MAPt/DA - LOWG

[FlyingStone]

Hi!

I seem to have a bit of a problem with understanding where must the missed approach be initiated in the following example.

The VOR/DME approach for runway 35C in Graz (LOWG) requires you (on Jeppesen chart 13-2, conforming to EU OPS reuqirement to fly the non-precision approaches as CDFA) to fly level to GRZ NDB at 2300' and then descend via the 3.15° path towards the runway. Missed approach point is GRZ VOR and the decision altitude is 1500'. The problem is, table provided by the Jeppesen states that at 0 DME (effectively over the VOR and at MAPt) aircraft's altitude should be 1600', which is 100ft above the DA.

From ICAO Doc 8168:

6.1.6 If upon reaching the MAPt the required visual reference is not established, the procedure requires that a
missed approach be initiated at once in order to maintain protection from obstacles.

So basically, as it seems, you are required to initiate the missed approach overhead the VOR at 1600ft, when you are still 100ft above DA. Seems pointless to me that DA is then published at 1500ft, when there is no way to actually reach it, unless you descend below the CDFA profile. The situation becomes even more strange, when you check the chart in the Austrian AIP, which shows that you should be at 1500ft over the VOR (MAPt).

Any clarification on this subject would be highly appreciated.

[BOAC]

"unless you descend below the CDFA profile." My preferred explanation,

however

" The situation becomes even more strange, when you check the chart in the Austrian AIP, which shows that you should be at 1500ft over the VOR (MAPt)." Is the Austrian AIP based on CFDA or 'dive and drive'?

Aterpster/OBN?

[Capn Bloggs]

Jeppesen typo?

Is there a link to the chart?

[Zeffy]

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa92/zeffy_bucket/LOWG_VORDME35C.png

[Microburst2002]

Interesting

It is either a typo or maybe the 3.15º is laid from the LOM at 2300 to the threshold plus 50 ft, so that overhead the VOR the altitude should be 1600, which is 100 ft higher than MDA.

This would mean that in marginal weather it would "pay" to fly this approach dive and drive, as this would enhance the chances of becoming visual in 100 ft (600 m less of visibility that you need).

I think it is a typo

[5420N]

My NAVTECH chart show a CDFA angle of 3.6 degrees which passes the MAP at 1500ft.

Chart WEF 28 JUL 2011

[Denti]

Hmm, my LIDO chart shows a CDFA approach out of 3300 (3500 if starting the approach out of LENIZ) with 3.15° passing the MAPt at 1500.

[5420N]

Passing the NDB (LOM) is says 2300. Mapt is 2.1nm further. That is nearly 400ft/nm to achieve 1500ft. That's more than a 3.15 degree slope isn't it?

[Denti]

It doesn't chart the slope out of 2300ft at the NDB, just a hard minimum altitude limit of 2300ft at the NDB, it starts the approach out of 4000ft in the racetrack or baseturn with the turn at 3300ft and a continous descent out of 3300ft.

[aterpster]

5420N:

Passing the NDB (LOM) is says 2300. Mapt is 2.1nm further. That is nearly 400ft/nm to achieve 1500ft. That's more than a 3.15 degree slope isn't it?

The descent angle is computed to the runway threshold at a TCH of 53 feet.

Having said that, I don't understand this European system at all, especially where the missed approach point is prior to, and above, the pseudo DA point. The missed approach climbing assumptions in criteria presume a climb at not less than 1,500 and not later than the VOR.

For reference, here is the current Jepp chart. I imagine it is the same as the LIDO chart:


http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/LOWGVORDMERwy35C-1.jpg

[5420N]

The descent angle is computed to the runway threshold at a TCH of 53 feet.

Thanks for the heads up on the Jepp chart!

What I'm saying is that the procedure CDFA is 3.6 degrees as per NAVTECH and will get you to 1500 feet over the VOR (MAPt).


It doesn't chart the slope out of 2300ft at the NDB, just a hard minimum altitude limit of 2300ft at the NDB

Well Jepp says 2270 at 2.0nm from the VOR, the NDB (LOM) is 2.1nm. works out pretty close to 2300 doen't it.........

[JAR]

The table gives recommended altitudes, the profile gives minimum altitudes.

