New Jepps plates - a question?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Jepps plates - a question?
The new Jepps charts now show non-precision approaches with a 'stabilised descent path' that terminates with a DA rather than an MDA. I have searched for some explanatory material on the correct interpretation of the MAP point but in vain.
Can anyone offer an explanation as to when it is correct to continue to maintain the stated minimum height and when it is not. The term DA tends to imply no level flight permitted but the 'old' MAP appears to be marked on the chart.
Thanks.
G.
Can anyone offer an explanation as to when it is correct to continue to maintain the stated minimum height and when it is not. The term DA tends to imply no level flight permitted but the 'old' MAP appears to be marked on the chart.
Thanks.
G.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continuous Descent Final Approach
The text of the JAA leaflet indicates that a go around is mandatory at DA when flying a CDFA correctly but points out that at the published DA and with RVR at the published minima it may not be possible to see the required visual cues to continue visually even if ground contact is achieved.
This translates into a tip for Sim Instructors to up the vis if you want to achieve a successful approach to a landing. I was wondering why my guys couldn't see the approach lights at DA and now I know.
The old style approaches with level flight to MAP may still be available depending on your OM. CPs please note, we need to know what your OM says on that subject so please make sure your lads and lasses are aware if they present for TR or Recurrent Training.
G.
This translates into a tip for Sim Instructors to up the vis if you want to achieve a successful approach to a landing. I was wondering why my guys couldn't see the approach lights at DA and now I know.
The old style approaches with level flight to MAP may still be available depending on your OM. CPs please note, we need to know what your OM says on that subject so please make sure your lads and lasses are aware if they present for TR or Recurrent Training.
G.
I think the point is that although CDFA NPAs are now industry standard - as promoted by the FSF ALAR programme and through JAR OPS NPA 41 (which is now incorporated in EU OPS-1) it requires the individual approval of NPAs by the NAAs to use the MDA as a DA. Generally operators use MDA+50 ft as a company DA to avoid penetrating the MDA. However, some MDAs are being approved as DAs and in this case descent below MDA is allowed. It must be clearly approved though. One thing the new Jep plates show - without any approval implicit - is the CDFA profile encoded into the Nav database, along with the waypoint names. Very useful!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to use the MDA as a DA.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since both JAR-OPS 1 and EU-OPS are for fixed wing only, surely CDFA’s do not really apply to rotary wing ops? IIRC they were brought in by industry to get around the difficulty experienced in large fixed wing aircraft of moving from a non-precision approach to a landing, bearing in mind the NPA’s are sometimes offset from the centre line, and a ‘level’ segment didn’t help.
As an Aerad user, is the ‘normal’ JAR-OPS 3 info available on the Jeppesen plates as well?
As an Aerad user, is the ‘normal’ JAR-OPS 3 info available on the Jeppesen plates as well?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
No, and therein lies the problem - When the plate shows only a DA, and not an MDA, do we assume that the DA must be at least the same or higher than the MDA?
It would appear logical that way, if you dont descend below the DA until you are visual, you must be also above the MDA. However, I dont say anything which says in black and white that you can do this.
It would appear logical that way, if you dont descend below the DA until you are visual, you must be also above the MDA. However, I dont say anything which says in black and white that you can do this.
You might be interested in this Safety Reminder Message from Eurocontrol (dtd. 03/02/2010):
There should be some alleviation from the requirement for CDFA for helicopter operators - this, in recognition that they do not yet have the same sophistication as aeroplanes with FMS/GPS procedures and that the majority of procedures carried out in helicopters are still MDA(H) based (ARA and Pins).
Jim
SYNOPSIS
EUROCONTROL has been advised of concerns about the use of Decision Altitude/Height (DA(H)) instead of Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA(H)) as the aerodrome operating minima (AOM) on some non-precision approach charts produced by Jeppesen for countries applying “EU Ops”. This has become a source of confusion and has implications for aircraft operators.
ANALYSIS
Commission Regulation EC 859/2008 dated 20 August 2008, EU Ops 1.430(d) 2 (applicable from 16 July 2011) states that “all non-precision approaches shall be flown using the continuous descent final approaches (CDFA) technique”.
