← Back to Blog
PANS-OPS•24 September 2026

Overseeing instrument flight procedure design: what a CAA must have in place

Overseeing instrument flight procedure design: what a CAA must have in place

Every instrument approach, departure and arrival published in an AIP is the product of a design process governed by PANS-OPS (ICAO Doc 8168). The design may be carried out by an air navigation service provider or a contracted instrument flight procedure design service provider (IFPDSP), but the responsibility for approving the procedure, and for overseeing the people and processes that produced it, rests with the State.

ICAO's guidance on this oversight function has matured considerably. Doc 10068, the Manual on the Development of a Regulatory Framework for Instrument Flight Procedure Design Service, sets out what an authority needs to regulate the service. Doc 9906, the Quality Assurance Manual for Flight Procedure Design, describes the quality system the service provider is expected to operate, including designer training and the validation of procedures.

The building blocks

A credible IFPD oversight function normally rests on five elements:

  • Regulation that requires instrument flight procedures to be designed in accordance with PANS-OPS, by an approved IFPDSP, and approved by the authority before publication.
  • Approval of service providers, assessing the IFPDSP's quality management system, designer qualifications, tools and Manual of Operations (MoO).
  • Procedure approval, with a defined review of each design package, including ground validation and, where required, flight validation by a qualified flight validation service provider (FVSP).
  • Periodic review of published procedures, so that obstacle, aerodrome and navigation changes are captured and procedures are reviewed on a defined cycle.
  • Qualified inspectors with PANS-OPS training, on-the-job training and the checklists and technical guidance material to apply the requirements consistently.

    • Common gaps

    In our work with authorities, the most frequent weaknesses are not in the procedures themselves. They are in the framework around them: regulations that do not reference PANS-OPS, approval processes that are informal, inspectors who have never seen a procedure design package, and no periodic review mechanism.

    The result is that procedures may be technically sound, but the State cannot demonstrate oversight.

    Share this article:TwitterLinkedIn

    More articles

    News

    Meet SkyALITE at AASPG/2 in Livingstone

    We will be exhibiting at the Second African Aviation Safety Planning Group meeting, 2–6 November 2026. Here is what you can see at our stand.

    Safety Oversight

    USOAP CMA readiness: why evidence beats intent

    Under the Continuous Monitoring Approach, a Protocol Question is only satisfactory if the State can show it. How to build an oversight system that produces its own evidence.

    Regional Oversight

    Regional oversight that scales: sharing inspectors without losing control

    Regional safety oversight organisations can give member States access to expertise none could afford alone. Making it work depends on planning, visibility and a common record.