[Capn Bloggs]

It looks to me like the designers have decided that 3.15° is the steepest angle/profile they are willing to publish. This will only get the aircraft to 1600ft by the MAPt. The angle required to get to 1500ft by the MAPt is 3.58°, or 380ft/nm, as mentioned. As JAR has pointed out, the profile table is only a recommendation.

This is quite tricky because, the distance between the LOM and the VOR is so short: if you were level at LOM at 2300ft, you'd never comfortably get to 1500ft by the VOR. We have to be "descending passing" LOM at 2300ft on the way down.

To get the advantage of the extra 100ft, the solutions, as I see it, are:

- When passing the LOM (assuming you are already established in, or your FMS database provides, a 3°-ish profile prior to LOM), set VS 1000ft/min. This will get you pretty close to the MDA by the VOR (in effect, a dive with no drive);

- Determine and then fly a constant 3.6° approach from say 3000ft, to achieve 1500ft at the VOR, ie DMEx380ft/nm + 1500ft.

my LIDO chart shows a CDFA approach out of 3300 (3500 if starting the approach out of LENIZ) with 3.15° passing the MAPt at 1500.
I don't understand that. One can't fly a CDA at 3.15° from LOM and achieve 1500ft at the VOR. The slope required from LOM is 3.58°. If one flew 3.03° from LENIZ, you'd go under 2300ft passing the LOM.

[aterpster]

Capn Bloggs,

I don't understand that. One can't fly a CDA at 3.15° from LOM and achieve 1500ft at the VOR. The slope required from LOM is 3.58°. If one flew 3.15° from LENIZ, you'd go under 2300ft passing the LOM.

The Jepp charts say 3.03 degrees from LENIZ.

It's an NPA that has been attempted to be converted into a silk purse, so to speak.

[Denti]

On the LIDO it does not start with a level segment in 2300, it starts with a descend out of 3300ft at 5.1 DME for the racetrack or base turn procedure and out of 5.7 DME at 3500ft for a straight in approach out of LENIZ.

[aterpster]

Denti,

On the LIDO it does not start with a level segment in 2300, it starts with a descend out of 3300ft at 5.1 DME for the racetrack or base turn procedure and out of 5.7 DME at 3500ft for a straight in approach out of LENIZ.

Can you/would you post the LIDO chart?

[Capn Bloggs]

I stand minorly corrected. Crunching the numbers, 3.03° from LENIZ to 53ft over the threshold takes you past GRZ NDB at 2267ft and GRZ VOR at 1592ft.

So the designers seem to have forsaken a steeper angle to achieve the MDA by the MAPt. Perhaps it is because, while you were at the MDA at the MAPt, you'd actually be 92ft low on the 3° slope, at only 412ft AAL. That would probably put you too high to be stable.

If confronted with low cloud and good vis underneath, I'd be VSing it down when past GRZ NDB in the hope of breaking visual at the MDA before the MAPt, just below the charted slope.

If low vis is the issue, I'd just run down the 3.03° and accept that I was never going to get to the MDA by the MAPt.

The Jepp charts say 3.03 degrees from LENIZ.
Fixed. :ok:

[FlightPathOBN]

With regards to the Jepp chart that terpster provided....

Mapt is 2.1nm further.

Notice that the MAP is a variable according to your CAT. (MAP at VOR OR...) as an example the CAT C 140kts MAP is 0.54nm from the NDB

Crunching the numbers, 3.03° from LENIZ to 53ft over the threshold takes you past GRZ NDB at 2267ft and GRZ VOR at 1592ft.

the straight in has one cross and maintain 3500 from LENIZ, then somehow dive in at 3.03° from DME6...

I note at the bottom of the chart that recent changes have been made to the procedure. From what I can tell, the chart is not correct as virtually none of these numbers add up.... a quick look at the obstacles charted shows you CANNOT safely use this GPA (looks like a very bad chart! :mad:)

this is an older chart which appears to correctly show the 5.3% GPA that we all calc'd out..


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

[hvogt]

Notice that the MAP is a variable according to your CAT. (MAP at VOR OR...) as an example the CAT C 140kts MAP is 0.54nm from the NDB No, the MAP is not 0.54 NM from the NDB. At 140 kt GS it's 54 seconds flight time from the NDB to the MAP.

