Airblue down near Islamabad
Fuel Dump;
Good questions. Let us wait to see if the Pakistani authority answers these and other questions in an interim report, due as required by Annex 13 I believe, in 26 days.
PJ2
Good questions. Let us wait to see if the Pakistani authority answers these and other questions in an interim report, due as required by Annex 13 I believe, in 26 days.
PJ2
aterpster;
Yes, thanks - The two types of approaches, in total, are not remotely close -different skills and the maneuvering area and the visual sector were not an issue at JFK - it was just the maneuvering itself that was enjoyable and the leg was always sought after...
Yes, thanks - The two types of approaches, in total, are not remotely close -different skills and the maneuvering area and the visual sector were not an issue at JFK - it was just the maneuvering itself that was enjoyable and the leg was always sought after...
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: north-south of nowhere
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as far as the crash site goes, the impact point is near vertical, about 70 to 80 degree incline. highest point in the hills is just over 4000. impact point is about about 2800 feet. the impact caused a landslide which covered part of the wreckage.
will get fresh pics tomorrow and will upload then.
Edit
are Airblue crews trainign for circle to land? answer is yes. i know most of the crew and the training they go through. but i'll let you hear it from the authorities
will get fresh pics tomorrow and will upload then.
Edit
are Airblue crews trainign for circle to land? answer is yes. i know most of the crew and the training they go through. but i'll let you hear it from the authorities
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Virginia USA
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen,
I agree that banning the circle-to-land on 12 is reflexive, not thought-through and perhaps a little emotional.
I also agree that IF flown correctly it is perfectly safe.
But if we apply that stricture/caveat to all approaches there would never be an accident on approach. Fly it by the book and by the numbers and you will be fine.
That is self-evident.
That procedure has risks. IF not flown 'perfectly', there will be an accident some day.
Murphy's Law.
I always had that lingering worry in the back of my mind. I thought I was this doomsday fatalist.
When I heard of the accident I KNEW it was the circle-to-land on 12.
You are far away from high ground if you are capturing the ILS to 30 coming in from the Lahore/Jehlum side or coming in from the west (from overhead Kabul and Peshawar) and flying the pattern as depicted on the chart for the ILS-30.
The PIA forum says that many residents heard the surge of power before the explosion. I said that our most-decorated fighter pilot said that on TV and some here said that was not true. Why?
He was not a commercial pilot but I respect his flying credentials. He said the aircraft passed over-head his house in Islamabad and he heard the surge of power.
I think there is one point that has not been discussed.
Experience in-type.
I have the impression that the pilot was new on the A321. Nothing like the 747 that he must have been so comfortable with. Some of the old-timers in PIA flew those things for 15-17 years. There are airmen here so I don't need to elaborate on the sharp differences.
The co-pilot was even newer in-type. This is not an F-16 though the side-stick must have felt very natural.
Then you have the cultural thing of a 25,000 hour very senior captain and a "new-be" in the right seat, half his age with a tenth of his flight hours. You are unlikely to speak up and say to him he is going to kill everyone if he does not immediately bank hard left or execute a GA.
It is all very well for us to say he should have pushed the side stick priority button and taken over. It does not work that way. Not in the west; and certainly not in the east.
Airblue needs to do a better job of pairing.
Thanks for the link. I found the article very interesting and I will pursue the references as well.
BOAC, the arc is certainly not 12 miles since he crashed at 9.5! You have to keep her tight and close and in sight.
I have been unable to find a description of the procedure although the approach chart for the ILS-30 has the minima for circle-to-land.
Yes, I suppose it could be called "home grown" but there must be something written since many foreign airlines come into OPRN.
One additional point. The captain was very religious and the previous night was a deeply religious one and he could have been up ALL night praying. He also could be fasting. I have known PIA (and other Muslim-nation pilot's I am sure) to fast -- certainly during Ramadan -- and fly.
That is a deadly combination but how do you check it? There are no pre-flight tests for fasting!
This could be crucial for his level of alertness and reflexes -- or may be not.
A (retired) Air Marshall of the PAF has come out with an article in the papers. Nothing new, really.
I am surprised that no commercial pilot, active or retired, has put forth his views. However, the President of the Pakistan Airline Pilot's Association did say that "fatigue" was a factor. The MD of Airblue said Capt. Choudhry had 36 hours of rest before this flight.
Take your pick.
I agree that banning the circle-to-land on 12 is reflexive, not thought-through and perhaps a little emotional.
I also agree that IF flown correctly it is perfectly safe.
