Jeppesen Approach Charts Non Precision DA

[Greenfly07]

Jeppesen Non-Precision Approach charts display a 'DA'. Jepp's own glossary defines a 'DA' as relevant to a Precision Approach, and an 'MDA' applying to a Non-Prec Approach. Most companies add an increment to an MDA, but of course this is not necessary if the figure shown on the chart is a DA. The sharp crew I was checking last night claimed that Jepp has changed the way it calculates minima on their Non-Prec charts and that the DA on their Non-Prec charts is just that, and no increment now needs to be added. I am ancient Check Captain - have I missed something while searching for my teeth? Thanks to anyone who can clarify (the DA/MDA issue; I have found the teeth)

[PT6A]

Hi,

Yes Jeppesen are in the process of changing their charts.

I have two questions for you so I can investigate further.

Was this a company specific plate?

What airport and approach are we talking about?

PT6A

[Zeffy]

Yes Jeppesen are in the process of changing their charts.

Please provide the pertinent Briefing Bulletin or other authoritative reference.

FAA recently issued AC 120-108 (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/b335ecb9e52e0316862578290071c32d/$FILE/AC%20120-108.pdf).

Unless a U.S. air carrier holds OpSpec C073, the DDA additive remains necessary.

from the AC:

f.
Derived Decision Altitude (DDA). Pilots must not descend below the MDA when executing a missed approach from a CDFA. Operators should instruct their pilots to initiate the go-around at an altitude above the MDA (sometimes referred to as a DDA) to ensure the aircraft does not descend below the published MDA. Operators conducting approaches authorized by operations specification (OpSpec) C073, IFR Approach Procedures Using Vertical Navigation (VNAV), may use MDA as a DA.

[PT6A]

Zeffy, standby and I will find it.

Your post is not relavant as the change is because of EU-OPS nothing to do with the FAA.

PT6A

[PT6A]

AERODROME OPERATING MINIMUMS ACCORDING TO EU-OPS 1
25 AUG 2006
–
–
–
–
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
AERODROME OPERATING MINIMUMS ACCORDING TO EU-OPS 1
General Information
The European Union published the 2nd Amendment of EU-OPS 1 (Annex III to Regulation 3922/91).
EUR-Lex - Official Journal (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOIndex.do?ihmlang=en)
This EU-OPS 1 is the replacement of JAR-OPS 1 and contains a new method to determine Aerodrome Operating Minimums (AOM). The new method will
become the European Standard on 16 July 2011 at the latest.
According to ICAO Doc 9365-AN910 (Manual of All Weather Operations) and Annex 6 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation it is the operator’s
responsibility to establish Aerodrome Operating Minimums which need to be approved by the responsible authority.
The Appendix 1 (new) to OPS 1.430 describes the method which has to be used by all European Operators and within the European Union (EU).
Jeppesen will support your operations by replacing the current JAR-OPS AOM with the new Standard. Due to the huge number of airports (1000+) and
procedures (5000+) the conversion could only be done on a step by step basis.
It is our intent to have all procedures revised to the new Standard AOM by 16 July 2011 for all airports within
In May 2008 we asked commercial operators about their plans for this EU-OPS implementation. The following items are directly related to the results of that
survey:
Legend and ATC Pages
Jeppesen is currently reviewing the final version of this EU-OPS to replace the current ATC-601 (JAA AOM) pages with a summarization of the new EU-OPS
Aerodrome Operating Minimums.
In addition we will update the current Introduction 171 – 173 (JAR-OPS 1 AOM) pages to explain how the new minimums and the CDFA profiles are depicted
on Jeppesen charts.
Conversion Plan
The publication of the new Standard of AOM will be done along with normal chart revision activity. It is planned to convert all procedures of an affected airport
at the same time.
We will create special minimums pages, numbered 10-9S (similar to current 10-9X JAR-OPS pages), as an interim solution.
Jeppesen will maintain or create JAR-OPS 1 minimums pages on customer request only.
Please contact your Jeppesen customer service representative for any special requirements, such as airline tailored minimums, airborne equipment
considerations or your conversion priorities.
Charts with JAR-OPS label
The JAR-OPS label on Jeppesen approach and airport charts indicates that the minimums correspond to the rules described in Appendix 1 (old) to OPS 1.430
European Union member states,
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) member states,
Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) member states and
for other states where the currently used JAR-OPS AOM will be replaced.
All non-precision approaches will be reviewed to show CDFA (Continuous Descent Final Approach) profile and minimums.
In case of CDFA only, a DA(H) is shown instead of the previously published MDA(H). The missed approach point is still shown according to state source
but the missed approach initiation arrow is moved to the point where the DA(H) is reached.
Jeppesen charted AOM do not include an add-on when current MDA(H) is replaced by DA(H). Pilots are reminded to check their operator’s Flight
Operations Manual or similar documents whether they have to apply an add-on or not.
For CDFA profiles, Jeppesen will show DME vs altitude bands, distance vs altitude bands or timing vs altitude tables. If not provided by the State source
those altitudes will be calculated by Jeppesen.
Non-CDFA profiles and minimums will be shown in exceptional cases only and may be combined with CDFA profiles and minimums.
For CAT I operations with full approach light system (FALS) Jeppesen will include RVR values below 750m together with the higher values. Pilots are
reminded to check their operator’s Flight Operations Manual or similar documents to fulfill the requirements for using the lower RVR values.
Lower than standard CAT I minimums are charted on request on customer tailored charts.
Other than standard CAT II minimums will be charted if the procedure is approved for such operations by the state of the airport.
Circling minimums must not be lower than the minimums of preceding instrument approach procedure. If circling MDA(H) and/or visibility must be raised
due to higher straight-in values, only one set of circling minimums is shown which relates to the highest straight-in minimums.
© JEPPESEN, 2006. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
of the EU-OPS 1.
Future Outlook
The FAA will also publish new minimums which will be harmonized with the EU ones.
Jeppesen’s intention is to replace the current ECOMS and JAR-OPS Aerodrome Operating Minimums with the future harmonized version on a world-wide basis.

[Zeffy]

Thanks, PT6A.:ok:

So how do you interpret paragraph c with respect to the OP's quesion?

c. Jeppesen charted AOM do not include an add-on when current MDA(H) is replaced by DA(H). Pilots are reminded to check their operator’s Flight Operations Manual or similar documents whether they have to apply an add-on or not.