[FlightPathOBN]

No, the MAP is not 0.54 NM from the NDB

note to me: NEVER post before 2 cups of coffee.....

thanks!


anyone going to ask Jepp how 322'/nm is 3.03° ? :rolleyes:

Did anyone notice if the ILS chart changed as well?

[BOAC]

Indeed, hv- that's a bit worrying!

The Jepp chart is indeed a mess to be honest. With the luxury of the armchair I cannot see any reason why you could not fly a steeper profile to hit 1500 at the VOR/MAP - the only 'min' I can see is 2300 at the NDB. I have always viewed the DME/alts as 'advisory'.

[hvogt]

I have always viewed the DME/alts as 'advisory'. And that is exactly what Jeppesen say in the legend (http://jeppesen.com/documents/aviation/business/ifr-paper-services/glossary-legends.pdf) (27 MB pdf) to their approach charts.

[FlightPathOBN]

Not sure how they justified the 322'/nm at 3.03° nor the 3.15°
You would be in for quite a surprise crossing the NDB at 2300...

This procedure would be quite the adventure with a CAT C or CAT D aircraft.

On a side note, many State NPA chart standards use distance to the DA, which is much more useful on the display, rather than time...

Min altitudes..

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

[aterpster]

FlightPathOBN:


anyone going to ask Jepp how 322'/nm is 3.03° ? :rolleyes:


322 divided by 6,076.1155 = .05299

ARC TAN .05299 = 3.0335 degrees.

[FlightPathOBN]

anyone going to ask Jepp how 322'/nm is 3.03° ?

dammit...322'/nm AND 3.03%...

it looks like they have segment mins at 3300 and 2300...

and the min chart...oh..never mind...

[FlyingStone]

It's actually very nice to see I'm not the only one who doesn't fully understand the chart made by Jeppesen - nevertheless, it wouldn't be good to use such unclear chart, when you are forced to fly the procedure to minimums in IMC (e.g. ILS inop.), so I've contacted Jeppesen and I've yet to get a response.

I have always viewed the DME/alts as 'advisory'.

Of course, but why isn't the procedure then designed or better said - depicted by Jeppesen so that you reach DA (which in this case is also MDA and OCA, as can be seen in AIP chart (http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-38C343B5C13F75876EFC9310060CCE67/XWC6XVSN54QUC/EN/Charts/AD/AIRAC/LO_AD_2_LOWG_24-6-2_en_2011-07-28.pdf)) at or before MAPt, which is usually the case with CDFA non-precision approaches in European countries? Most of the procedures I've seen and flown are designed so that if you're on "glideslope" during CDFA NPA (according to DME vs. altitued table), you are able to get to the published DA before reaching MAPt. I see little point in publishing procedure where you either can't get to published DA, if you maintain published angle of descent, either you can't maintain the angle if you descend to published DA.

[FlightPathOBN]

Converting existing procedures to make them look like something else, is always fraught with error.

in the case of the AIP chart you provided, a pure OCH...so your DA would have to be above that to include momentary descent.

[FlyingStone]

Sure, your actual DA would have to be higher, but Jeppesen's DA can equal OCH for non-precision approaches:

According to 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).

So basically, since there is no add-on in published DA, it can be the same as OCA, if OCA is higher than system minimum for relevant approach.

[BOAC]

FlyingStone #27 - I fully agree and would be interested in any reply from Jepp.

Anyone - I am not familiar with the Austrian AIC legends, but why is there a little 'plateau' at the NDB, plus a 5.3% grad up to it (which seems to apply ONLY to the straight-in) and nothing shown after it? The chart as published does not look like a CDFA so I guess you would need to 'add' for mum if you were using the AIP OCA/H?

Quite honestly I think the whole Jepp chart as shown is a dog's breakfast!

[aterpster]

FlyingStone #27 - I fully agree and would be interested in any reply from Jepp.

Anyone - I am not familiar with the Austrian AIC legends, but why is there a little 'plateau' at the NDB, plus a 5.3% grad up to it (which seems to apply ONLY to the straight-in) and nothing shown after it? The chart as published does not look like a CDFA so I guess you would need to 'add' for mum if you were using the AIP OCA/H?

Quite honestly I think the whole Jepp chart as shown is a dog's breakfast!

As we saw from the state AIP (source) charts for Cork, Ireland, Jeppesen, LIDO, and other chart makers are expected to apply regional rules to pilot charts that the state does not do with source.

