Jeppesen plates and new minima
Why do it if it's not fun?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeppesen plates and new minima
Dear fellow PPRuNers,
As I'm sure we all know, in 6 months time, the new methods of calculating aerodrome minima, specified in EU-OPS 1.430 Appendix 1 (New), will become mandatory for commercial operations in Europe. Jeppesen's literature states that they aim to have the plates for all airports in EASA and EU States updated to reflect those minima before the July deadline (and until them, they have published plate 10-9S which shows the new minima as an interim measure).
I have a couple of questions about what the plates will look like and how they will be used once these new minima are shown on them. It seems that none of the UK airports have been updated yet - the minima box on all of my plates shows "JAR-OPS" in the top-left corner, meaning the minima are calculated the old way, whereas I understand that this will change to "Standard" once the new method is being used. I don't know about other countries (I don't get to leave the UK very often!), but perhaps some other countries have already been converted? If so, perhaps someone can refer to these plates to answer my questions?
Anyway, the questions:
1) For non-precision approaches, the minima on the plates will be for CDFAs. It was unclear to me, reading Jeppesen's literature, whether the minimum altitude/height for the approach will be annotated as being a MDA(H) as it is at present, or whether they will call it a DA(H).
2) Following on from question 1, if the minimum height is annotated as being a DA(H), then is it still a "not below" which requires something (50' perhaps) to be added to it to ensure it is not busted during the go-around (as per the best current practice for CDFAs where the minimum height is an MDA(H)), or should we be initiating the go-around at the published DA(H) and accepting that we may go slightly below it during the go-around (as we currently do for precision approaches)?
(If the answer to question 1 is that it will still be called a MDA(H), then please ignore question 2 as the answer is self-explanatory!)
3) The published minima for non-precision approaches will be for a CDFA. For an approach not flown as a CDFA, 200m (Cat A/B) or 400m (Cat C/D) has to be added to the minimum RVR (subject to a 5000m limit). I'm clear on that..... but how will the minimum RVR be presented to us for approaches which can't be flown as a CDFA, perhaps because they don't have a FAF? I'm thinking of Alderney in particular as that's the one I go to regularly, but I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. Will the 200m/400m already be added to the published minima, since the lower minima without this addition would be meaningless? Will it be obvious whether this addition has been made or not?
Thanks for your help!
FFF
----------------
As I'm sure we all know, in 6 months time, the new methods of calculating aerodrome minima, specified in EU-OPS 1.430 Appendix 1 (New), will become mandatory for commercial operations in Europe. Jeppesen's literature states that they aim to have the plates for all airports in EASA and EU States updated to reflect those minima before the July deadline (and until them, they have published plate 10-9S which shows the new minima as an interim measure).
I have a couple of questions about what the plates will look like and how they will be used once these new minima are shown on them. It seems that none of the UK airports have been updated yet - the minima box on all of my plates shows "JAR-OPS" in the top-left corner, meaning the minima are calculated the old way, whereas I understand that this will change to "Standard" once the new method is being used. I don't know about other countries (I don't get to leave the UK very often!), but perhaps some other countries have already been converted? If so, perhaps someone can refer to these plates to answer my questions?
Anyway, the questions:
1) For non-precision approaches, the minima on the plates will be for CDFAs. It was unclear to me, reading Jeppesen's literature, whether the minimum altitude/height for the approach will be annotated as being a MDA(H) as it is at present, or whether they will call it a DA(H).
2) Following on from question 1, if the minimum height is annotated as being a DA(H), then is it still a "not below" which requires something (50' perhaps) to be added to it to ensure it is not busted during the go-around (as per the best current practice for CDFAs where the minimum height is an MDA(H)), or should we be initiating the go-around at the published DA(H) and accepting that we may go slightly below it during the go-around (as we currently do for precision approaches)?
(If the answer to question 1 is that it will still be called a MDA(H), then please ignore question 2 as the answer is self-explanatory!)
3) The published minima for non-precision approaches will be for a CDFA. For an approach not flown as a CDFA, 200m (Cat A/B) or 400m (Cat C/D) has to be added to the minimum RVR (subject to a 5000m limit). I'm clear on that..... but how will the minimum RVR be presented to us for approaches which can't be flown as a CDFA, perhaps because they don't have a FAF? I'm thinking of Alderney in particular as that's the one I go to regularly, but I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. Will the 200m/400m already be added to the published minima, since the lower minima without this addition would be meaningless? Will it be obvious whether this addition has been made or not?
Thanks for your help!
FFF
----------------
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may be overthinking it a bit, and that's a lot of letters and acronyms you're throwing around, there.
Decision altitude (DA) is just what it sounds like: it's the altitude at which one makes the decision and initiates the missed approach action. One may descend through a DA, and it's not uncommon to do so.
Non-precision approaches utilizing a minimum descent altitude (MDA) are hard altitudes; one can't descend below this altitude until the visual references necessary to continue are acquired.
