about pans-ops

[wingtip777]

could anyone please tell me which countries are using pans-ops data, which are not. if not what are they using? and any thread about pans-ops? thx!

[80/20]

I believe most nations except those that use US TERPS which would include USA, The US Common Wealth and US territories and probably a few small nations that are "piggybacking" on the US system.

[Elliot Moose]

North America uses TERPS and pretty well everybody else uses PANS OPS. Canada (and I think Mexico) piggy back along with these essentially American rules because that's just what we do with just about everything:rolleyes:
The Americans are just wanting to keep things the same and not take a back seat to anybody else for any reason. Most are shocked to find that there are places in the world that don't use inches of mercury for altimeter settings, and have transition altitudes lower than 18000' because that would just be silly. :E

I admit that I was once of this mindframe as well (Canadians don't get out much either sometimes) but having seen the advantages to PANS OPS approaches, etc. I now consider myself a convert.

[reynoldsno1]

S. Korea & Japan, AFAIK, still use TERPs - though they are seriously considering adopting PANS-OPS

[wingtip777]

so what is the defference between JAR-OPS and PANS-OPS?

[reynoldsno1]

No connection really -
PANS-OPS Procedures for Air Navigation Services - Aircraft Operations.
Vol 1 Flight Procedures
Vol 2 Construction of Visual and Instrument Flight Procedures

[wingtip777]

so what are JAR-OPS 's content?

[212man]

Well, this is JAR OPS-1 which applies to commercial operation of aeroplanes:

http://jaa.nl/section1/jars/494174.pdf

JAR OPS-3 applies to helicopters.

They are similar in content to ICAO Annex 6

[square leg]

Circling procedures in Greece use TERPS.

[wingtip777]

so what is the relationship between PANS-OPS and JAR-OPS?

[keithl]

Wingtip - As Mr Reynolds has said; there is no relationship, no connection between JAR-OPS which deal with the whole range of aircraft operations from licensing to log keeping and PANS-OPS which deals with Instrument approach procedures.

If you want a quick way of remembering, JAR is GENERAL, PANS is PRECISE. That's very rough and intended to be helpful, not to start a whole new pPrune frenzy of disagreement.

[OzExpat]

JAR-OPS has nothing whatsoever to do with PANS-OPS. If you're in JAR-land, you abide by JAR-OPS because they are rules (aka laws). Fail to abide by them and you end up with a fine or some time in prison, or both.

The PANS series of publications, like all other "document" type publications produced by ICAO are essentially a series of recoomendations on how to comply with relevant ICAO Annexes. And, of course, compliance with Annexes is mandatory for States (or they file a difference). If you've ever heard the expression "Acceptable means of compliance", that is what all the various ICAO "document" type publications are intended to provide.

In the case of PANS-OPS, where a State decides to implement it, it notifies this in its AIP, together with any necessary modifications to suit local operating conditions. Where a State has notified acceptance of PANS-OPS, its regulator is responsible for ensuring compliance. They do this by establishing appropriate legislation to ensure that everyone else complies with it too.

So PANS-OPS itself, is not a set of rules. However, it provides a framework for Contracting States to base their own rules on it.

After all that, I think that I prefer keithl's answer! :D

[keithl]

Most kind, OzEx - I thenkyow!

[wingtip777]

thank you very much, guys!

[wingtip777]

thank you very much, guys!

[jaja]

square leg wrote :

Circling procedures in Greece use TERPS

Do you have more information on this ?

[80/20]

Difference between TERPS & PANS-OPS?
Two documents that describe how to design instrument approach procedures.
In short they are very similar from a pilot’s practical operating view – you fly the approach as published. There are, however some differences such as maximum distance from the airport during circling approach.

TERPS = United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures published as a joint venture by the Inter Agency Chartering Committee (Defence and Civil Gov Agencies). TERPS contains some notes about items not meeting ICAO standards. Additional details can be found in AIP USA Diff section.