[emphasis mine]

[Denti]

Exactly what it says, check your OM and if you need to still add something on top of the DA do that, otherwise don't. We do not add anything to a DA for any kind of approach, however we still have to initiate a G/A for an approach that still has a MDA instead of a DA 50ft above MDA to respect that limit.

Pretty easy that way, DA = treat it like a precision approach DA, MDA = treat it as we always did.

[PT6A]

It would depend, my company does not use Jeppesen and we don't have to add anything on as it is already on the plate.

What rules is the OP flying under? are they using JAA Minimums or already made the change to EU-OPS.

Are the charts he is using standard Jeppesen ones or are they specific to his airline?

Without knowing the two things above it is hard to answer as the minimums on the chart might already include the DDA add on, or they may not..... His OPS Manual part A and B should be the source of the answer.

PT6A

[Zeffy]

Thank you, Denti/PT6A --

If you would indulge some additional pestering...

How can guidance in a OM override fundamental concepts embodied in PANS-OPS or TERPS?

That is, an MDA is a hard deck, with no allowance for descent below. Wouldn't the absence of an additive reduce the Required Obstacle Clearance?

[Denti]

If the approach has a MDA, yes. However now approaches do not have a MDA anymore, but rather a DA and obstacle clearance is assured for that.

[PT6A]

Because, European operators are changing the minmums they work to. This is part of EU-OPS, this is why Jeppesen are changing their charts.

They will no longer (at least the ones I use) say PANS OPS 4 down the side etc.

The OM should be checked because it is up to the company to dictate what minimums the crew will use, this is then approved by the operator.

PT6A

[Zeffy]

Thanks.

Have EU states modified their procedure-construction criteria and thus no longer publish MDA's?

It's hard for me to imagine that all states on the planet have modified their criteria and/or that all procedures to permit substitutions of DA for MDA in a world wide context.

In the process of converting state AIP data into an approach chart for flight crews, where exactly is the JAA "assurance" inserted?

[PT6A]

Actually for years Jeppesen have been adjusting things... this is just one more adjustment.

I think they call is EOMS? This is going to be updated soon.

But Jeppesen and other charting providers do have a system for adjusting the minimuns... and is one reason why if you look at two different providers EG, Jeppesen v Lido the same chart might not always have the same minimum this is very true in terms of visability in locations where the state does not publish it.

PT6A

[Zeffy]

OK -- it's become obvious that I need to peruse the Briefing Bulletin more carefully.

[PT6A]

It is all contained within EU-OPS if you pop it into google you can download it as a PDF.

Not that this will be affecting you stateside yet.....


PT6A

[aterpster]

Denti:

If the approach has a MDA, yes. However now approaches do not have a MDA anymore, but rather a DA and obstacle clearance is assured for that.

That's news to me.

[PT6A]

I guess it is news to you because you are not flying under EU-OPS.

However acording to the document above, the FAA are going to change their procedures to be inline with EU-OPS.

MDA, is not to be found anywhere in the new EU-OPS (see below)

Category I, APV and non-precision approach operations
1. A Category I approach operation is a precision instrument approach and landing using ILS, MLS, GLS
(GNSS/GBAS) or PAR with a decision height not lower than 200 ft and with an RVR not less than 550 m, unless
accepted by the Authority.
2. A non-precision approach (NPA) operation is an instrument approach using any of the facilities described in Table
3 (System minima), with a MDH or DH not lower than 250 ft and an RVR/CMV of not less than 750 m, unless
accepted by the Authority.
20.9.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 254/71
3. An APV operation is an instrument approach which utilises lateral and vertical guidance, but does not meet the
requirements established for precision approach and landing operations, with a DH not lower than 250 ft and a
runway visual range of not less than 600m unless approved by the Authority.
4. Decision height (DH). An operator must ensure that the decision height to be used for an approach is not lower
than:
(i) the minimum height to which the approach aid can be used without the required visual reference; or
(ii) the OCH for the category of aeroplane; or
(iii) the published approach procedure decision height where applicable; or
(iv) 200 ft for Category I approach operations; or
(v) the system minimum in Table 3; or
(vi) the lowest decision height specified in the Aeroplane Flight Manual (AFM) or equivalent document, if stated;
whichever is higher.
5. Minimum descent height (MDH). An operator must ensure that the minimum descent height for an approach is
not lower than:
(i) the OCH for the category of aeroplane; or
(ii) the system minimum in Table 3; or
(iii) the minimum descent height specified in the Aeroplane Flight Manual (AFM) if stated;
whichever is higher.
6. Visual reference. A pilot may not continue an approach below MDA/MDH unless at least one of the following
visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:
(i) elements of the approach light system;
(ii) the threshold;
(iii) the threshold markings;
(iv) the threshold lights;
(v) the threshold identification lights;
(vi) the visual glide slope indicator;
(vii) the touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings;
(viii) the touchdown zone lights;
(ix) runway edge lights; or
(x) other visual references accepted by the Authority.


PT6A

[aterpster]

PT6A:

We have APVs here in the U.S., which use ILS criteria. They are SBAS IAPs called LPV. They are, in fact, precision IAPs. The FAA just can't (yet) bring themselves to state the obvious.

Not so with the sundry other IAPs with advisory vertical guidance in the U.S.

There is precision obstacle clearance and there is non-precision obstacle clearance. The two are quite different.

Some operators have been able to treat MDA as DA on "qualified" non-precision IAPs in the U.S. for several years. Nonetheless, unlike LPV or Baro VNAV, it lacks an equivalent level of safety in my not so humble opinion.
:)

[PT6A]

ate,

It has to be better than dive n drive right?

For a number of years now at my airline we have been use the DA method on all NPA's

The QA data from our aircraft backs up the fact it works much better for us :ok:

It is now law for European operators to now to fly them this way.

PT6A

[Sir George Cayley]

Bit confused here.

Instr App Procs are designed to standards set out in ICAO Doc 8168 PANS-OPS.

Can anyone give me the amendment number that incorporated the change to how MDH(A) for NPA and DA for APV (LPV) are calculated?

Are Jepps acting as a designer or a chart provider?

Sir George Cayley

[PT6A]

Approach Chart Legend — EU-OPS 1 Aerodrome Operating Minimums (AOM)

Publication of minimums does not constitute authority for their use by all operators. Each individual operator must obtain appropriate approval for their use.