But if we apply that stricture/caveat to all approaches there would never be an accident on approach. Fly it by the book and by the numbers and you will be fine.
That is self-evident.
That procedure has risks. IF not flown 'perfectly', there will be an accident some day.
Murphy's Law.
I always had that lingering worry in the back of my mind. I thought I was this doomsday fatalist.
When I heard of the accident I KNEW it was the circle-to-land on 12.
You are far away from high ground if you are capturing the ILS to 30 coming in from the Lahore/Jehlum side or coming in from the west (from overhead Kabul and Peshawar) and flying the pattern as depicted on the chart for the ILS-30.
The PIA forum says that many residents heard the surge of power before the explosion. I said that our most-decorated fighter pilot said that on TV and some here said that was not true. Why?
He was not a commercial pilot but I respect his flying credentials. He said the aircraft passed over-head his house in Islamabad and he heard the surge of power.
I think there is one point that has not been discussed.
Experience in-type.
I have the impression that the pilot was new on the A321. Nothing like the 747 that he must have been so comfortable with. Some of the old-timers in PIA flew those things for 15-17 years. There are airmen here so I don't need to elaborate on the sharp differences.
The co-pilot was even newer in-type. This is not an F-16 though the side-stick must have felt very natural.
Then you have the cultural thing of a 25,000 hour very senior captain and a "new-be" in the right seat, half his age with a tenth of his flight hours. You are unlikely to speak up and say to him he is going to kill everyone if he does not immediately bank hard left or execute a GA.
It is all very well for us to say he should have pushed the side stick priority button and taken over. It does not work that way. Not in the west; and certainly not in the east.
Airblue needs to do a better job of pairing.
Thanks for the link. I found the article very interesting and I will pursue the references as well.
BOAC, the arc is certainly not 12 miles since he crashed at 9.5! You have to keep her tight and close and in sight.
I have been unable to find a description of the procedure although the approach chart for the ILS-30 has the minima for circle-to-land.
Yes, I suppose it could be called "home grown" but there must be something written since many foreign airlines come into OPRN.
One additional point. The captain was very religious and the previous night was a deeply religious one and he could have been up ALL night praying. He also could be fasting. I have known PIA (and other Muslim-nation pilot's I am sure) to fast -- certainly during Ramadan -- and fly.
That is a deadly combination but how do you check it? There are no pre-flight tests for fasting!
This could be crucial for his level of alertness and reflexes -- or may be not.
A (retired) Air Marshall of the PAF has come out with an article in the papers. Nothing new, really.
I am surprised that no commercial pilot, active or retired, has put forth his views. However, the President of the Pakistan Airline Pilot's Association did say that "fatigue" was a factor. The MD of Airblue said Capt. Choudhry had 36 hours of rest before this flight.
Take your pick.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Meekal
BOAC, the arc is certainly not 12 miles since he crashed at 9.5!.
Originally Posted by Meekal
I have been unable to find a description of the procedure although the approach chart for the ILS-30 has the minima for circle-to-land.
Yes, I suppose it could be called "home grown" but there must be something written since many foreign airlines come into OPRN.
Yes, I suppose it could be called "home grown" but there must be something written since many foreign airlines come into OPRN.
Last edited by BOAC; 2nd Aug 2010 at 07:44.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought circling approaches were safe and didn't require extraordinary pilot skills. They are required for an instrument rating. If now because of lesser qualified pilot applicants we have to eliminate circling approaches because they are a little harder maybe we should raise the requirements as congress is doing now. Having done hundreds of circling approaches in mountains with no problem, some at minimums, TGU, most of them I think we have to get pilot standards up to what they were when we were new.
Don't lower the pilot standards because some can't do it. I think the post "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" came from. Don't bid flights to places you don't feel comfortable.
Don't lower the pilot standards because some can't do it. I think the post "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" came from. Don't bid flights to places you don't feel comfortable.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: near EDDF
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PJ2
Let us wait to see if the Pakistani authority answers these and other questions in an interim report, due as required by Annex 13 I believe, in 26 days.
Please do not mix up Interim and Preliminary.
"Preliminary Report" in 26 days acc ICAO Doc 9156. (1 month)
"Interim Report" in 360 days acc ICAO Annex13. (1 year)
<nitpicking mode off>
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been mentioned by a few previous posters, a direct GPS input to EGPWS to is necessary for the unit to operate to its maximum capability.