If you would like to persue it with Jeppesen their email is:

[email protected]

The Frankfurt office handles that region of the world. Their telephone number is: +49 6102 508270

[BOAC]

Thought you worked for them? No, I cannot be bothered and I believe FS is 'on the case'. I know what I would do if I had to, but I reckon picking up the Jepp chart before ToD to brief it would have been a challenge.

[Denti]

You can find the LIDO chart here (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B7xVk204frwQN2NkYmQ1NDUtM2VjOC00M2VkLWIzNjItYmVlMTgzZ Tc4YmE2&hl=en_US). Dunno if its possible to post it directly viewable here as it is a .pdf.

[Capn Bloggs]

That LIDO chart makes the Jepp chart look positively amatuerish. But even then, it does not show the real issue: that you'll get to the MAPt before the MDA. The grey-shaded MDA step limit should be below the glidepath/MAPt point, not above. Nice DME/Altitude scale... :ok:

[FlightPathOBN]

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

[MD83FO]

Why is the original plate showing DA(H) if its not a baro vnav approach?

[BOAC]

MD - refer EUOPS and #29.

It seems no-one can get this quite right! A little concerning. Interesting that LIDO publish a true CDFA from 5.1D but no sign of a gradient or GP angle.

[FlightPathOBN]

The minimum OCH according to PansOps for CAT C 591, CAT D 689,

http://operationsbasednavigation.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/HAAOCH.jpg
so as this chart includes CAT D, the OCH/MDA would be 1089+689= 1778.

The chart is being literal in showing the MDA/OCH, and still using the VOR as the MAPt. REcent charting changes now show both the glide path and the segment minimums, especially when there are multiple entry points.

[FlyingStone]

Descent angle on LIDO chart is written above the profile view to the right, below transition altitude and reads 3.14°. Again interesting, it seems that only the AIP chart shows that you are 1500ft when overhead GRZ VOR, LIDO shows 1600ft, the same as Jeppesen. Still no response from Jeppesen though.

[FlyingStone]

FlightPathOBN: The table you provided is for circling approaches. Minimal obstacle clearance (MOC) for all aircraft is 246 ft for a non-precision approach with FAF.

OCH = MOC + obstacle height

[BOAC]

Thanks FS (been to Specsavers:))

[FlightPathOBN]

FS,
I know the math has been worked many times...
RWY 1089+53TCH= 1142
[email protected]=467
= 1609 so this corresponds to the GRZ 1600 shown on one part of the LIDO and Jepp charts

Why all of the charts show the GP altitude at GRZ of 1600 (3.14 GPA)with a min at the same point as 1500 (2.4GPA) with the ILS/lighting at 3 GPA.....

Austro Control GmbH is really the entity to contact about all of this...lets see what they have to say...

[FlightPathOBN]

FlightPathOBN: The table you provided is for circling approaches. Minimal obstacle clearance (MOC) for all aircraft is 246 ft for a non-precision approach with FAF.

I understand, but this chart seems to combine the circling approach parameters, so I am wondering if that was a leftover

The VEB ROC is not fixed for the final segment, granted the 246 is a minimum (the infamous 200 foot ROC plus 46 feet of momentary descent, where that surface meets the ground, but the surface tapers to a 500 foot ROC at the FAF as the intermediate segment ROC is 500'.

[cosmo kramer]

This reason for the 1600 has to do with the continuous descent approach. From the below numbers it is obvious that you can not descent from 2300 to 1500 and then to the threshold in a straight (continous) line:

If you cross the NDB at 2300 feet and pass the VOR at 1600 feet the profile angle is 3.14 degs like Jeppesen writes on the chart. Roughly the same as from the NDB at 2300 feet to the threshold + 53 feet. Here the angle is 3.12 degs - or practically the same. The difference is probably due to rounding of numbers.

However:
If you cross the NDB at 2300 feet and pass the VOR at 1500 feet the profile angle is 3.59 degs. After the VOR the profile angle now becomes very shallow with only 2.42 degs to reach the threshold at 53 feet.

Only quick reference I could find on google to post is this old Jeppesen Bulletin:
http://jeppesen.com/download/briefbull/bull_JEP_02_B.pdf

Here Jeppesen writes that the procedure altitudes are recommended (like hvogt already said :ok:) and "The Procedure Altitudes have been established to accommodate a stabilized descent profile on a prescribed descent angle on the final approach course." Hence, no guarantee that you will reach your minimum in time.