GENERAL
Beginning in November 2008 Jeppesen will replace the current JAR-OPS 1 minimums with the new minimums introduced by the 2nd amendment to EU-OPS 1.
The “Standard” label in the upper left corner of the minimums box indicates that the minimums are based on EU-OPS 1 (Subpart E - Appendix 1 new to OPS 1.430). The “JAR-OPS” label in the upper left corner of the minimums box indicates that the minimums are based on JAR-OPS 1 or EU-OPS 1 (Subpart E -Appendix 1 old to OPS 1.430).

For a detailed excerpt of EU-OPS 1 minimums refer to Air Traffic Control (ATC) Series 600 pages.

Jeppesen charted minimums are not below any State-provided minimums. Higher existing minimums for FAR 121 operators and those applying U.S. Operations Specifications are footnoted. RVR/CMV/VIS values are shown in measuring units as reported by the governing agency.

AOM for take-off and landing are either shown on Jeppesen instrument approach or aerodrome charts or on a separate minimums listing. Landing minimums will be shown as RVR, but values above 2000m will be designated as Converted Meteorological Visibility, prefixed “CMV”. Take-off minimums are shown without prefix because they are either RVR or VIS. Circling minimums are always visibilities which is indicated in the circling minimums box. For the separate minimums listings RVR, CMV and VIS are abbreviated as R, C and V.

TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS
The application of these minimums may be limited by the obstacle environment in the take-off and departure area. The RVR/VIS minimums are determined to ensure the visual guidance of the take-off run phase. The subsequent clearance of obstacles is the responsibility of the operator. Low visibility take-off with RVR/VIS below 400m requires the verification that Low Visibility Procedures (LVP) have been established and are in force. RVR/VIS for the initial part of take-off run can be replaced by pilot assessment. The multiple RVR requirement means, that the required RVR value must be achieved for all of the relevant RVR reporting points, except for the initial part, which can be determined by pilot assessment. Approved operators may reduce their take-off minimums to 125m (aircraft categories A, B, C), 150m (category D) or to 75m (all categories) with an approved lateral guidance system.

CIRCLING MINIMUMS
Circling minimums will only be charted if a circling OCA(H) or MDA(H) is provided by the procedure source. Otherwise, the circling box will be removed. If circling is not authorized by the procedure source, it will be noted in the notes box of the Briefing Strip header. Where straight-in minimums are higher than circling minimums (DH/MDH or RVR/VIS), the circling MDH or visibility will be raised to match the straight-in minimums.

NON-PRECISION APPROACH MINIMUMS AND CHART PROFILE VIEW
According to the EU-OPS requirements, all non-precision approaches shall be flown using the continuous descent final approach (CDFA) technique with decision altitude (height), and the missed approach shall be executed when reaching the DA(H) or the missed approach point (MAP), whichever occurs first. The lateral part of the missed approach procedure must be flown via the MAP unless stated otherwise in the procedure. Normally only CDFA minimums are shown. These are identified by the use of a DA(H). Jeppesen does not include an add-on when publishing a DA(H) for a CDFA non-precision approach. Non-CDFA minimums
are shown in exceptional cases and identified by an MDA(H).

The profile depiction will be modified to show the continuous descent on final approach. Source-published minimum altitudes will be shown as segment minimum altitudes in the profile (grey shaded box). These minimum altitudes are typically provided for obstacle clearance and must not be violated to remain clear of obstacles or terrain.
If not published by the procedure source, a table depicting DME vs altitude, distance vs altitude, or timing vs altitude will be calculated by Jeppesen and shown above the profile view. The timing table includes the descent angle, the FAF and the altitude at the FAF. Altitudes are calculated for 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100s from FAF and are based on speeds of 90, 120, 140, 160 and 180kt. Only altitudes above the decision altitude are provided.

Where CDFA minimums are shown, the profile will be modified to depict the continuous descent. The missed approach pull-up arrow is shown at the point where the decision height is reached. There is no level segment depicted prior to the MAP, and the MAP is shown as published by the procedure source.

In exceptional cases it may be necessary to include CDFA and non-CDFA minimums. Where this occurs, a level segment is shown prior to the missed approach point and the pull-up arrow is shown at the MAP.

[aterpster]

PT6A:

It has to be better than dive n drive right?

Really are two separate issues:

1. Constant angle or constant descent profiles are certainly safer than dive-and-drive.

2. OCH is, or should be, sacred during the IMC phase of flight.

Both can be optimized for safety by applying a DA additive to MDA.

[Greenfly07]

Thanks to PT6A (and all the others) who have responded to this. The chart in question is EHAM 13-4, VOR DME Rwy 27, dated 6 MAR 09 (Effective 12 Mar), downloaded from Jeppview at the FSC Training Centre in Amsterdam.
This whole issue seems to be quite confused. I think it might be useful if CAA issued some guidance.

[PT6A]

Greenfly,

Just looked at the chart. As per my operations manual we would fly that as charted.

IE, not adding anything to that DA.

PT6A

[JAR]

Does anyone have access to either an older Jepp plate or AERAD plate to compare minima (DA/MDA)?

AIP Netherland has MAPt (THR) 730 (740)
v JEPP DA(H) 730 (742)

[Greenfly07]

PT6A thanks again for all your very useful input. However, I am still confused. If the new Jepp DAs for Non-Precision Approaches do NOT include any add on, then surely they should always be factored to prevent descent below this 'hard' altitude? As far as I can see, the new DA is the same as an old MDA. The difference is that the charts now display the approach as a continuous descent procedure with an arrow showing the latest point at which the Go Around should be initiated.

[PT6A]

Green, as per my ops manual and that of one of the other posters. If it is charted as a DA then we treat it as a DA and don't add anything to it.

PT6A

[Zeffy]

Greenfly07However, I am still confused. If the new Jepp DAs for Non-Precision Approaches do NOT include any add on, then surely they should always be factored to prevent descent below this 'hard' altitude? As far as I can see, the new DA is the same as an old MDA. The difference is that the charts now display the approach as a continuous descent procedure with an arrow showing the latest point at which the Go Around should be initiated.

The AIP source (http://www.ais-netherlands.nl/) indicates that the "DA" (730' MSL) for the VOR DME 27 approach at EHAM is in fact an MDA.

The Jeppesen chart is tagged PANS-OPS 4, with "Standard" depicted in reverse type within the minima box.

Isn't it bit perplexing that an EU charting spec (i.e., -- not a revision to procedure criteria) seems to have become a de facto revision to PANS-OPS?

FAA's Advisory Circular 120-108 (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%20120-108.pdf) makes clear that a crew must never descend below the MDA during a go-around in IMC: f. Derived Decision Altitude (DDA). Pilots must not descend below the MDA when executing a missed approach from a CDFA.