GPS input to the navigational suite (FMC) does not guarantee the same protections as GPS direct input. You can still have map shifts with GPS input to the FMC. In fact, on Honeywell units, GPS direct input has unique software that provides additional protections close to the surface.
The creator of GPWS and EGPWS, Mr. Don Bateman of Honeywell, had this article in the FSF magazine AERO SAFETY World recently.
flightsafety.org/asw/aug08/asw_aug08_p18-20.pdf
It has been my passion to try and convince my airline to install GPS direct to our EGPWS. Most of our aircraft are not wired this way.
Boeing recommends it ….Airbus recommends it (yes, I have the documentation)….Honeywell recommends it.
To my knowledge, all aircraft built by Boeing and Airbus have left the factory in this configuration in recent years.
What I cannot understand is why this has not been a FAA (and other worldwide regulatory agencies) mandated upgrade.
….by the way, the FSF publication is available free online, with e-mail notification of a new issue available. Should be on every aviators Bookmarks.
AeroSafety World Magazine | Flight Safety Foundation
GPS input to the navigational suite (FMC) does not guarantee the same protections as GPS direct input. You can still have map shifts with GPS input to the FMC. In fact, on Honeywell units, GPS direct input has unique software that provides additional protections close to the surface.
The creator of GPWS and EGPWS, Mr. Don Bateman of Honeywell, had this article in the FSF magazine AERO SAFETY World recently.
flightsafety.org/asw/aug08/asw_aug08_p18-20.pdf
It has been my passion to try and convince my airline to install GPS direct to our EGPWS. Most of our aircraft are not wired this way.
Boeing recommends it ….Airbus recommends it (yes, I have the documentation)….Honeywell recommends it.
To my knowledge, all aircraft built by Boeing and Airbus have left the factory in this configuration in recent years.
What I cannot understand is why this has not been a FAA (and other worldwide regulatory agencies) mandated upgrade.
….by the way, the FSF publication is available free online, with e-mail notification of a new issue available. Should be on every aviators Bookmarks.
AeroSafety World Magazine | Flight Safety Foundation
IFixPlanes;
Clarification much appreciated, thanks. - PJ2
<nitpicking mode on>
Please do not mix up Interim and Preliminary.
"Preliminary Report" in 26 days acc ICAO Doc 9156. (1 month)
"Interim Report" in 360 days acc ICAO Annex13. (1 year)
<nitpicking mode off>
Please do not mix up Interim and Preliminary.
"Preliminary Report" in 26 days acc ICAO Doc 9156. (1 month)
"Interim Report" in 360 days acc ICAO Annex13. (1 year)
<nitpicking mode off>
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Surrey (actually)
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, Jeez, i don't often feel compelled to reply to a thread, but this one is doing my head in!
Circling approaches? Yes, a more challenging situation than an automated coupled approach to an ILS, but not beyond the wit of man/pilot, and not worthy of diversion. Now, I used to fly the 747, and my eyes would be out on stalks if someone asked me to do a circling into Genoa, or Pisa on that thing. I daresay, it could be done, but it was just not the "done thing". Fortunately, we, and nobody else went there on those craft.
On the other hand, I now fly the 737, and get plenty of practice at NPAs, the occasional visual, and the even more rare circling (even for me!). As I said before, it is not beyond the wit of us. it's a visual manoeuvre - your aircraft can do it; you proved that in base training, if you can remember that! Even better, can you remember flying into into the circuit in your puddle jumper? It ain't that much different, except now, everything happens faster, but you also have all sorts of gizmos to help you, and another person.
This talk of banning circling approaches is pathetic. They're not ideal, but then lots of our working lives are not. Grow up. Fly the aeroplane (isn't that why you became a pilot?). I don't often side with 411a, but I'm with him on this, and you'll be shocked to hear (411a) that I grew in the FMS environment.
Practice makes perfect, and that is why my eyes would be on stalks on the Jumbo, being asked to this; more than likely you haven't been there for over a year, or, indeed, never. However, no bother for me now, and shouldn't have been a problem for shorthaul Pakistani pilots flying into an airport in their own country.
None of this talk of "macho". I enjoy my job, and like to practice my skills, but I am more than aware of the people behind me, and make the appropriate decisions (I hope). I don't particularly want to die, either, then have my name dragged through the Papers.
Circling approaches? Yes, a more challenging situation than an automated coupled approach to an ILS, but not beyond the wit of man/pilot, and not worthy of diversion. Now, I used to fly the 747, and my eyes would be out on stalks if someone asked me to do a circling into Genoa, or Pisa on that thing. I daresay, it could be done, but it was just not the "done thing". Fortunately, we, and nobody else went there on those craft.