Looking from a practical point of view, in this particular instance, the distance travelled to descent 100 feet is less than 0.33 nautical miles in round numbers (100 feet pr. min. / 600 feet pr. min = 10 seconds => 10/60 x sixty factor 2 (120 knots) = 0.33). The fix tolerance for a DME is 0.25 nm. Add to that the slant range (albeit very little in this case), and you practically will not notice the difference. All very academic. Disregard.

This procedure would be quite the adventure with a CAT C or CAT D aircraft.

I flew this procedure in a 737 only a few weeks ago with rain and a cloud base around 1000 feet. And it is no more adventurous than other non-precision approaches. Coming from the North ATC will give you a downwind vector and descent you to 3500 feet. Then a base and an intercept heading along with a clearance for the VOR approach. Configure to flaps 5/ speed 5 during the base turn. At 6 nm and established, you may start a normal 3 degs'ish descent to cross the NDB at 2300 (in a continuous descent) and then down to 1500 feet DA. All very straight forward.

With regard to the MAPt, you have to descent a little below the Jeppesen recommended path if cloud base is at minimum.

[BOAC]

or fly a little past the MAPt- not an option, I believe.

[FlightPathOBN]

Cosmos,

Thanks for the real time update...I am curious, flying this NPA, what is your vertical guidance?
If flying baro-vnav, at what temp would you consider this NA?

an example of approach procedure design, precision, non-precision, temperatures, and all of the surfaces considered...

http://operationsbasednavigation.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PASC-Procedurev03.jpg

[cosmo kramer]

I did not mean to sanction indiscriminately flying past MAPt in other procedures. As I wrote, in this exact example, I thought the distance to be so small that it in practical world would be negligible = inside tolerances.

However, I correct myself regarding the fix tolerance after digging up ICAO doc 8168.
While the posted DME tolerance is correct, it was of course wrong that I based the calculations on the DME and not the VOR itself.
When overheading a VOR station the tolerance is actually only "nm = 0.033 x height (in 1000 of feet)". Or in this case 0.033 x 0.412 = 0.014 nm.

Of course it's not correct to wait to observe an increasing DME distance when already having a "from indication". So I admit that the go-around must be initiated immediately upon a "from indication" and hence, the only legal choice is to go below the recommended profile in case the cloud base is at minimum. I edited that above and thank you for making me refresh that point. :)

[FlyingStone]

Response from Jeppesen:

I believe that this is actually a problem with the design of the procedure. AIP Austria does not designate an actual descent angle (or gradient) for the CDFA on this procedure. This leaves it up to Jeppesen to build the descent angle for the navigational database, using ARINC-424 coding rules. There is also no designated TCH, so per our rules the TCH from the ILS approach is borrowed (53’). Drawing an angle between the 53’ TCH for Rwy 35C and the source-driven final altitude of 2300’, the aircraft will cross the MAP (GRZ VOR) at close to 1600’, not 1500’. So, in the pure sense, the recommended descent band is correct. But following the EU-OPS required CDFA (as published by Jeppesen using ARINC-424 coding rules), you will never get to the 1500’ DA by the MAP. You will always be 100’ high. In reality, in order to have a procedure which is built in accordance with ARINC-424 and EU-OPS, the straight-in minimums should probably be 1600’.

I will send a request to our analysts in the Frankfurt office about getting an inquiry off to the Austria AIS.

Basically they confirmed my initial thesis that you actually can't reach DA if you fly the approach "by the book".

So I admit that the go-around must be initiated immediately upon a "from indication" and hence, the only legal choice is to go below the recommended profile in case the cloud base is at minimum.

Isn't more accurate indication of overflying the VOR the increasing groundspeed on the DME, which isn't affected by the cone of silence? This should be especially valid at greater heights, where the diameter of cone of silence (or its horizontal component) is larger. Nevertheless, I'm being picky, usually you get a from indication quite fast, so you'd still be within limits.

[aterpster]

FlightPathOBN:

In a modern aircraft with path vector symbology it seems to me that the charted (and presumably database) descent angle can be used to arrive at a DA of 1,500 at the VOR. Lacking required visual references the missed approach is executed at the VOR using the DA concept. But, if the runway is in sight (or at least the approach end) adjust the path vector to achieve a shallower descent gradient from DA to the runway.