Absent a DDA additive, isn't there significant risk of losing the designed obstacle clearance?

From where does the authority to descend below an MDA originate?

[aterpster]

State AIP official chart clearly shows an MDA:

http://tinyurl.com/5r82jxb

[aterpster]

For a better view of EHAM VOR DME 27 charts go t:

http://tinyurl.com/4f6d3he

PDF File of EHAM Jepp and state source:

Page 1: Comparative
Pages 2 and 3: Original VG Charts

[Zeffy]

PT6A
It is all contained within EU-OPS if you pop it into google you can download it as a PDF.

OK, I did that (206 pages!) -- and found this on pages 55-56:

(2) Minimum Descent Height. An operator must ensure that the minimum descent height for a non-precision approach is not lower than either:
(i) The OCH/OCL for the category of aeroplane; or
(ii) The system minimum.


In view of the state AIP source per aterpster, how will a pilot or operator using the CDFA method avoid descent below the state-specified OCA of 730' unless an additive is applied?

Have I missed something within the the EU-OPS?

Have I referenced the wrong document?

[9.G]

Zeffy, jepp plate 13-4 for VOR DME 27 shows a DA in compliance with the EU OPS as indicated by the suffix STANDARD so you treat it as a DA provided you fly a CFDA technique. It's all in the EU OPS and Jeppesen.:ok:

[FlightPathOBN]

Not too sure about that...this is an MDA, not a DA...a procedure design with a DA assumes a momentary descent before the min seg altitude...this chart clearly states this is the min seg altitude...
According to the design, if you penetrate this surface, and go missed, you risk the obstacle clearance that drove this design.

Notice to Operators Flying European Non-precision Approaches | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association (http://www.nbaa.org/ops/intl/eur/20110217-europe-non-precision-approaches-cdfa.php)

Notice to Operators Flying European Non-Precision Approaches

February 17, 2011

Jeppesen EU-OPS 1 Minimums for Non-Precision Approach Procedures
As indicated in Jeppesen Briefing Bulletin Jep 08-D and Jeppesen Chart Legend pages, EU-OPS and other state regulations may require that Non-Precision Approaches be flown using the Continuous Descent Final Approach (CDFA) technique. The CDFA method prohibits level flight at the published minimum altitude and instead requires an immediate missed approach upon reaching minimums unless visual references have been acquired.

In support of these CDFA procedures, Jeppesen is replacing previously charted MDA(H) minima with DA(H) minima on Non-Precision Approach Procedures in EU, EASA and JAA member states.

Operators on a Non-Precision Approach in Europe should note:

On a Non-Precision Approach, the airplane must never descend below the published minimum altitude during the initiation of the missed approach.
Unlike DA(H) minima published on an ILS, LNAV/VNAV, or LPV procedure, the DA(H) minima for the subject Non-Precision approaches (e.g., LOC, VOR, LNAV, NDB) published by Jeppesen do not provide an allowance for any momentary altitude loss during the transition to the missed approach climb.
Therefore, when a DA(H) is shown by Jeppesen on a Non-Precision Approach chart, it is critical to safety that crews account for loss of altitude in order to avoid descent below the published DA(H).

The value of the additive is left to the discretion of the operator, but should reflect realistic operating characteristics of the aircraft as well as crew performance.
(emphasis added)
For more information on this critical safety issue, contact NBAA's Bob Lamond at [email protected].

[Zeffy]

Not to sure about that...this is an MDA, not a DA...a procedure design with a DA assumes a momentary descent before the min seg altitude...this chart clearly states this is the min seg altitude...
According to the design, if you penetrate this surface, and go missed, you risk the obstacle clearance that drove this design.

Exactly. (And welcome to PPRuNe)


Links to additional briefings from Jeppesen (http://www.transportstyrelsen.se/Global/Regler/Luftfart/Jeppesen_New_approach_charts.pdf?epslanguage=sv) and Navtech (http://www.transportstyrelsen.se/Global/Regler/Luftfart/EAG_New_approach_charts.pdf?epslanguage=sv).

`

[FlightPathOBN]

Here is what that profile means with regards to the criteria...and what the chart means to the operator.

The Approach and Missed Approach are two completely separate designs. From the chart noted, Class A-D aircraft parameters apply, which means, basically the Class D performance was likely the worst case. (note that the criteria does not account for Engine Out)

On Approach, with the 3 degree GPA, a 200 foot ROC applies. Given the chart MDA, the obstacle is in the Missed Approach, or the MA parameters govern. (otherwise there would be an MDA 200 foot above threshold)

Now, the level section on the chart shown is an MDA. What isnt shown is the assumed parabolic curve that an aircraft takes when initiating a missed approach. This parabola is bounded by the level segment shown on the chart.
(note:if one initiates an MA, and the parabolic curve descends below the level segment altitude, one has failed)

Now, this parabola makes the following assumption, which is the same assumption that the crew must take into account when determining the real time DA, given this MDA.

The criteria assumes a 7 second timeframe, broken down as follows:
1. The pilot makes a decision to go missed, from the time the pilot makes that decision, it assumes 3 seconds to initiate the missed with the controls. (As a baseline, in roadway design, traffic lights are set to assume a 2 second decision time)
2. The aircraft takes 4 seconds to respond and begin the climb.

This is the foundation of the level section, a level surface that the aircraft must not penetrate.

For these procedures, the crew must take into account the current configuration, temps, loading, etc, and determine a real time climb gradient. This real time climb must fit within the bounds of the profile, and the crew must determine the real-time DA based on their situation.

This is certainly veiled in the chart, but is absolutely imperative for safe operations.

(In procedure engineering, I use the full 7 seconds, citing unknowns in crew experience, and calculate a DA based on several assumed climb gradients from 1.5% (criteria) to 12%, thus an engineered chart would show performance DA's that would not violate the MDA.)

[172_driver]

So I'd like to wake up this thread again since it contains useful information. I am in the process of trying to update myself with the latest EU-OPS, Appendix 1 (New) to Subpart E.

First I noticed this one; Zeffy


OK, I did that (206 pages!) -- and found this on pages 55-56:

(2) Minimum Descent Height. An operator must ensure that the minimum descent height for a non-precision approach is not lower than either:
(i) The OCH/OCL for the category of aeroplane; or
(ii) The system minimum.
In view of the state AIP source per aterpster, how will a pilot or operator using the CDFA method avoid descent below the state-specified OCA of 730' unless an additive is applied?

