Your opinion and you're welcome to it. I did not state whether or not I agreed with the comment made by the (said) JAA certified TRE, only mentioning
his beliefs regarding such knowledge & the questioning of it. I agree, knowledge to the cm is stupid and irrelevant.
Overall aprreciation of runway markings cannot be dismissed as
If you change the way you operate because one minute you're using TERPS and the next Pans Ops, then you'd be the first pilot I've ever met who did.
Wow. What a statement to admit to. Hate to be a pax on board if you ever have to divert at night to an airfield using TERPS circling minima and terrain clearance in the
greatly reduced airport vicinity: which is exactly why TERPS procedures are maintained at such fields and not [updated] replaced with PANS OPS.
Pontius: as a 767 pilot (??) I would assume you would know of the 767 accident at Busan due to incorrect circling approach flown by the crew? They did not know (it seems) or appreciate the differences and as a result are
dead, along with the
other 127 souls they took with them. I wonder if the families and friends of those perished view such knowledge as "bolleaux"?
One of the major conclusions as the cause of the accident?
"Crew not aware of TERPS vs PANS OPS"
We're pilots, not chart makers.
True. We are chart INTERPRETERS and chart USERS. But too bad if you haven't the professionalism, knowledge or training to know WHAT the charts are telling you the pilot. Bet those 129 dead people on board Air China flight 129 wished the crew had a better knowledge of such irrelevant (to some) details.
Sorry, thread divergence. But the point is that knowledge should not be labelled as "bolleax". Knowledge to the cm of rwy markings is extreme of course but an appreciation of such markings is not. Appreciation of TERPS vs PANS OPS will save you and your passengers lives so this is not trivial. I cannot fathom how any pilot could believe it not necessary to change procedures when operating under PANS OPS or TERPS. Scary. Very, very scary indeed.