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?