9.g

I hope they teach about the differences between TERPs and PANS-OPS CTL in view of their fatal mishap at Busan.

A, I do hope so 2. If I recall correct those were Taiwanese somewhat different from Chinese in the official sense. Having flown PUS myself, it's a demanding maneuver, certainly requiring descent from the downwind with at least of 500 ft/min getting lined up somewhere at 500 ft. It can be done wothout problems provided one is familiar with it. Having said that it annotated on the chart as TERPS. :ok:

It is generally safer if a go-around is made from an unstabilised approach than hitting unseen terrain below you on a dark night VMC conditions. Of course if you are absolutely sure of safe terrain clearance, then fill your boots.

Daytime no problem of course.

It was an Air China crew (PRC, not Taiwan). The PRC uses PANSOPS, Taiwan and some airfields in Korea use TERPS. The Air China crew weren't aware of the difference between TERPS and PANSOPS circling areas. Incheon and Gimpo now use PANSOPS, but Pusan has remained using the TERPS standards for it's procedures as the circling approach won't work if using PANSOPS. The hill on fianls gets in the way, as the Air China crew found out!

D.W, yeap it was AC 129. The phenomenon of intermixing PANS OPS and TERPS is also spread throughout Europe in dual purpose airdromes where US AF or Navy fly to. Italy being one example. :ok:

Dan Winterland:

Eventually, they will be stuck with the new TERPs CTL criteria, which still won't be an area as large as PANS-OPS

- 50% bigger will do just fine!