On a precision approach with a constant, stabilized descent to the runway, establishment of a decision altitude makes sense. On a non-precision approach, or during a circling maneuver, on the other hand, establishing a hard minimum altitude also makes sense. It's best not to confuse the two. However, if one must do so, considering both as a hard altitude limitation isn't wrong, and won't get you into trouble.
Decision altitude (DA) is just what it sounds like: it's the altitude at which one makes the decision and initiates the missed approach action. One may descend through a DA, and it's not uncommon to do so.
Non-precision approaches utilizing a minimum descent altitude (MDA) are hard altitudes; one can't descend below this altitude until the visual references necessary to continue are acquired.
On a precision approach with a constant, stabilized descent to the runway, establishment of a decision altitude makes sense. On a non-precision approach, or during a circling maneuver, on the other hand, establishing a hard minimum altitude also makes sense. It's best not to confuse the two. However, if one must do so, considering both as a hard altitude limitation isn't wrong, and won't get you into trouble.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Camped on the doorstep
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNS3Guppy You haven't made any attempt to answer the question you have just told FFF something he demonstrates in the question he is fully aware of.
(Sorry if you are female FFF)
I am interested in the answer to the CDFA question too. I have noticed on European charts that certain VOR and GPS based approaches are referring to DA(H) now. Heraklion VOR 27 is one example that I have to hand. The word STANDARD is used as described.
I confess that until I read this question I was unaware of the reason - at first I thought it was an error, but I saw it occurring on other plates too.
I'm guessing - as SNS3Guppy makes explicit - that if it's called a DA then it's a DA and therefore there is no need to add the 50ft. Otherwise there would be two types of DA - non precision and precision. We already have a system to differentiate between those two types - MDA / DA.
Why would any sensible authority change a simple system with different names for different things to one that uses the same name for two distinct minima?
Oh... yeah. I see what I said there...
(Sorry if you are female FFF)
I am interested in the answer to the CDFA question too. I have noticed on European charts that certain VOR and GPS based approaches are referring to DA(H) now. Heraklion VOR 27 is one example that I have to hand. The word STANDARD is used as described.
I confess that until I read this question I was unaware of the reason - at first I thought it was an error, but I saw it occurring on other plates too.
I'm guessing - as SNS3Guppy makes explicit - that if it's called a DA then it's a DA and therefore there is no need to add the 50ft. Otherwise there would be two types of DA - non precision and precision. We already have a system to differentiate between those two types - MDA / DA.
Why would any sensible authority change a simple system with different names for different things to one that uses the same name for two distinct minima?
Oh... yeah. I see what I said there...
Last edited by JonDyer; 22nd Jan 2011 at 12:32. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You haven't made any attempt to answer the question you have just told FFF something he demonstrates in the question he is fully aware of.
The question was answered. That it may not be the answer you seek is your problem.
I think my point was clear. Perhaps you should read a bit more slowly.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Co.Durham UK
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In answer to your questions:
The revised approach charts will show a DA/H on non precision approaches.
Jeppesen will not add anything on as it differs between aircraft and operator. My company stipulate a 50ft add on.
Not sure about question 3. I do remember seeing details in the jepp legend about CDFA and will try and find the page.
Page 94 onwards of the Jeppesen glossary-legend gives details.
The revised approach charts will show a DA/H on non precision approaches.
Jeppesen will not add anything on as it differs between aircraft and operator. My company stipulate a 50ft add on.
Not sure about question 3. I do remember seeing details in the jepp legend about CDFA and will try and find the page.
Page 94 onwards of the Jeppesen glossary-legend gives details.
Last edited by GARDENER; 22nd Jan 2011 at 14:22. Reason: Added details
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNS3Guppy: while I agree "it's best not to confuse the two", that is exactly what's going on in Europe (I see you're based on the other side of the pond) with the implentation of EU-OPS regulations.
From july this year, all non-precision-approaches shall be flown as Constant Descent Final Approach (CDFA), by commercial operators: with a constant descent from the FAF to the runway, and with a DA in lieu of an MDA. However, this is being implemented as we speak, and because of that paradigm shift, there will inevitably be discussions and questions pertaining to things that used to be "written in stone".
One of those things is that NPAs have MDAs and PAs have DAs. This is no longer true - a NPA flown using the CDFA technique shall use a DA. So that is where this is getting confusing!
So to the original question:
FFF: it should say somewhere in your operation manuals if you are required to add an increment NPA DAs, to account for altitude loss during transitioning to climb, or if that has been catered for already.
In both our OM-B and OM-C; it specifically says that the missed approached shall be carried out AT the DA or MAPt, whichever occurs first.
However, Jeppesen also specify that they "do NOT include an add-on when publishing a DA(H) for a CDFA non-precision approach.". If these two, somewhat contradictory statements (to my interpretation) is due to the fact that we fly a very responsive turboprop and the mentioned altitude loss is negligible, I don't know.
Edit: @Gardener: try the legend page 171 - at least my legend has several approach chart legends since several types are still in use - make sure to read the one called "EU-OPS 1 aerodrome operating minimums (AOM)" from 14 nov 08. Not the previous ones from the 1990s....