Have I missed something within the the EU-OPS?

Have I referenced the wrong document?

I think in fact you are referring to the wrong document. First, by the page no. reference it may be EU-OPS Amdt. 1, there is an Amdt. 2 out and you should be looking around page 71 for definitions. Second, the quote is direct from EU-OPS Subpart E OPS 1.430 Appendix 1 (Old). This whole discussion is about the introduction of Appendix 1 (New).

By reading here it seems that some companies, flying CDFA NPA's, simply treat the old MDA now as a DA. PANS-OPS hasn't changed, so I believe this will in fact reduce the obstacle clearance if go-around is initiated at DA. Since all AOMs have to be approved by the Authority according to EU-OPS 1.430 (a)1 this must surely been something these companies' authorities have considered?

I am currently flying light twin in the US where DA is DA and MDA is MDA… dive-and-drive is the norm. So I don't really have practical experience from CDFAs, so please educate me! If you have a pure NDB approach (no DME), how do you conduct a CDFA? From FAF, just set the ROD published for your speed and go-around at MAPt or DA, whichever comes first? If you have FPV, do you set pitch for the published glide path angle and fly until MAPt or DA, whichever comes first? Or do you simply not fly NPA's unless they have advisory DME vs. Altitude tables published?

[Dan Winterland]

In our operation (not EU OPS or FAA), our company specific Jepp charts show an MDA. I recently did a sim in the UK where I provided our company's charts for the check. The TIRE had his company charts with him which showed a DA which was higher than our MDA, despite the charts having the same date. In our operation, we add the aircraft allowance which differs depending on the type. There's no point in restricting aircraft with an uneccessarily high minima.

[BOAC]

there is an Amdt. 2 - got a link to that please?

[172_driver]

Right here: Förordningen - Transportstyrelsen (http://www.transportstyrelsen.se/sv/Regler/Regler-for-luftfart/EU/EU-OPS/Forordningen/)

Press: Engelskspråkig version av EU-OPS bilaga 3 ändring 2, i kraft 2008-09-20

"ändring 2" means that it is Amendment 2. It's effective from 2008-09-20 so it's been around for a while. I have come across an older version of EU-OPS once when I googled, since then I just use the link above.

[BOAC]

Thanks - as far as I know that is the latest version. Not sure where Zeffy found his page 55!

[FlightPathOBN]

sorry about the advanced copy...but this is a good explanation from ICAO PansOps..
I would especially note the difference for the determination of the OCH/OCA between precision and non-precision, then the different additives to the OCH to get the DA or MDA....

A precision approach has a defined obstacle surface for the missed, the NPA does not...


http://operationsbasednavigation.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/NPAPAac.jpg

[FlightPathOBN]

This was posted by JimL over in the rotorheads forum, but is applicable here...

Safety Reminder Message from Eurocontrol (dtd. 03/02/2010):


SYNOPSIS

 EUROCONTROL has been advised of concerns about the use of Decision Altitude/Height (DA(H)) instead of Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA(H)) as the aerodrome operating minima (AOM) on some non-precision approach charts produced by Jeppesen for countries applying “EU Ops”. This has become a source of confusion and has implications for aircraft operators.

ANALYSIS

 Commission Regulation EC 859/2008 dated 20 August 2008, EU Ops 1.430(d) 2 (applicable from 16 July 2011) states that “all non-precision approaches shall be flown using the continuous descent final approaches (CDFA) technique”.

 EU Ops, 1.435.9 defines CDFA as, “A specific technique for flying the final-approach segment of a non-precision instrument approach procedure as a continuous descent, without level-off from an altitude/height at or above the Final Approach Fix altitude/height to a point approximately 15m (50ft) above the landing runway threshold or the point where the flare manoeuvre should begin for the type of aircraft shown”. Moreover, Appendix 1 (New) to OPS 1.430, states that, “the missed approach, after an approach has been flown using the CDFA technique, shall be executed when reaching the decision altitude (height…”.

Note: Additional CDFA guidance material is currently under preparation.

 Jeppesen only publish DA(H) on CDFA-based, non-precision approaches where the equivalent national AIP minima is shown as an OCA(H). Where national AIP minima is shown as a MDA(H) or for non-CDFA-based, non-precision approaches, Jeppesen continues to publish MDA(H).

 ICAO PANS OPS definitions:

 Minimum Descent Altitude/Height (MDA(H)): “a specified altitude or height in a non-precision approach or circling approach below which descent must not be made without the required visual reference”.

 Decision Altitude/Height (DA(H)): “a specified altitude/height in a precision approach or approach with vertical guidance at which a missed approach must be initiated if the required visual reference to continue the approach has not been established”.

 Obstacle Clearance Altitude/Height (OCA(H)): “The lowest altitude or the lowest height above the elevation of the relevant runway threshold or the aerodrome elevation as applicable, used in establishing compliance with appropriate obstacle clearance criteria”.

 The DA(H) value shown on the Jeppesen charts is at least equal to the published national AIP OCA(H)) minima for a non-precision approach. Importantly, however, the DA(H) published on the Jeppesen charts does not include any add-on to account for any height loss during the initiation of a missed approach. This is not mentioned directly on the charts, but it is described in the Jeppesen Briefing Bulletin JEP 08-D and in the legend pages to the Jeppesen Airway Manual.

 EU Ops 1.430 (a)1 states that, “an operator shall establish, for each aerodrome planned to be used, aerodrome operating minima…”

YOUR ATTENTION IS REQUIRED

 Aircraft operators are invited to:

 Note the issue above specifically with a review of the need to consider the requirement for an add-on factor to account for height loss at missed approach initiation.

 Share their operational experiences.

 It is critical to flight safety that pilots brief the DA(H) or MDA(H) (as appropriate) so that there is no ambiguity as to what minimums are being used irrespective of the type of approach being flown.

FURTHER READING

 Commission Regulation EC 589/2008 (EU Ops) dated 20 August 2008. SKYbrary - EU-OPS

 ICAO Doc - 8168 PANS OPS

 Jeppesen Airway Manual

 Jeppesen Briefing Bulletin JEP 08-D - 26 Sep 08 at http://www.jeppesen.com/main/corpora...b_jep_08_D.pdf

 Draft Implementing Rule for Air Operations of Community Operators (EASA NPA 2009-02B) (CDFA Guidance pages 155-165). EASA - European Aviation Safety Agency

For more information contact, EUROCONTROL Safety Alerts Coordinator, Richard Lawrence at: [email protected]

[172_driver]

FlightPathOBN,

Thanks for sharing. I happened to read that in the other forum yesterday, quite a few discussions going on about DA(H)/MDA(H) nowadays it seems.


