212,
There are, or can be differences, depending on the level of optimization needed.
The best method is to code the procedure with waypoints, so that the procedure is in the box, and the flight plan can reflect the the instrument procedure. This very easy, using the procedure template, with a fixed rig. Obstacles within the 11nm circle are charted on the plate. Floating platforms require a slightly different design and coordination.
The main difference is the performance real-time MDA, given real time climb gradients. The standard assumes the climb gradient at 2.5% for the missed, so if you have a climb grad of 4 or even 12%, the MDA will be significantly lower, as will the vis requirements.
Using a coded procedure that includes the land based location, the operator knows that the obstacle evaluation has been done, and that the containment area is cleared. The example of Karratha overlaying the RNP approach, the operator knows that Air Services is maintaining the corridor for obstacles and equipment.
The track miles are fixed, so that a rising cost of fuel, can be directly calculated on the bottom line.
Australia is getting set to enact the carbon tax on fuel, so fuel saving ill become very important.
Once one has a chance to see the glass cockpit in action, it really is impressive. I have some GBAS procedures that are rated for CAT III autoland...that is very impressive.
In regards to the stats, I dont know the specifics, other than what what shown in the handout, that were used to justify the GIANT procedure design vs SOAP vs ARA.
Didnt mean to offend...