Aynayda Pizaqvick,
I agree with you.
Non-PC Plod - Exactly my thoughts!
Style of approach is down to the operator as defined by PANS Ops (see my post #40). Note PANS Ops is not only the design standard but it also tells us the basics of how to fly the proceedures - if one has the energy to pick the bones out of it!
However, what we still have not solved is why Jepp have chosen to difine the minima on a CDFA NPA as a DA/H.
We know as with any NPA, if you choose to fly CDFA, you must not descend below MDA/H until you have the cues to continue visually.
I get that the operator must apply a factor to MDA/H depending on aircraft performance to create a Derived Decision Altitude (DDA) to ensure that the aircraft dosen't dip below MDA/H on Go Around.
Therefore, do you not need to know, from the plate, the MDA/H to which you add your company/aircraft factor in order to derive a DDA/H? Does PANS Ops not require a OCH/A to be published for each aproach proceedure? Look at your example of Norwich NDB 27 from the UK AIP and you can see they are published. Clearly this is not drawn as CDFA but the OCA/H is published.
I can't view the jepp plates from a few posts ago so I have no ref right now to compare.
I notice that the FAA say
Operators conducting approaches authorized by operations specification (OpSpec) C073, IFR Approach Procedures Using Vertical Navigation (VNAV), may use MDA as a DA.
Do we take from this, that Jepp assume this to be the case and that their DA is in fact a true MDA/H that we could apply to Heli ops.
As we all know "assumption is the mother of all..." but it is a line of enquiry.