EU Ops, 1.435.9 defines CDFA as, “A specific technique for flying the final-approach segment of a non-precision instrument approach procedure as a continuous descent, without level-off from an altitude/height at or above the Final Approach Fix altitude/height to a point approximately 15m (50ft) above the landing runway threshold or the point where the flare manoeuvre should begin for the type of aircraft shown”. Moreover, Appendix 1 (New) to OPS 1.430, states that, “the missed approach, after an approach has been flown using the CDFA technique, shall be executed when reaching the decision altitude (height…”.
Note: Additional CDFA guidance material is currently under preparation.
Jeppesen only publish DA(H) on CDFA-based, non-precision approaches where the equivalent national AIP minima is shown as an OCA(H). Where national AIP minima is shown as a MDA(H) or for non-CDFA-based, non-precision approaches, Jeppesen continues to publish MDA(H).
ICAO PANS OPS definitions:
Minimum Descent Altitude/Height (MDA(H)): “a specified altitude or height in a non-precision approach or circling approach below which descent must not be made without the required visual reference”.
Decision Altitude/Height (DA(H)): “a specified altitude/height in a precision approach or approach with vertical guidance at which a missed approach must be initiated if the required visual reference to continue the approach has not been established”.
Obstacle Clearance Altitude/Height (OCA(H)): “The lowest altitude or the lowest height above the elevation of the relevant runway threshold or the aerodrome elevation as applicable, used in establishing compliance with appropriate obstacle clearance criteria”.
The DA(H) value shown on the Jeppesen charts is at least equal to the published national AIP OCA(H)) minima for a non-precision approach. Importantly, however, the DA(H) published on the Jeppesen charts does not include any add-on to account for any height loss during the initiation of a missed approach. This is not mentioned directly on the charts, but it is described in the Jeppesen Briefing Bulletin JEP 08-D and in the legend pages to the Jeppesen Airway Manual.
EU Ops 1.430 (a)1 states that, “an operator shall establish, for each aerodrome planned to be used, aerodrome operating minima…”
YOUR ATTENTION IS REQUIRED
Aircraft operators are invited to:
Note the issue above specifically with a review of the need to consider the requirement for an add-on factor to account for height loss at missed approach initiation.
Share their operational experiences.
It is critical to flight safety that pilots brief the DA(H) or MDA(H) (as appropriate) so that there is no ambiguity as to what minimums are being used irrespective of the type of approach being flown.
FURTHER READING
Commission Regulation EC 589/2008 (EU Ops) dated 20 August 2008. SKYbrary - EU-OPS
ICAO Doc - 8168 PANS OPS
Jeppesen Airway Manual
Jeppesen Briefing Bulletin JEP 08-D - 26 Sep 08 at http://www.jeppesen.com/main/corpora...b_jep_08_D.pdf
Draft Implementing Rule for Air Operations of Community Operators (EASA NPA 2009-02B) (CDFA Guidance pages 155-165). EASA - European Aviation Safety Agency
For more information contact, EUROCONTROL Safety Alerts Coordinator, Richard Lawrence at: [email protected]
EUROCONTROL has been advised of concerns about the use of Decision Altitude/Height (DA(H)) instead of Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA(H)) as the aerodrome operating minima (AOM) on some non-precision approach charts produced by Jeppesen for countries applying “EU Ops”. This has become a source of confusion and has implications for aircraft operators.
ANALYSIS
Commission Regulation EC 859/2008 dated 20 August 2008, EU Ops 1.430(d) 2 (applicable from 16 July 2011) states that “all non-precision approaches shall be flown using the continuous descent final approaches (CDFA) technique”.
EU Ops, 1.435.9 defines CDFA as, “A specific technique for flying the final-approach segment of a non-precision instrument approach procedure as a continuous descent, without level-off from an altitude/height at or above the Final Approach Fix altitude/height to a point approximately 15m (50ft) above the landing runway threshold or the point where the flare manoeuvre should begin for the type of aircraft shown”. Moreover, Appendix 1 (New) to OPS 1.430, states that, “the missed approach, after an approach has been flown using the CDFA technique, shall be executed when reaching the decision altitude (height…”.
Note: Additional CDFA guidance material is currently under preparation.
Jeppesen only publish DA(H) on CDFA-based, non-precision approaches where the equivalent national AIP minima is shown as an OCA(H). Where national AIP minima is shown as a MDA(H) or for non-CDFA-based, non-precision approaches, Jeppesen continues to publish MDA(H).
ICAO PANS OPS definitions:
Minimum Descent Altitude/Height (MDA(H)): “a specified altitude or height in a non-precision approach or circling approach below which descent must not be made without the required visual reference”.
Decision Altitude/Height (DA(H)): “a specified altitude/height in a precision approach or approach with vertical guidance at which a missed approach must be initiated if the required visual reference to continue the approach has not been established”.
Obstacle Clearance Altitude/Height (OCA(H)): “The lowest altitude or the lowest height above the elevation of the relevant runway threshold or the aerodrome elevation as applicable, used in establishing compliance with appropriate obstacle clearance criteria”.
The DA(H) value shown on the Jeppesen charts is at least equal to the published national AIP OCA(H)) minima for a non-precision approach. Importantly, however, the DA(H) published on the Jeppesen charts does not include any add-on to account for any height loss during the initiation of a missed approach. This is not mentioned directly on the charts, but it is described in the Jeppesen Briefing Bulletin JEP 08-D and in the legend pages to the Jeppesen Airway Manual.
EU Ops 1.430 (a)1 states that, “an operator shall establish, for each aerodrome planned to be used, aerodrome operating minima…”
YOUR ATTENTION IS REQUIRED
Aircraft operators are invited to:
Note the issue above specifically with a review of the need to consider the requirement for an add-on factor to account for height loss at missed approach initiation.
Share their operational experiences.
It is critical to flight safety that pilots brief the DA(H) or MDA(H) (as appropriate) so that there is no ambiguity as to what minimums are being used irrespective of the type of approach being flown.
FURTHER READING
Commission Regulation EC 589/2008 (EU Ops) dated 20 August 2008. SKYbrary - EU-OPS
ICAO Doc - 8168 PANS OPS
Jeppesen Airway Manual
Jeppesen Briefing Bulletin JEP 08-D - 26 Sep 08 at http://www.jeppesen.com/main/corpora...b_jep_08_D.pdf
Draft Implementing Rule for Air Operations of Community Operators (EASA NPA 2009-02B) (CDFA Guidance pages 155-165). EASA - European Aviation Safety Agency
For more information contact, EUROCONTROL Safety Alerts Coordinator, Richard Lawrence at: [email protected]
Jim
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CDFA in the sim
I teach pilots from all and every corner of the globe and have only Jepps (via JeppView) to use as reference material. The complexities of the situation mitigate against simple solutions but I need a simple solution if I am to succeed with the IFR part of any course.
If, when asked, the student replies that his organisation has no CDFA SOP then I will use the published DA plus 50 feet and fly it in the same way you fly an ILS with the application of GA power at DA+50 unless the required visual reference is available.
The briefing will include a simple explanation that:
a. Where an MDA is shown on the plate for a Non Precision Approach the approach can be flown in the 'old' way with a level off at MDA and a GA to be initiated at the MAP.
b. Where a DA is shown with no explanatory information the DA + 50 will be the rule.
c. Where there is an indication that use of the DA has been approved because the re-evaluation of obstacles in the context of a descent below DA during a GA then the DA may be used without the 50 feet increment.
d. Visibility parameters will need review when setting up the sim weather if a 'break-out is required for a revised DA plus a revised GA point will put the pilot flying in a position where the published vis minima will almost certainly be inadequate.
Would appreciate feedback on this approach to the problem.
G.
If, when asked, the student replies that his organisation has no CDFA SOP then I will use the published DA plus 50 feet and fly it in the same way you fly an ILS with the application of GA power at DA+50 unless the required visual reference is available.