YOUR ATTENTION IS REQUIRED

 Note the issue above specifically with a review of the need to consider the requirement for an add-on factor to account for height loss at missed approach initiation.



As far as I can tell from this thread, some operators indeed use the same height that used to be a MDH and now treat as a DH. As I interpret EU-OPS this may be an acceptable practice under EU-OPS 1.430 (a)1. If the Authority determines it's a safe practice, it can be approved as such.

OPS 1.430
Aerodrome operating minima — General

a(1) An operator shall establish, for each aerodrome planned to be used, aerodrome operating minima that are not lower than the values given in Appendix 1(Old) or Appendix 1 (New) as applicable. The method of determination of such minima must be acceptable to the Authority. Such minima shall not be lower than any that may be established for such aerodromes by the State in which the aerodrome is located, except when specifically approved by that State.

[FlightPathOBN]

Concur,

However, I feel that far too many operators are cavalier about this.

The OCH is different for PA and NPA, even for an NPA with a FAF or without...the additives that determine the MDA for the NPA or the DA for a PA could be radically different.

Another significant issue is noted on the explanation, that for precision approach, obstacles are considered for the approach AND missed approach,
while for the non-precision approach, obstacles are only evaluated on the final approach, missed approach is not considered in the obstacle evaluation.

Another issue is the additives to the OCH. NPA has set MOC per CAT for the MDA, while the precision approach lower limit, or DA, is variable depending on many factors.

Using the MDA as a DA, is fraught with issues...if nothing else, the way that the obstacles are used in the MDA or DA determinations...

OPS 1.430

Aerodrome operating minima — General

a(1) An operator shall establish, for each aerodrome planned to be used, aerodrome operating minima that are not lower than the values given in Appendix 1(Old) or Appendix 1 (New) as applicable. The method of determination of such minima must be acceptable to the Authority. Such minima shall not be lower than any that may be established for such aerodromes by the State in which the aerodrome is located, except when specifically approved by that State.

So has everyone submitted a custom minima for approval, or use what is on the chart?

[aterpster]

FlightPathOBN:

Another significant issue is noted on the explanation, that for precision approach, obstacles are considered for the approach AND missed approach, while for the non-precision approach, obstacles are only evaluated on the final approach, missed approach is not considered in the obstacle evaluation.

Help me out on that one, please.

[FlightPathOBN]

Only precision approach procedures include a missed approach.

NPA, ie VOR, NDB, etc.. procedures have never included a missed approach...

the diagram from 8168 notes that the OCA is based on obstacles in the final approach...

[Denti]

Weird, every NPA i have flown so far has a missed approach procedure. And the minima used for the approach are often different for different achievable missed approach climb gradients to clear the obstacles. Granted, nearly all of those were in europe where things sometimes are different.

[aterpster]

FltPathOBN:

Only precision approach procedures include a missed approach.

NPA, ie VOR, NDB, etc.. procedures have never included a missed approach...

the diagram from 8168 notes that the OCA is based on obstacles in the final approach...

I can't read that diagram. But, I do know that every precision and non-precision IAP developed under PANS-OPS or TERPS is required to have a published missed approach procedure.

Usually, the minimums on a NPA, whether LOC, NDB, VOR, or RNAV, are predicated on a controlling obstacle in the final approach segment. But, if the missed approach segment is not 40:1-clear then either a climb gradient must be establish to clear the missed approach controlling obstacle, or the MDA must be adjusted upwards to provide a 40:1-clear missed approach surface.

Can you provide an example that is done otherwise?

[FlightPathOBN]

Terpster, Denti,

well, now that I have re-read my own post, I can see where I didnt explain this correctly.

your explanation is what I was trying to say, the missed approach surface rather than a missed approach procedure...
Usually, the minimums on a NPA, whether LOC, NDB, VOR, or RNAV, are predicated on a controlling obstacle in the final approach segment. But, if the missed approach segment is not 40:1-clear then either a climb gradient must be establish to clear the missed approach controlling obstacle, or the MDA must be adjusted upwards to provide a 40:1-clear missed approach surface.

With Part 77, the approach obstacle evaluation goes to the FAF or 50 thousand feet from runway end, but the missed eval surface ends 10 to 14 thousand feet from the end of the runway.
I was thinking of designs that were, for lack of a better term, 'diverse missed', one in particular, where the missed turn is initiated before the end of the runway...

and yes Denti, there are quite a few, and becoming more popular, where the minima is based on your real-time climb gradient.

the main point of the diagram, was that for the NPA, the OCH is based on the controlling obstacle plus a MOC, that is fixed for all aircraft at 295 feet without a FAF, and 246 feet with a FAF,

while the PA, the OCH as based on the controlling obstacle, plus a margin that is dependant on aircraft approach speed, height loss, and altimetry...

long story short, the OCH can be different for PA vs NPA.

[aterpster]

FlightPathOBM:

With Part 77, the approach obstacle evaluation goes to the FAF or 50 thousand feet from runway end, but the missed eval surface ends 10 to 14 thousand feet from the end of the runway.

For the benefit of lurkers, Part 77 applies only in airspace under FAA jurisdiction. It consists of imaginary surfaces around an airport that a proponent wanting to construct a building or antenna must first consider. If the proposed construction penetrates one of those imaginary surfaces then the proponent must submit the proposed construction to the FAA regional office for an "Aeronautical Study," which will result in either a "No Hazard" or "Hazard" determination in due course.

If a proposed object will exceed 200 feet in height, it must be submitted under Part 77 no matter how far it may be from an airport.

[FlightPathOBN]

Ah yes, PansOps Annex 14 conical surfaces are similar, starting at the runway end at 50:1 and 40:1 to a height above runway of 150meters elevation (6600m length) then level to 15,000m from runway end...same evaluation cone for approach and take-off...

[aterpster]

FP OBN:

Ah yes, PansOps Annex 14 conical surfaces are similar, starting at the runway end at 50:1 and 40:1 to a height above runway of 150meters elevation (6600m length) then level to 15,000m from runway end...same evaluation cone for approach and take-off...

I take it then that Annex 14 is not terminal instrument criteria, rather simply imaginary surfaces to determine whether a proponent of construction must notify the state aviation authority. Then, is there a uniform process for member states to conduct an aeronautical study with a determination then issued?