From july this year, all non-precision-approaches shall be flown as Constant Descent Final Approach (CDFA), by commercial operators: with a constant descent from the FAF to the runway, and with a DA in lieu of an MDA. However, this is being implemented as we speak, and because of that paradigm shift, there will inevitably be discussions and questions pertaining to things that used to be "written in stone".
One of those things is that NPAs have MDAs and PAs have DAs. This is no longer true - a NPA flown using the CDFA technique shall use a DA. So that is where this is getting confusing!
So to the original question:
FFF: it should say somewhere in your operation manuals if you are required to add an increment NPA DAs, to account for altitude loss during transitioning to climb, or if that has been catered for already.
In both our OM-B and OM-C; it specifically says that the missed approached shall be carried out AT the DA or MAPt, whichever occurs first.
However, Jeppesen also specify that they "do NOT include an add-on when publishing a DA(H) for a CDFA non-precision approach.". If these two, somewhat contradictory statements (to my interpretation) is due to the fact that we fly a very responsive turboprop and the mentioned altitude loss is negligible, I don't know.
Edit: @Gardener: try the legend page 171 - at least my legend has several approach chart legends since several types are still in use - make sure to read the one called "EU-OPS 1 aerodrome operating minimums (AOM)" from 14 nov 08. Not the previous ones from the 1990s....
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Co.Durham UK
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bfisk raises an important point that if you reach DA before the missed approach point then naturally that is when you go around, you should however continue to the MAPt then start the missed approach procedure.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of those things is that NPAs have MDAs and PAs have DAs. This is no longer true - a NPA flown using the CDFA technique shall use a DA. So that is where this is getting confusing!
We treat them the same. Whereas the new MDA is termed DA, we still treat it as a hard altitude, because constant descent or not, it's still a non-precision approach (even with vertical guidance flown through the FMS). Accordingly, we add 50' and set radar alttiude at DA plus 50', and execute the missed at that altitude. We but our altimeters accordingly, in order to prevent descent below the published "DA" during execution of the constant descent non precision approach.
On a precision approach, we execute the missed approach before or at minimums. If executing at minimums, then we may pass through them during the execution of the missed.
On a non-precision approach, we instill a buffer above minimums such that the MDA-now-DA remains a hard altitude, and the execution of the missed takes place above that.
It goes without saying that regardless of the altitude at which the missed is executed, one continues to the missed approach point before making a turn.
(I see you're based on the other side of the pond)
Why do it if it's not fun?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the answers, guys. I think that answers my first and second questions perfectly.
Still waiting for an answer to my third question. Now that you've confirmed that the minima for a NPA will be called a DA(H), perhaps those approaches for which a CDFA can not be flown will still be published with a MDA(H), with the 200m/400m added on already? That would make sense to me.... but as we know, what makes sense and what we get aren't always the same. If anyone can find such an approach with "Standard" minima on the plate and let me know that would be greatly appreciated.
Bfisk - I work for a flying school, not an AOC operator. It's not mandatory for us to follow EU-OPS, although we tend to do so when it's appropriate. Up until now, we haven't taught or flown CDFAs (and there is no requirement for us to do so), but we will start teaching them soon. The reason I'm asking the question is a) because I'm working on SOPs for CDFA approaches, and need to make sure our OM and SOPs are clear, and b) I need to produce training materials for my instructor colleagues and my students which is clear, unambiguous and correct.
Thanks again for the help.
FFF
------------
Still waiting for an answer to my third question. Now that you've confirmed that the minima for a NPA will be called a DA(H), perhaps those approaches for which a CDFA can not be flown will still be published with a MDA(H), with the 200m/400m added on already? That would make sense to me.... but as we know, what makes sense and what we get aren't always the same. If anyone can find such an approach with "Standard" minima on the plate and let me know that would be greatly appreciated.
Bfisk - I work for a flying school, not an AOC operator. It's not mandatory for us to follow EU-OPS, although we tend to do so when it's appropriate. Up until now, we haven't taught or flown CDFAs (and there is no requirement for us to do so), but we will start teaching them soon. The reason I'm asking the question is a) because I'm working on SOPs for CDFA approaches, and need to make sure our OM and SOPs are clear, and b) I need to produce training materials for my instructor colleagues and my students which is clear, unambiguous and correct.
Thanks again for the help.
FFF
------------
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
perhaps those approaches for which a CDFA can not be flown will still be published with a MDA(H), with the 200m/400m added on already?
b) I need to produce training materials for my instructor colleagues and my students which is clear, unambiguous and correct.
(And what approach chart did you want to see? We got them in "all shapes and colours" here, I'm sure I can find something useful.)
Why do it if it's not fun?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what approach chart did you want to see? We got them in "all shapes and colours" here, I'm sure I can find something useful.
If you could find a plate which has the new minima ("Standard" rather than "JAR-OPS" next to the minima), for an approach without a FAF, that would be great. As I said earlier, Alderney's NDB approaches have no FAF - but the plates still show the old minima. But this is the kind of approach I'm thinking of.
Thanks again.
FFF
----------
