t seems to me that when using the CDFA procedure. you are not flying the 3.0 angle down to the MAPt, at the MDA. you are flying the angle down to the Threshold. this will put you in a straight line down to the runway when you hit your MDA/DA,
only when the approach is aligned with the runway
however, you will not be anywhere near the MAPt when you hit that target altitude.
so I have to initiate a go around and wait for the MAPt to initiate the MAP...
And if the MAPt or DA is not at the runway I even do net have the time to have a lookout cause I have to initiate the climb immediately...
More complicated than before!
it seems to be the equivalent of shooting an ILS(with no G/S reference)
An ILS holds me aligned with the runway on a glideslope to make a landing from that position. Again, a lot of NPA procedures are not aligned.
but making your DH higher as if you were circling.
So in marginal weather my chance to get visual are reduced!
instead of going missed at Station passage, time, or a given fix, you go missed at the MDA/DH.
Which is always higher / earlier than at the MAPt.
this makes every approach basically the same. you fly the prescribed decent rate based on the angle for the approach and your groundspeed.
THIS is exactly the problem. A precision is NOT the same as a NON Precision! I wait for the first one to confuse the new "DA" as a real DA. There is not much room left on your MAP underneath you!
The price we pay for "making every approach the same" is a higher DA/H or whatever you call it.
If I am IMC and wan't to land there, I want to go as low as possible in the approach to raise my chance to get visual.
Why should I fly a approach which makes it less likely to get out of the clouds?
Sorry, I still don't see the benefit. But maybe I'm just blind!