[FlightPathOBN]

the surfaces are very similar..and are used for terminal procedures...not shown are areas 3 and 4...

http://www.icao.int/ICDB/HTML/English/Representative%20Bodies/Air%20Navigation%20Commission/Working%20Papers%20by%20Year/2003/AN.2003.WP.7837.en/an.2003.wp.7837.appa.img02.en.jpg

http://www.icao.int/ICDB/HTML/English/Representative%20Bodies/Air%20Navigation%20Commission/Working%20Papers%20by%20Year/2003/AN.2003.WP.7837.en/an.2003.wp.7837.appa.img01.en.jpg

[aterpster]

the surfaces are very similar..and are used for terminal procedures...not shown are areas 3 and 4...

Once again, you have lost me.

[FlightPathOBN]

maybe this is better...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5273/5871713142_c33bd785f5_b.jpg

[aterpster]

FPOPN:

Okay, that looks like imaginary surfaces for assessment of proposed obstacles to determine whether they may have an adverse effect on air operations. Do proponents of proposed construction have to submit to an aeronuatical study such as Part 77 requires in the U.S?

[newton99]

But back to the core question, do we add anything onto th DA(H) or OCA (H) ?

And also, quoting parts of an earlier post :

....." On a Non-Precision Approach, the airplane must never descend below the published minimum altitude during the initiation of the missed approach.
Unlike DA(H) minima published on an ILS, LNAV/VNAV, or LPV procedure, the DA(H) minima for the subject Non-Precision approaches (e.g., LOC, VOR, LNAV, NDB) published by Jeppesen do not provide an allowance for any momentary altitude loss during the transition to the missed approach climb.
Therefore, when a DA(H) is shown by Jeppesen on a Non-Precision Approach chart, it is critical to safety that crews account for loss of altitude in order to avoid descent below the published DA(H)......"

Is an LNAV/VNAV approach ( Managed Approach in Airbus lingo ) considered a Precision Approach ? News to me...

[westhawk]

Is an LNAV/VNAV approach ( Managed Approach in Airbus lingo ) considered a Precision Approach ? News to me...

No, in the US at least, it's considered an approach with vertical guidance. (APV)

(b) Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV). An instrument approach based on a navigation system that is not required to meet the precision approach standards of ICAO Annex 10 but provides course and glidepath deviation information. For example, Baro-VNAV, LDA with glidepath, LNAV/VNAV and LPV are APV approaches.

APV minimums are currently published with a DA rather than a MDA. I have a hazy recollection of seeing at least one RNAV/GPS approach with higher minima on the LNAV/VNAV line than on the LNAV line. I'm not sure, but that may be explained by allowing some room for the descent to climb transition?

[172_driver]

I have a hazy recollection of seeing at least one RNAV/GPS approach with higher minima on the LNAV/VNAV line than on the LNAV line. I'm not sure, but that may be explained by allowing some room for the descent to climb transition?



Affirm, here is one example. KCRQ GPS RWY 24 (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1109/05310R24.PDF). And it's a significant difference, 287 ft in MDA. What is the reason for that? aterpster? FlightOBN?

[Denti]

The LNAV/VNAV approach is temperature compensated for -15°C, the LNAV approach isn't.

[westhawk]

The LNAV/VNAV approach is temperature compensated for -15°C, the LNAV approach isn't.

Thanks Denti, that makes sense.

[stevestpierre]

Thank you 'FlightPathOBN' for the detail. I will add to my sim sessions when this topic comes up.

The link below to Transport Canada shows how it is handled in Canada.
A specific exemption is given ... 'R745,47 - Exemption from respecting MDA.'

R745.47 - Exemption from respecting MDA:

(a) this guidance applies to non-precision approach operations using FMS approach slope or other stabilized approach angle techniques;

(b) CAR 602.128 (2)(b) forbids descent below minimum descent altitude (MDA) during a non-precision approach unless the required visual reference has been established;

(c) an exemption to this regulation is available to turbo-jet aircraft with over 100,000 lbs. take-off gross weight if the air operator is using stabilized approach angle techniques, provided that certain conditions are met. This exemption permits pilots to treat MDA as a DH;

(d) all air operators who are not exempted from the requirements of CAR 602.128 (2)(b) must conduct non-precision approaches in such a way that the aircraft does not descend below the published MDA unless the required visual reference has been established (with due allowance for momentary variations during turbulent conditions). These air operators would be considered to be "respecting MDA" only if their operational procedures, training and checking programs required pilots to maintain an altitude at or above the published MDA prior to establishing visual reference;


There are several conditions for exemption. One of the conditions...

"(ii) the air operator must have procedures in place to ensure that pilots will add a specified amount to MDA that will compensate for the additional height loss during the go-around initiation during approaches where:

(A) there is a failure of an aircraft system that would affect the aircraft height loss during the initiation of a missed approach;
(B) the aircraft is above normal maximum landing weight;
(C) the aircraft landing weight is limited by aborted landing climb performance; or
(D) any other situation where a larger than normal height loss during the initiation of a missed approach could be expected;..."

Division III - Flight Operations - Transport Canada (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/commerce-manuals-guidance705-division3-1803.htm)
(scroll link to the bottom for full text of 'R745.47')

In my experience, depending on the operator, a standard addition of 'a specified amount to MDA' used on the A330/A340 has been 50'

Cheers

[FlightPathOBN]

Denti has it....the VNAV is uncompensated baro, so the effective GPA may be down as far as 2.5 degrees, plus the ROC, this will push the min up...
Looks like there are quite a few obstacles in the final...

(BTW...this procedure is a horrible design...)

Steve..you are welcome...

50 foot height loss is a criteria supported standard....

[172_driver]

The temp consideration certainly makes sense, thanks! Flying the approach regularly I concur you don't want to be too low, it takes you pretty close to hills just left of the final.

Another interesting point for KCRQ, the straight-in LLZ MDA is 1000 ft. For several weeks there was an FDC NOTAM out lowering the circling MDA to 940 ft. Unfortunately the NOTAM is no longer around to prove my point, probably since they just updated the approach to include a DME. Is that something that could theoretically occur or was it a mis-print?

KCRQ ILS/DME: http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1109/05310ILD24.PDF

[FlightPathOBN]

my head hurts looking at that chart! At least you have something close to a 5nm FAF...and descent mins..

