some pilots and operators may not be aware of some of the significant differences in obstacle clearance criteria between approaches designed in accordance with TERPS (United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedure) as opposed to PANS-OPS Doc 8168. Information received by the UK CAA leads us to believe that whilst flying a circling approach, the accident aircraft impacted the hill at a height of 730 feet and 2.2 miles from touchdown.
1.2 Background
1.2.1 The majority of approaches within the European area including all in the United Kingdom AIP, are designed in accordance with PANS-OPS. Many countries throughout the world have adopted these standards. The United States produces their own set of standards, TERPS, and some countries have adopted these standards. The design criteria used for a particular approach is marked on some of the commercially available flight guides or may be determined by reference to that state’s aeronautical information publication. However, care should be taken, as some states appear to use an amalgam of
both methods and this may not be readily apparent.
1.3 Circling Approach Obstacle Clearance
1.3.1 The following table highlights the different radii from runway threshold used by PANS-OPS and TERPS to construct the circling obstacle clearance area. TERPS uses a minimum obstacle clearance of 300 feet whereas PANS-OPS uses 394 feet for Category C and D aircraft.
Category PANS-OPS/TERPS Radii from threshold
CAT A 1.68nm /1.30nm
CAT B 2.66nm /1.50nm
CAT C 4.20nm /1.70nm
CAT D 5.28nm /2.30nm
1.4 Further Comparison
1.4.1 The CAA is conducting a detailed comparison of TERPS and PANS-OPS to identify any other significant differences, and this could lead to further recommendations in the future.
1.5 Recommendations
1.5.1 Operators should review their circling approach documentation to determine which are not in compliance with PANS-OPS, and should add an increment to the circling approach minima for any that are not PANS-OPS compliant.
1.5.2 Operators should ensure that flight crew are aware of the differences between PANS-OPS and TERPS in providing obstacle protection for circling approaches, and are able to recognize where TERPS minima apply. Where TERPS minima apply, flight crew should ensure that the increment to the circling approach minima has been applied in order to maintain adequate obstacle clearance.
Captain D Chapman
Head Flight Operations Department
22 April 2003
The USA and a few foreign countries use TERPS as the set of standards to which they design published instrument procedures, including Instrument Approach Procedures. Most, but not all, ICAO member countries use PANS-OPS as the set of standards to which they design published instrument procedures. IIRC, some countries may have some IAP’s designed to TERPS standards while other IAP’s may be designed to PANS-OPS standards.
Jeppesen is well along in the process of adding the acronyms “TERPS” or “PANS-OPS” to the lower left corner of IAP plates as they are replaced during the normal revision process. If you fly in Mexico or the Caribbean, you will encounter both and should know the procedural differences between them. For example, I have flown with a number of pilots who only thought they knew how to fly a PANS-OPS VOR approach when the on-field VOR is the IAF and the FAF. The VOR approach at St. Lucia is one of those where you must fly a holding pattern racetrack to align yourself with the outbound course unless you initially cross the VOR IAF heading within 30 degrees of the outbound course.
Here is a link to a UK CAA notice with more information:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200313web.pdf
FLIGHT OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION - 13/2003
IN THIS ISSUE
1 INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES DESIGNED TO TERPS CRITERIA
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 As a result of a B767 accident at Busan, South Korea on 15 April 2002, it has become apparent that some pilots and operators may not be aware of some of the significant differences in obstacle clearance criteria between approaches designed in accordance with TERPS (United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedure) as opposed to PANS-OPS Doc 8168. Information received by the UK CAA leads us to believe that whilst flying a circling approach, the accident aircraft impacted the hill at a height of 730 feet and 2.2 miles from touchdown.
1.2 Background
1.2.1 The majority of approaches within the European area including all in the United Kingdom AIP, are designed in accordance with PANS-OPS. Many countries throughout the world have adopted these standards. The United States produces their own set of standards, TERPS, and some countries have adopted these standards. The design criteria used for a particular approach is marked on some of the commercially available flight guides or may be determined by reference to that state’s aeronautical information publication. However, care should be taken, as some states appear to use an amalgam of
both methods and this may not be readily apparent.
1.3 Circling Approach Obstacle Clearance
1.3.1 The following table highlights the different radii from runway threshold used by PANS-OPS and TERPS to construct the circling obstacle clearance area. TERPS uses a minimum obstacle clearance of 300 feet whereas PANS-OPS uses 394 feet for Category C and D aircraft.
Category PANS-OPS/TERPS Radii from threshold
CAT A 1.68nm /1.30nm
CAT B 2.66nm /1.50nm
CAT C 4.20nm /1.70nm
CAT D 5.28nm /2.30nm
1.4 Further Comparison
1.4.1 The CAA is conducting a detailed comparison of TERPS and PANS-OPS to identify any other significant differences, and this could lead to further recommendations in the future.
1.5 Recommendations
1.5.1 Operators should review their circling approach documentation to determine which are not in compliance with PANS-OPS, and should add an increment to the circling approach minima for any that are not PANS-OPS compliant.
1.5.2 Operators should ensure that flight crew are aware of the differences between PANS-OPS and TERPS in providing obstacle protection for circling approaches, and are able to recognize where TERPS minima apply. Where TERPS minima apply, flight crew should ensure that the increment to the circling approach minima has been applied in order to maintain adequate obstacle clearance.
Captain D Chapman
Head Flight Operations Department
22 April 2003
Last edited:
