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!

...think he is talking about how the US avoids deviations from the standard and not the fact that PANS-OPS is better...

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.

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.

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