(the NOTAM may have noted the controlling obstacle was removed and replaced)

Not sure what you are flying, but I would use the GPS to an ILS intercept

these procedures really are an irritation, as they illustrate the 'criteria' issues, and many people wonder what is the benefit of GPS or RNP, when the mins are frequently higher...

the 250 HAT just kills me..

[172_driver]

The JLI transition is a pain in the butt, especially considering the accuracy of the VOR's in that area. They seem to be very affected by the mountainous terrain around and the needles are swinging like having a rock party! Flying a little twin so the approach is doable. ATC normally vectors you (albeit quite crappy at times, normally G/S from above..).
Regarding the NOTAM, I can see the controlling obstacle has been removed, just don't understand why it affected only the circling MDA and not the straight in. On the previous chart there was a MKR (DEASY) about where CIDRU is on the new chart, and after that you could drop to 1000 ft MDA, but for circling NOTAMed to 940 ft.

[thermostat]

A constant descent seems possible from the VOR. Maintain 3000 ft inbound to the VOR then on crossing, set -2 degrees (actually 1.96422 degrees) on the FPA all the way to the VDP/ MDA. Works great. I thought these step-down approaches were history. What gives??

[aterpster]

172 Driver:

Affirm, here is one example. KCRQ GPS RWY 24 (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1109/05310R24.PDF). And it's a significant difference, 287 ft in MDA. What is the reason for that? aterpster? FlightOBN?

Non-RNP AR VNAV criteria has ILS like vertical clearance from the P-FAF inbound, but with larger margins to account for the lowest common denominator of IFR BARO VNAV equipment, and the DA forces the visibility to be higher than LNAV. LNAV is simply 250 feet of obstacle clearance from the FAF to the runway.

The "name of the game" for this IAP is LPV, which uses the exact lateral and vertical surfaces of ILS and is temperature independent. There is a revision pending, which is on hold at the present time.

[aterpster]

FlightPathOBN:

my head hurts looking at that chart! At least you have something close to a 5nm FAF...and descent mins..

The Jeppesen chart is much, much clearer. The real purpose of this approach is LPV.

[Capn Bloggs]

I've got my doubts about that KCRQ LOC/DME (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1109/05310ILD24.PDF)approach. The 4.2 DME step looks really limiting: 3.6° -ish to get down to the runway from there?

Where's the DME/ALT scale for the LOC/DME approach?

[aterpster]

Capn Bloggs:

I've got my doubts about that KCRQ LOC/DME (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1109/05310ILD24.PDF)approach. The 4.2 DME step looks really limiting: 3.6° -ish to get down to the runway from there?

What are your doubts? The FAA doesn't assure the same path on the LOC procedure as they do on the ILS procedure.

Where's the DME/ALT scale for the LOC/DME approach?

FAA has never done that.

[Capn Bloggs]

The FAA doesn't assure the same path on the LOC procedure as they do on the ILS procedure.

No wonder the world is still trying to get over Dive and Drive. Approach charts like that, in 2011, with no help at all in flying past that limiting step with some semblance of a stable sink rate/approach are not doing anybody any favours.

Out of interest, Aterpster, how would you suggest someone fly that LOC approach without VNAV?

[aterpster]

Capn Blogg:

No wonder the world is still trying to get over Dive and Drive. Approach charts like that, in 2011, with no help at all in flying past that limiting step with some semblance of a stable sink rate/approach are not doing anybody any favours.

The FAA is not in the "favors" business. It is an ILS approach, so the odds of anyone having to fly the LOC/DME IAP are quite small.

Out of interest, Aterpster, how would you suggest someone fly that LOC approach without VNAV?

I wouldn't. My suggestion would be to join the 21st Century with a WAAS navigator so they could select the LPV IAP to the same runway in the event of an outage of the ILS GS.

[Denti]

Well, sadly the oh so american company Boeing does not believe in LPV and does not offer it on its models...

But GLS is standard equipment ;)

[aterpster]

Denti:

Well, sadly the oh so american company Boeing does not believe in LPV and does not offer it on its models...

But GLS is standard equipment http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Bad decision on their part. Then again, it's not the first time they've been wrong.

More and more business aircraft are equiping with SBAS. The mix of users at KCRQ is such that probably 80% of them can fly either LPV or LNAV/VNAV.

But, the LNAV/VNAV minimums at KCRQ are way higher than the LPV and higher than LNAV only. Boeing is painfully aware of how lousy LNAV/VNAV is except for RNP AR.

[172_driver]

I've got my doubts about that KCRQ LOC/DME (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1109/05310ILD24.PDF)approach. The 4.2 DME step looks really limiting: 3.6° -ish to get down to the runway from there?


Maybe... but on the old chart there was a drop from 2300 ft around CIDRU right down to a 1000 ft MDA and only timing to define MAPt... so at least something has improved. Usually good weather at KCRQ, but in evening/night/morning marine layer can drift in and occasionally give weather close to CATI minima, and often lower than LLZ minima. LPV isn't a bad back up.

[FlightPathOBN]

It is not Boeing nor Airbus fault that GLS in standard, the FAA promised NextGen and outlined the future, which has most, if not all, VOR out of operation by 2015....WAAS is a waste of money to equip for given GBAS,(and lack of procedure guidance) and ILS does not give the capacity needed by 2015...
RNP is virtually unsupported by the FAA as far as viable procedures...while airlines such as Alaska Airlines and FedEx, use RNP exclusively for access and performance gains...

[chimichanga]

Can somebody help clear this up for me?

I am looking at an approach chart in Europe and it is confusing. Say I am doing the LOC only (GS out) approach. I am used to seeing an associated MDA and then flying down to that MDA and holding it 'till the Missed approach point. According to the new Jepps in Europe it apparently doesn't work like this any longer? All I see is a DA listed. So here is my question: Do I simply descend as if I had a glideslope and now go missed at the LOC (GS out) DA?? I ask because there is still a M or missed approach point listed on the damn chart...why would they publish a Missed approach point if I am now to simply obey a higher DA? Or do I get to this new/higher DA for the LOC approach and then hold the altitude and continue to the missed approach point.....this is really confusing!

Thanks

[bluk]

Hi,
You should stop approach at DH or MAP whatever you meet first.
If you descent correctly, you will achieve DH first, but if you descent too slow, there is a possibility that you achieve MAP first,
It's better to understand at NDB approaches w/o DME, where you descent and simply waiting what is first.

edit/ look at post #21 in this topic, there you'll find full answer

[chimichanga]

Bluk: Thanks for the info. :rolleyes: