I can see no reason why we shouldn'y add the 50 ft to all MDAs when flying NPAs. The only possible drawback is that it might occasionally result in a G/A where using the actual MDA might not. In any case while not decrying 411's expertise in his big bus, there is no doubt in my mind that the constant descent angle method is far preferable to the dive and drive. In over 15 years of simulator instruction in everything from basic dinosaur jets to modern FMS a/c, I have seen the quality of NPAs improve out of all recognition. Just think about it. Crews routinely fly ILSs all day and are accustomed to this kind of CDA aproach. The CDA feels natural to them as does executing a G/A at MDA+50 (or MDA if that's you authority's view.) I leave it up to the experts in ICAO, EASA and FAA to decide for me whether or not I need that extra 50ft. Until I'm informed otherwise, I believe it's much better to err on the side of caution. As an aside, to watch a good crew execute a Constant Descent Angle Non Precision Approach from the back of the sim is one of the best examples I can think of in terms of good CRM at work. PF flies the a/c using V/S (or TRK/FPA if he's lucky enough to have it), the PNF calls out the ideal heights/altitudes for each mile along the approach. If no official DME, then FMS GPS distance to the threshold can be used as it's always going to be better than eyeballing it on a timed approach.