PANS-OPS = Procedures for Air Navigation Services has two volumes:
Vol 1 Flight Procedures (of interest to pilots)
Vol 2 Construction of Visual and Instrument Flight Procedures (for those that design procedures and detail seekers).

From a practical view you will see that the US tends to stick to the TERPS book while you can find some rather scary approaches based on PANS-OPS but with various notes about deviations.

Domestic Jeppesen manuals have details from TERPS while the international include PANS-OPS information.

I am also curious about the Greek TERPS circle?

[reynoldsno1]

some rather scary approaches based on PANS-OPS
they'd be just as scary using TERPS .... TERPS circling areas are significantly smaller then PANS OPS (some would say too small) - the Greeks may have used a degree of judgement to enable lower minima to be used by adopting TERPS for circling only? The circling obstacle clearance areas are based on the runway thresholds, and not on any particular navigation aid.
Major differences between PANS OPS & TERPS are circling, missed approach and procedures involving a turn....

[OzExpat]

they'd be just as scary using TERPS
In many respects, maybe even more so - it probably just depends which one you're accustomed to using. I haven't seen too many downright scary TERPS procedures, but I've seen quite a few that are severely convoluted.

I think that the real dfference, however, is that there's very little flexibility in TERPS, especially in areas of a significant quantity of obstacles. PANS OPS gives us a lot more flexibility in designing procedures, which is an especially big help where I am.

But, yes...
but with various notes about deviations.
That's a fair call. It's fair for the designer - and the pilot - because it helps to highlight the need to abide by any non-standard aspect of a procedure. For the most part, these notes relate to speed limits that are necessary for obstacle avoidance.

[jaja]

This topic have been discussed here before without coming up with an answer.

Last winter my company did an investigation on circling app. in Greece.

AIP Greece (RAC-4-1-6) and SAS RM (Rules and Regulations Greece, state that Greece use 1.7 NM radius for determination of obstacle clearance limit for circling approaches, whereas new PANS OPS uses 4.2 NM radius of turnng

TERPS gives you obstacle clearance within 1.7 nm (3.14 km). PAN-OPS CAT C MIN VIS is 2400 m ! You are barely within protected area !

This has been investigated by EAG (European Aeronautical Group), who make the SAS Route Manual (same as Jeppesen, almost)

The letdown is acc. to PANS-OPS , but the circling obstacle clearance is acc. to TERPS. So once again, you only have 1.7 NM obstacle clearance , and not 4.2 NM !

If flying a circling app. in greece at PANS-OPS minima, you might not have obstacle clearance !

My company and EAG were not not able to get an explanation from the greece auth. !

Any got more information ???

[OzExpat]

Hmmm... Just for once I'm not hearing the voices inside my head. ;) Right now I'm hearing the sound of cash registers ringing in the offices of insurance underwriters all around the world right now! :eek: The sooner that the FAA make that one concession to Pans Ops... the better!

[-1000AGL]

you will see that the US tends to stick to the TERPS book while you can find some rather scary approaches based on PANS-OPS but with various notes about deviations.
...think he is talking about how the US avoids deviations from the standard and not the fact that PANS-OPS is better...

[80/20]

Yes –1000AGL that is what I tried to say, but obviously I did not express it very well. And I agree 100% that PANS-OPS is good especially with circling. But it does not help to have good procedures if a national authority allows all sorts of scary deviations.

[OzExpat]

80/20... I had assumed you were having a shot at Pans Ops for the flexibility it gives to a designer, so as to come up with the best possible approach. In PNG, we have modified the criteria to suit our needs, but this has meant a tightening of the design criteria rather than a loosening of it. We invariably end up with several different notes on our procedures - but at least we don't mix and match with TERPS.

That is genuinely scary! :eek: Hence my comment about the potential insurance ramifications.

[Bomber Harris]

Anybody got an electronic copy of PANS OPS they could post....or give a link to?