The briefing will include a simple explanation that:
a. Where an MDA is shown on the plate for a Non Precision Approach the approach can be flown in the 'old' way with a level off at MDA and a GA to be initiated at the MAP.
b. Where a DA is shown with no explanatory information the DA + 50 will be the rule.
c. Where there is an indication that use of the DA has been approved because the re-evaluation of obstacles in the context of a descent below DA during a GA then the DA may be used without the 50 feet increment.
d. Visibility parameters will need review when setting up the sim weather if a 'break-out is required for a revised DA plus a revised GA point will put the pilot flying in a position where the published vis minima will almost certainly be inadequate.
Would appreciate feedback on this approach to the problem.
G.
Considering that the continuous descent approach to MDA was in vogue in airlines like the old British European Airways more than forty years ago it is amazing that a dirty dive and level-off should still even be considered as appropriate for large aeroplanes.
As a wise airman of my acquaintance pointed out: "Once you have levelled off at MDA, you are halfway into a go-around anyway". The practice of attempting to resume the approach from level flight at a few hundred feet above ground has led to numerous accidents all round the globe.
In the simulator have seen many pilots demonstrate that a continuous descent non-precision approach can be flown within instrument rating ILS limits, thereby insuring that the aeroplane is perfectly positioned on the notional glideslope.
As a wise airman of my acquaintance pointed out: "Once you have levelled off at MDA, you are halfway into a go-around anyway". The practice of attempting to resume the approach from level flight at a few hundred feet above ground has led to numerous accidents all round the globe.
In the simulator have seen many pilots demonstrate that a continuous descent non-precision approach can be flown within instrument rating ILS limits, thereby insuring that the aeroplane is perfectly positioned on the notional glideslope.
Geoff,
The missed approach depends for obstacle clearance on being started from the MAPt; revising the procedure is not a simple matter and it must obey the basic principles of the regulations of the State in which it is being undertaken.
Providing the VNAV that results in the RNP APCH or RNP AR APCH, or the process that results in the non-precision approach overlay should not be undertaken in an ad hoc way but should be part of a SMS approach to provision of CDFA (advice should be sought for the non-cognoscenti).
There is a substantial difference in the provision of the DA(H) or MDA(H) - as examination of ICAO Doc 8168 Figures I-4-1-2 and 3 will illustrate. As you will see from these diagrams (which I have sent to you), the OCA(H) will have height additions which result in the 'lower limit' and 'margin' which are used in the provision of DA(H) or MDA(H). These additions will include both those mandated by the State's regulation and those added by the operator in providing the OM limits.
You might/will find that not all States (EASA, FAA etc) use the same process, it might be difficult therefore to provide a simple set of rules. As a first step you could examine any CDFA profiles that have been provided in your operator's OM - this will give you a good idea of how much progress has so far been achieved towards the provision of CDFA procedures.
Jim
The missed approach depends for obstacle clearance on being started from the MAPt; revising the procedure is not a simple matter and it must obey the basic principles of the regulations of the State in which it is being undertaken.
Providing the VNAV that results in the RNP APCH or RNP AR APCH, or the process that results in the non-precision approach overlay should not be undertaken in an ad hoc way but should be part of a SMS approach to provision of CDFA (advice should be sought for the non-cognoscenti).
There is a substantial difference in the provision of the DA(H) or MDA(H) - as examination of ICAO Doc 8168 Figures I-4-1-2 and 3 will illustrate. As you will see from these diagrams (which I have sent to you), the OCA(H) will have height additions which result in the 'lower limit' and 'margin' which are used in the provision of DA(H) or MDA(H). These additions will include both those mandated by the State's regulation and those added by the operator in providing the OM limits.
You might/will find that not all States (EASA, FAA etc) use the same process, it might be difficult therefore to provide a simple set of rules. As a first step you could examine any CDFA profiles that have been provided in your operator's OM - this will give you a good idea of how much progress has so far been achieved towards the provision of CDFA procedures.
Jim
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CDFA in the sim
Jim
Number one problem is that CDFA is not well understood by most helicopter pilots and there is a great shortage of written SOPs in many parts of the world. My first task as a sim instructor is to reinforce the SOPs in use by my customer. Where these do not exist - about 75% of the time - I teach and therefore use a generic form of MCC and JAR-based protocols.
When teaching on a TR or Recurrent course I am essentially teaching how to manage the systems that are new to the student or improving his understanding during recurrent courses where IFR features. I need to set targets in the brief and make sense of the chart annotations used, in our case by Jepps. I have solved one mystery and that is to answer the much asked question "why is the Missed Approach Point displayed on a NPA chart featuring a DA?" The answer is that any turn described in the MA Procedure should not be initiated before the indicated MA Point.
My intention is not to deliver a de-facto solution for any NPA but simply provide realistic targets during the brief and be able to answer the 'why' question at a basic level. The material you provided goes a long way to helping with that but obviously I will have to make it clear that NAA guidance and OM instructions will always take precedence.
G.
Number one problem is that CDFA is not well understood by most helicopter pilots and there is a great shortage of written SOPs in many parts of the world. My first task as a sim instructor is to reinforce the SOPs in use by my customer. Where these do not exist - about 75% of the time - I teach and therefore use a generic form of MCC and JAR-based protocols.
When teaching on a TR or Recurrent course I am essentially teaching how to manage the systems that are new to the student or improving his understanding during recurrent courses where IFR features. I need to set targets in the brief and make sense of the chart annotations used, in our case by Jepps. I have solved one mystery and that is to answer the much asked question "why is the Missed Approach Point displayed on a NPA chart featuring a DA?" The answer is that any turn described in the MA Procedure should not be initiated before the indicated MA Point.
My intention is not to deliver a de-facto solution for any NPA but simply provide realistic targets during the brief and be able to answer the 'why' question at a basic level. The material you provided goes a long way to helping with that but obviously I will have to make it clear that NAA guidance and OM instructions will always take precedence.
G.
Last edited by Geoffersincornwall; 18th Aug 2011 at 09:19.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CDFA in the sim
Further discussions with JimL have highlighted some issues that are so dependent on specifics (particular type of approach at a particular airfield) that the wisdom of a general approach must be in question when used as a teaching objective. Instead of my suggested 'published DA +50 ft' during training exercises it may be a wiser choice to use the published DA as is and to include a discussion of the OCL issues in the brief.
The essential as far as I am concerned is that when the helicopter arrives at the DA/MDA we (crew and instructor) all know what to expect and that my explanation to the crew as to why we will fly a CDFA in this way is an intelligent interpretation of the regulatory (and advisory) material available.
I welcome discussion on the subject.
G.
The essential as far as I am concerned is that when the helicopter arrives at the DA/MDA we (crew and instructor) all know what to expect and that my explanation to the crew as to why we will fly a CDFA in this way is an intelligent interpretation of the regulatory (and advisory) material available.
I welcome discussion on the subject.
G.
Geoff, I'm not sure why you would add 50 ft to a DA? If published as such then treat it as exactly that - a DA. The addition of 50 ft is reserved for the MDA to ensure it is not breached during the missed approach - often called a Company DA. It's not scientific, but widely practiced and empirically, it works!
On the face of it, it seems very simple to use this procedure, but careful briefing and cross checking with the FMS is required. Most FMSs will code the V-Path to cross the threshold at 50 ft (TCH) with an angle between 2.75° and 3.5° depending on the step down fixes - but ideally 3°. What's important is to appreciate the relationship between the MAPt and the MDA crossing point, and the FMS should show you. If the MAPt is some way before the threshold you will probably reach it first and maybe some way above the MDA. On the other hand, if the MAPt is close to, or even beyond, the threshold, the MDA will be reached first.
To those who say that the CDFA technique is not relevant to helicopters, can you answer how exactly you are supposed to carry out the visual segment of the approach if you spot the runway as you cross the threshold, or are halfway down it (mid-field NDB?) at 600 ft? far better to look up at a familiar sight picture and a set of PAPIs in front of you!