On the other hand, I now fly the 737, and get plenty of practice at NPAs, the occasional visual, and the even more rare circling (even for me!). As I said before, it is not beyond the wit of us. it's a visual manoeuvre - your aircraft can do it; you proved that in base training, if you can remember that! Even better, can you remember flying into into the circuit in your puddle jumper? It ain't that much different, except now, everything happens faster, but you also have all sorts of gizmos to help you, and another person.
This talk of banning circling approaches is pathetic. They're not ideal, but then lots of our working lives are not. Grow up. Fly the aeroplane (isn't that why you became a pilot?). I don't often side with 411a, but I'm with him on this, and you'll be shocked to hear (411a) that I grew in the FMS environment.
Practice makes perfect, and that is why my eyes would be on stalks on the Jumbo, being asked to this; more than likely you haven't been there for over a year, or, indeed, never. However, no bother for me now, and shouldn't have been a problem for shorthaul Pakistani pilots flying into an airport in their own country.
None of this talk of "macho". I enjoy my job, and like to practice my skills, but I am more than aware of the people behind me, and make the appropriate decisions (I hope). I don't particularly want to die, either, then have my name dragged through the Papers.
Last edited by Slickster; 2nd Aug 2010 at 14:22.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slickster:
There is circling, then there is circling. OPRN, being a PANS-OPS airport has a realistic circle-to-land maneuvering area. I have no quarrel with circling at such an airport provided the pilot has proficiency and currency in CTL procedures in a heavy jet transport. In that case circling at OPRN can be quite safe.
TERPs is a different matter. The protected airspace less than 50% of that provided by PANS-OPS. Is ICAO wasting airspace or is the FAA deadly wrong? It's the latter.
This talk of banning circling approaches is pathetic. They're not ideal, but then lots of our working lives are not. Grow up. Fly the aeroplane (isn't that why you became a pilot?). I don't often side with 411a, but I'm with him on this, and you'll be shocked to hear (411a) that I grew in the FMS environment.
TERPs is a different matter. The protected airspace less than 50% of that provided by PANS-OPS. Is ICAO wasting airspace or is the FAA deadly wrong? It's the latter.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Surrey (actually)
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, circling for me is breaking off from an ILS, flying downwind, starting the stopwatch abeam the threshold, turning base, then landing. Anything more complex (rare) is covered by a chart. It really isn't rocket science, unless the weather is poor (although, in my experience it's usually tailwind that causes it). If the weather is that poor, then you know the answer......
I wish everyone would stop making mountains out of molehills, and blaming the "circling approach". If you can't do one of them, or make the appropriate decision before, or during, then the problem is a little bit more fundamental, is it not?
I wish everyone would stop making mountains out of molehills, and blaming the "circling approach". If you can't do one of them, or make the appropriate decision before, or during, then the problem is a little bit more fundamental, is it not?
This just in...
(CNN) [photo] A Pakistani official carries the black box from the crashed Airblue passenger plane at the Margalla Hills on the outskirts of Islamabad on July 31, 2010.
The data recorders will be sent to Europe
The crash investigation could take months
Pakistan is enduring its annual monsoon season
Islamabad, Pakistan -- The data recorders for the plane that crashed and killed 152 people in Pakistan have been found, a government official said Saturday.
The data recorders will be sent to Europe
The crash investigation could take months
Pakistan is enduring its annual monsoon season
Islamabad, Pakistan -- The data recorders for the plane that crashed and killed 152 people in Pakistan have been found, a government official said Saturday.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aterpster - TERPS is not 'deadly wrong'- it is unnecessarily tight. I have circled several times (Cat C and used the full 1.7nm!) At 30 deg of bank the 737 needs just over 1nm to turn base, so unless there is a howling x-wind it is 'do-able', but does require excessive care/skill..
I'm not sure why TERPS fixed the area as it did - I suspect the number of places where a larger area would have seriously 'upped' the minima would be insignificant - maybe the TERPS office was full of 'macho' 411A aces at the time, all revelling in the hot kitchen?
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'm not sure why TERPS fixed the area as it did - I suspect the number of places where a larger area would have seriously 'upped' the minima would be insignificant - maybe the TERPS office was full of 'macho' 411A aces at the time, all revelling in the hot kitchen?
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'.
Slickster:
I totally agree with you. There is nothing difficult about flying a circling approach as long as you are well trained and up to date with the procedure.
