On a Jepp plate, when an approach is charted as CDFA with a 'DA/MDA(H)' the explanatory information on Aerodrome Operating Minimums says:
"For non-precision approach minimums based on CDFA, the descent label is shown as DA/MDA(H). This DA/MDA(H) value does not include any add-on to compensate for height-loss. If the State requires or suggests a specific height loss, a note will be added to indicate this situation.
A DA(H) is shown on non-precision approaches only if published as such on State-provided procedure source. In this case it is assumed that the State of the Aerodrome has incorporated a height loss value.
An MDA(H) is shown on all non-CDFA non-precision approaches, or if the State published an MDA(H) value on procedure source."
In the case of EASA (EGBJ NDB27 beneath) there is no such note, presumably because EASA don't 'specify or suggest a specific height loss'- it could easily be interpreted that no additional factor is required. The EASA regulations (AMC3 CAT.OP.MPA.110) allow the minimum CDFA DA to be at the OCH which would not protect against descent beneath the MDA unless you have 0ft height loss. It seems odd that following the standards set in ICAO Docs 8168 / 9365 they wouldn't add a line to say that when determining a DH for a CDFA approach height loss shall be factored to prevent descent beneath the published MDA?
To reiterate - I'm not trying to chip away at minimums and will happily add a height loss factor when determining a DA from an MDA - it seems entirely logical, it was more a question of how the DA is to be applied as read off a Jepp plate, to remain compliant with EASA regs.