Jim, I assume you are cautioning against starting the MAP after the MAPt? Clearly, commencing the missed approach before it is acceptable and might be a result of many other factors - ATC, equipment failure, unstable (FW) etc
On the face of it, it seems very simple to use this procedure, but careful briefing and cross checking with the FMS is required. Most FMSs will code the V-Path to cross the threshold at 50 ft (TCH) with an angle between 2.75° and 3.5° depending on the step down fixes - but ideally 3°. What's important is to appreciate the relationship between the MAPt and the MDA crossing point, and the FMS should show you. If the MAPt is some way before the threshold you will probably reach it first and maybe some way above the MDA. On the other hand, if the MAPt is close to, or even beyond, the threshold, the MDA will be reached first.
To those who say that the CDFA technique is not relevant to helicopters, can you answer how exactly you are supposed to carry out the visual segment of the approach if you spot the runway as you cross the threshold, or are halfway down it (mid-field NDB?) at 600 ft? far better to look up at a familiar sight picture and a set of PAPIs in front of you!
The missed approach depends for obstacle clearance on being started from the MAPt; revising the procedure is not a simple matter and it must obey the basic principles of the regulations of the State in which it is being undertaken.
Last edited by 212man; 18th Aug 2011 at 11:09.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212
Sorry I misunderstood your earlier suggestion re. +50 feet and was trying to adopt a 'safety-first' approach given that a conventional 'old out, new in' update process necessarily means that we cannot compare old with new - or the MDA as was with the DA as now is.
The absence of explanatory material has not helped.
Out of interest which websites would you (and others are welcome to contribute) recommend as essential reading for (a) professional helicopter pilot, (b) helicopter instructor and (c) sim instructor.
Will be interesting to see what comes out of the woodwork.
G.
The absence of explanatory material has not helped.
Out of interest which websites would you (and others are welcome to contribute) recommend as essential reading for (a) professional helicopter pilot, (b) helicopter instructor and (c) sim instructor.
Will be interesting to see what comes out of the woodwork.
G.
I'd recommend the Airbus safety library, which has all kinds of useful publications. Many are similar in content to those on the Flight Safety Foundation site, but generally more reader friendly.
This is a guide on flying NPAs as if PAs: http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...-GEN-SEQ02.pdf
Here's the library site: Safety Library | Airbus, a leading aircraft manufacturer
Here's the FSF site for approach and landing accident reduction:
ALAR Briefing Notes in English | Flight Safety Foundation
Other good sites where are skybrary.aero and smartcockpit.com
This is a guide on flying NPAs as if PAs: http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...-GEN-SEQ02.pdf
Here's the library site: Safety Library | Airbus, a leading aircraft manufacturer
Here's the FSF site for approach and landing accident reduction:
ALAR Briefing Notes in English | Flight Safety Foundation
Other good sites where are skybrary.aero and smartcockpit.com
212man,
Caution must be exercised when starting the missed approach before the MAPt - unless it is straight ahead; a MAPt with a turn started too early might put the helicopter into an obstacle area.
For this reason, each procedure must be examined before such choices are made.
You raise an interesting point about the location of the MAPt on the angle between the FAF and the threshhold crossing height. We all make the assumption that an overlay procedure will work without modification but, clearly, the FMS has to be programmed with an algorithm that takes account of that or the procedure has to be hard-wired with a DA at the MAPt.
Are there still procedures out there that have the MAPt after the threshhold?
Jim
Caution must be exercised when starting the missed approach before the MAPt - unless it is straight ahead; a MAPt with a turn started too early might put the helicopter into an obstacle area.
For this reason, each procedure must be examined before such choices are made.
You raise an interesting point about the location of the MAPt on the angle between the FAF and the threshhold crossing height. We all make the assumption that an overlay procedure will work without modification but, clearly, the FMS has to be programmed with an algorithm that takes account of that or the procedure has to be hard-wired with a DA at the MAPt.
Are there still procedures out there that have the MAPt after the threshhold?
Jim