BOAC:
If you check my post #274 you will see that I believe they are 'reviewing' the area - and yes, I believe PansOps IS wasting the 'airspace'.
I posted somewhere earlier the facts:
1. The review has resulted in two attempts at revising TERPs CTL criteria to have some real science in it. The first attempt failed to even get into the criteria stage.
2. The second attempt actually resulted in criteria, which was published in Change 21 to TERPs (FAA Order 8260.3B). That was over one year ago.
3. All changes in Change 21 have been implemented except the new CTL criteria. The obstructionist is a high-level FAA manager who has made the other pertinent FAA managers nervous. He sounds like Chicken Little, as in "The sky is falling." "Minimums will go up everywhere." In fact, by doing sector restrictions the impact would be minimal and the safety gains would be very significant.
These new TERPs criteria are reasonable and realistic, and is a lot larger than today's criteria but not as large as PANS-OPS. Maybe the new TERPs criteria is "about right" whereas PANS-OPS is excessive. Having said that, the fact that the CAT D visibility minimum is 1.94 n.m. at OPRN but the area is 5.2 miles is really irrelevant. Prevailing visibility, as you well know, can be quite different from the flight deck than from the ground observation point. It's up to the pilot to keep the runway or at least the airport in sight, or go missed.
Alas, the new TERPs criteria very well may never come to pass.