I have spent a huge amount of my life teaching pilots to fly circling approaches. I can also honestly state that I have personally done a hell of a lot of circling approaches for real and in anger. (Some of you out there might just find it difficult to imagine that all we had in the old days was an NDB let down to visual followed by a hand flown circle to land).
Nowadays, you have a decent auto pilot to make life easier for you but it is still a procedure that needs a very thorough briefing before commencing the approach.
Let me reinforce something that several others have mentioned in previous posts. It is NOT repeat NOT a requirement to keep the runway in sight throughout the procedure.
What IS required is to keep the runway "ENVIRONMENT" in sight throughout the procedure (but not necessarilly the runway per se) but it is absolutely VITAL that you do not leave circling height until the runway or the approach lights are in sight.
(If some of you out there are finding it difficult to understand that concept, let me give you an example. If you were circling at night at Liverpool, you would easily be able to see the ramp lights on the downwind leg but the runway lights themselves would not always be visible in the background).
The trouble nowadays is that whilst in the old days, circling approaches were very common, the modern button-pushers simply cannot cope with combining their button-pushing empire with a good-old "take the auto pilot out and enjoy a nice hand-flown exercise".
One thing I know for a fact is that Ryanair pilots, with their company's affection for using downtown airfields, are probably the last bastion of hand-flying and making circling approaches.
I totally agree with you. There is nothing difficult about flying a circling approach as long as you are well trained and up to date with the procedure.
I have spent a huge amount of my life teaching pilots to fly circling approaches. I can also honestly state that I have personally done a hell of a lot of circling approaches for real and in anger. (Some of you out there might just find it difficult to imagine that all we had in the old days was an NDB let down to visual followed by a hand flown circle to land).
Nowadays, you have a decent auto pilot to make life easier for you but it is still a procedure that needs a very thorough briefing before commencing the approach.
Let me reinforce something that several others have mentioned in previous posts. It is NOT repeat NOT a requirement to keep the runway in sight throughout the procedure.
What IS required is to keep the runway "ENVIRONMENT" in sight throughout the procedure (but not necessarilly the runway per se) but it is absolutely VITAL that you do not leave circling height until the runway or the approach lights are in sight.
(If some of you out there are finding it difficult to understand that concept, let me give you an example. If you were circling at night at Liverpool, you would easily be able to see the ramp lights on the downwind leg but the runway lights themselves would not always be visible in the background).
The trouble nowadays is that whilst in the old days, circling approaches were very common, the modern button-pushers simply cannot cope with combining their button-pushing empire with a good-old "take the auto pilot out and enjoy a nice hand-flown exercise".
One thing I know for a fact is that Ryanair pilots, with their company's affection for using downtown airfields, are probably the last bastion of hand-flying and making circling approaches.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JW411
It is NOT repeat NOT a requirement to keep the runway in sight throughout the procedure.
Bless his heart!
By the way, I was also an FAA Check Airman (part 121) on the DC-10 so I know a little about it.
I have no doubt that the old chap made it to being an FAA Check Airman but I seriously doubt that he was also a CAA/JAR TRI/TRE.
Not that it matters very much. Whatever the rules are in Arizona are surely the rules throughout the rest of the world!
Honduras being the notable exception. We need to be nice to them.
By the way, I was also an FAA Check Airman (part 121) on the DC-10 so I know a little about it.
I have no doubt that the old chap made it to being an FAA Check Airman but I seriously doubt that he was also a CAA/JAR TRI/TRE.
Not that it matters very much. Whatever the rules are in Arizona are surely the rules throughout the rest of the world!
Honduras being the notable exception. We need to be nice to them.
Last edited by JW411; 2nd Aug 2010 at 16:25.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pakistan
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Circle To Land At 12 Rwy
It is very disheartening to say the u have been an active contributor to this forum since the crash all kind of speculation on baseless hypothesis would u please have patience to hear the investigation report,u have been very bitter about in the last few posts as the dead man never defends mr intelligent i suggest u first find out what the ac was doing there prevails] has huge experience in flying the northern areas and he knew the area at the palm of his hand hi professional capability is beyond doubt now coming down to u r next question how do u assume that he was new on the type and did not know how to fly tis ac please put u self in his position and ask u self would u go on a heading of 334 or 340 else the radar asks u the circle to land is an exercise done executed in a low vis . staying within 1.8 miles so please answer why would a captain do eight miles and his experience on the bus had been for the last 2,5 years please update i will come on this forum in due course and this is my actual name i will not hide my identity.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
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.
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'.
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.