This seems perfectly safe and acceptable especially since it is a charted "fly visual to airport" segment from the VOR to the runway.

[Capn Bloggs]

Again interesting, it seems that only the AIP chart shows that you are 1500ft when overhead GRZ VOR, LIDO shows 1600ft,
As I explained earlier, that is because the "legal" minimum for the last segment GRZ NDB to GRZ VOR is 1500ft. This cannot be achieved using a constant angle descent from LENIZ without clipping the 2300ft step, so the "end" of the LIDO CDA at the MAPt is 1600ft.

the only legal choice is to go below the recommended profile in case the cloud base is at minimum.
Correct. :ok:

Austro Control GmbH is really the entity to contact about all of this...lets see what they have to say...
Hardly necessary. It's pretty obvious.

[FlightPathOBN]

In a modern aircraft with path vector symbology it seems to me that the charted (and presumably database) descent angle can be used to arrive at a DA of 1,500 at the VOR.
The ARINC-424 coding does not work for this procedure, even if you were try to force this into 424 coding, it would disco in the database.

Quote:
Austro Control GmbH is really the entity to contact about all of this...lets see what they have to say...
Hardly necessary. It's pretty obvious

Jepp response...

I will send a request to our analysts in the Frankfurt office about getting an inquiry off to the Austria AIS.

Stone is correct in questioning this procedure.
The 1500 at GRZ (2.4 GPA) is not supported by any criteria, obstacle assessment areas, or even simple math. the lights are at 3 degrees, the 34:1 surface and 20:1 surfaces do not provide the required ROC for this 2.4 approach, there is no obstacle assessment that provides ROC protection for the 1500 2.4 gpa surface.
If flying NPA, with baro-vnav, the temp limits are not shown, for when the 2.4 GPA ROC meets limits??? what is the limit...ground surface?
Show me the ICAO surface that provides 200' ROC. 246 ROC. or 250ROC at 1500.

[FlightPathOBN]

This seems perfectly safe and acceptable especially since it is a charted "fly visual to airport" segment from the VOR to the runway.

Not sure if I agree...as this runway in question has an ILS...

The surfaces used for an approach, 34:1 and 20:1 are used for obstacle clearance. These surfaces originate at runway endpoint, while the GPA is a function of the standard 50' TCH.
The 20:1 surface, 2.86°, is used for the visual portion of an approach.
The 34:1 surface, 1.68° is the absolute obstacle surface for the approach.
The 50:1 surface, is used for on-airport appurtenances, such as the VOR ,and lighting.
The minimum of 2.5° GPA for non precision due to temperature limitations of baro-vnav is the absolute minimum the obstacle surfaces allow.
The VOR approach with a 1500' min or 2.42° GPA, falls outside any criteria for obstacle evaluation.

This is not to say that an exemption or variance has been provided for with a more detailed obstacle/terrain assessment. It would be difficult given general assumptions of a 200' AAO, but I would allow for that to be mitigated with restrictions...Rad-alt may possibly get one to the VOR min, but there is no definition on the plate as to the method of altitude calculation, or temperature limit...
Again, AustoControl has some questions to answer...

[9.G]

the only legal choice is to follow the legal procedures ergo to initiate the go around at the DA or the MAP whichever comes first as much as to follow the published profile. The glitch in the procedure design isn't any of airman's concern. :ok:

[FlightPathOBN]

the only legal choice is to follow the legal procedures ergo to initiate the go around at the DA or the MAP whichever comes first as much as to follow the published profile.

so your only advice is to follow the legal choice...did you notice that the DA and the MAPt are both 1500?
While the GPA places you at 1600 for the same point?

So you should use 1500 with a GPA of 2.42, and of course, since this is an MDA(H), you feel its okay to drop below this for your missed approach point..

are you a groundskeeper?

[9.G]

FPO, I'd rather you read the post carefully. Clearly you're not a pilot coz you're brainstorming way too much for a simple matter. We're operators not designers therefore I follow the published profile and perform a go around as per rule. In this case at the VOR, basta. I couldn't care less if it's 1600 ft and 100 ft above the DA. Rules are rules, over. :ok: