NPA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Auh
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NPA
Why adding 50 feet in an non-precision approach would prevent descending below MDA in case of GA? I mean in a NPA we would descend to MDA then level off until our MAP then initiate a go-around, which means we wouldn't go below MDA.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Auh
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, NPA under EASA-OPS have DA rather MDA, so it is a CDFA and does require the 50 feet addition, but what about non EASA-OPS charts where MDA and MAP are published, do we add 50'?
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: In Space
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ive yet flown an approach in EU land that has a DA. My outfit adds 50' to the MDA. This now makes it a DA for CDA approaches.
The 50' increment caters for the 30' loss during a Go around which helps comply with the 'do not go below MDA' rule.
The 50' increment caters for the 30' loss during a Go around which helps comply with the 'do not go below MDA' rule.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every NPA flown in CDFA technique is flown to a DA/DH if operating to EU/EASA OPS.
According to AMC1 CAT.OP.MPA.115 the following applies:
(4) The required descent path should be flown to the DA/H, observing any
stepdown crossing altitudes if applicable.
(5) This DA/H should take into account any add-on to the published minima as
identified by the operator’s management system and should be specified in
the OM (aerodrome operating minima).
Therefore the minima in the route manual, which is usually OM-C, should include those add-ons if they are required. For us the normal LIDO minima are that, and haven't changed in most cases when we switched from MDA to DA.
According to AMC1 CAT.OP.MPA.115 the following applies:
(4) The required descent path should be flown to the DA/H, observing any
stepdown crossing altitudes if applicable.
(5) This DA/H should take into account any add-on to the published minima as
identified by the operator’s management system and should be specified in
the OM (aerodrome operating minima).
Therefore the minima in the route manual, which is usually OM-C, should include those add-ons if they are required. For us the normal LIDO minima are that, and haven't changed in most cases when we switched from MDA to DA.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(5) This DA/H should take into account any add-on to the published minima as
identified by the operator’s management system
identified by the operator’s management system
If the operator has surveyed every NPA at every arport they operate to or use as an alternate and determined that the obstacles that limit the MDA are not in the area where dipping below during the first stage of a GA would be an issue, then they can use the MDA as a DA. They can even do it on an individual approach basis if they wish, as long as there is a sensible way of publishing what to use for each one, e.g. customised approach plates.
However, only the largest operators have the resources to do this, or even the desire. So the majority just say "add 50ft".
Let's face it, how many times is it actually going to make a difference to whether you get in or not. And if you don't, it's not a safety issue since you still have fuel to divert and land at your alternate with more than final reserve (you do, don't you???).
