PPRuNe Forums - Helicopter Non-Precision Approaches

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Rotorheads (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads-23/)

- - Helicopter Non-Precision Approaches (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/520396-helicopter-non-precision-approaches.html)

Red White & Blue,

Thanks - its good to have a definition from an authoritative source. BUT.....

"In either case, aircraft are not permitted to go below the MDA/H at any time"

It is still not clear how you comply with this if a MDA/H is not published, only a DA!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Non-PC Plod (Post 8093443)

Quote:

Operators on a Non-Precision Approach in Europe should note:

On a Non-Precision Approach, the airplane must never descend below the published minimum altitude during the initiation of the missed approach.
Unlike DA(H) minima published on an ILS, LNAV/VNAV, or LPV procedure, the DA(H) minima for the subject Non-Precision approaches (e.g., LOC, VOR, LNAV, NDB) published by Jeppesen do not provide an allowance for any momentary altitude loss during the transition to the missed approach climb.

Therefore, when a DA(H) is shown by Jeppesen on a Non-Precision Approach chart, it is critical to safety that crews account for loss of altitude in order to avoid descent below the published DA(H).
The value of the additive is left to the discretion of the operator, but should reflect realistic operating characteristics of the aircraft as well as crew performance.

Notice to Operators Flying European Non-precision Approaches | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association

Regards
Aser

Ok,

Definitions from Doc 8168

Decision altitude (DA) or decision height (DH). A specified altitude or height in the 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.
Note 1.— Decision altitude (DA) is referenced to mean sea level and decision height (DH) is referenced to the
threshold elevation.
Note 2.— The required visual reference means that section of the visual aids or of the approach area which should
have been in view for sufficient time for the pilot to have made an assessment of the aircraft position and rate of change
of position, in relation to the desired flight path. In Category III operations with a decision height the required visual
reference is that specified for the particular procedure and operation.
Note 3.— For convenience where both expressions are used they may be written in the form “decision
altitude/height” and abbreviated “DA/H”.

Minimum descent altitude (MDA) or minimum descent height (MDH). A specified altitude or height in a nonprecision
approach or circling approach below which descent must not be made without the required visual
reference.
Note 1.— Minimum descent altitude (MDA) is referenced to mean sea level and minimum descent height (MDH) is
referenced to the aerodrome elevation or to the threshold elevation if that is more than 2 m (7 ft) below the aerodrome
elevation. A minimum descent height for a circling approach is referenced to the aerodrome elevation.
Note 2.— The required visual reference means that section of the visual aids or of the approach area which should
have been in view for sufficient time for the pilot to have made an assessment of the aircraft position and rate of change
of position, in relation to the desired flight path. In the case of a circling approach the required visual reference is the
runway environment.

So we know on a non precision aproach we fly to MDA/H. Not a DA/H!

Thus, the question should be to the agency who publish the plate why they have printed the wrong term in the minima box, should it not?

There is nothing "wrong"

Quote:

AERODROME OPERATING MINIMUMS ACCORDING TO EU-OPS 1
General Information
The European Union published the 2nd Amendment of EU-OPS 1 (Annex III to Regulation 3922/91).
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOIndex.do?ihmlang=en
This EU-OPS 1 is the replacement of JAR-OPS 1 and contains a new method to determine Aerodrome Operating
Minimums (AOM). The new method will become the European Standard on 16 July 2011 at the latest.
According to ICAO Doc 9365-AN910 (Manual of All Weather Operations) and Annex 6 to the Convention on
International Civil Aviation it is the ope
rator’s responsibility to establish Aerodrome Operating Minimums which
need to be approved by the responsible authority.
The Appendix 1 (new) to OPS 1.430 describes the method which has to be used by all European Operators and
within the European Union (EU).
Jeppesen will support your operations by replacing the current JAR-OPS AOM with the new Standard. Due to
the huge number of airports (1000+) and pro
cedures (5000+) the conversion could only be done on a step by
step basis.
It is our intent to have all procedures revised to the new Standard AOM by 16 July 2011 for all airports within
– European Union member states,
– European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) member states,
– Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) member states and
– for other states where the currently used JAR-
OPS AOM will be replaced.
In May 2008 we asked commercial operators about their plans for this EU-OPS implementation. The following
items are directly related to the result
s of that survey:
a. All non-precision approaches will be reviewed to show CDFA (Continuous Descent Final Approach) profile
and minimums.
b. In case of CDFA only, a DA(H) is shown instead of the previously published MDA(H). The missed approach
point is still shown according to state so
urce but the missed approach initiation arrow is moved to the point
where the DA(H) is reached.
c. Jeppesen charted AOM do not include an add
-on when current MDA(H) is replaced by DA(H). Pilots are
reminded to check their operator’s Flight Operations Manual or similar documents whether they have to
apply an add-on or not.
d. For CDFA profiles, Jeppesen will show DME vs altitude bands, distance vs altitude bands or timing vs
altitude tables. If not provided by the State source those altitudes will be calculated by Jeppesen.
e. Non-CDFA profiles and minimums will be shown in exceptional cases only and may be combined with CDFA
profiles and minimums.
f. For CAT I operations with full approach light system (FALS) Jeppesen will include RVR values below 750m
together with the higher values. Pilots are reminded to check their operator’s Flight Operations Manual or
similar documents to fulfill the require
ments for using the lower RVR values.
g. Lower than standard CAT I minimums are charted on request on customer tailored charts.
h. Other than standard CAT II minimums will be charted if the procedure is approved for such operations by
the state of the airport.
i. Circling minimums must not be lower than the minimums of preceding instrument approach procedure. If
circling MDA(H) and/or visibility must be raised due to higher straight-in values, only one set of circling
minimums is shown which relates to th
e highest straight-in minimums.
Legend and ATC Pages
Jeppesen is currently reviewing the final version of this EU-OPS to replace the current ATC-601 (JAA AOM)
pages with a summarization of the new EU-OPS Aerodrome Operating Minimums.
In addition we will update the current Introduction 171 – 173 (JAR-OPS 1 AOM) pages to explain how the new
minimums and the CDFA profiles are dep
ictedonJeppesencharts.
Conversion Plan
The publication of the new Standard of AOM will be done along with normal chart revision activity. It is planned
to convert all procedures of an affected airport at the same time.
We will create special minimums pages, numbered 10-9S (similar to current 10-9X JAR-OPS pages), as an
interim solution.
Jeppesen will maintain or create JA
R-OPS 1 minimums pages on customer request only.
Please contact your Jeppesen custo
mer service representative for any special requirements, such as airline
tailored minimums, airborne equipment considerations or your conversion priorities.
q$z
RETAIN THIS BULLETIN UNTIL ADVISED TO DESTROY
©
JEPPESEN, 2
008. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
JEP 08-D1
26 SEP 08
BRIEFING BULLETIN
AERODROME OPERATING MINIMUMS ACCORDING TO EU-OPS 1
q$i
Charts with JAR-OPS label
The JAR-OPS label on Jeppesen approach and airport charts indicates that the minimums correspond to the
rules described in Appendix 1 (old) to OPS 1.430 of the EU-OPS 1.
Future Outlook
The FAA will also publish new minimums wh
ich will be harmonized with the EU ones.
Jeppesen’s intention is to replace the c
urrent ECOMS and JAR-OPS Aerodrome Operating Minimums with the
future harmonized version on a world-wide basis.

Aser,

Part of this thread has been formed by the confusion created by the use of the term DA/H on a Non Precicion proceedure.

While I accept that Jepp have published a guide to how their plates are presented the presentation seems in conflict with PansOps.

I guess PansOps is the higher authority as it lays down how Instrument proceedures are designed and flown.

Whether flying CDFA or Dive and Drive why are the mimima not published in line with PansOps?

Something seems 'wrong' to me. Hence the confusion in this thread.

I'm sure Jepp have very solid reasoning for their depiction but no doubt it has created confusion.

Annex to ED Decision 2012/018/R
Quote:

(3) When reaching the published instrument MAPt and the conditions stipulated in
(c)(2) are unable to be established by the pilot, a missed approach should be
carried out in accordance with that instrument approach procedure

So MAPt in EU land:

Annex to ED Decision 2012/018/R
or
see Eurocontrol's Skybrary: SKYbrary - Missed Approach

Also it has to be said
A) It's a bit of a worry that there exist several interpretations and understandings of this stuff.
B) Jeppesen need to think about the confusion this causes even if they do cover it in their interpretation document.

Regulations should be simple, clear and consistent. Still the pass mark is only 75% so presumably pilot's don't need to know 25% of this stuff anyway?

The term DA is not restricted to Precision Approaches - it is applicable to other approaches with "Vertical Guidance". Although a CDFA can be flown without vertical guidance (using range/altitude fir example) it may be that the approaches that Jeppesen are producing with DAs depicted are also the approaches for which they provide Vertical encoding in their Nav Data subscriptions for FMS/FMC/FMGS etc.

ICAO Doc 8168 v2

Quote:

Missed approach point (MAPt).
That point in an instrument approach procedure at or before which the prescribed
missed approach procedure must be initiated in order to ensure that the minimum obstacle clearance is not
infringed.
Missed approach procedure.
The procedure to be followed if the approach cannot be continued

As it says in the Jepp. doc. :

Quote:

The European Union published the 2nd Amendment of EU-OPS 1 (Annex III to Regulation 3922/91).
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOIndex.do?ihmlang=en
This EU-OPS 1 is the replacement of JAR-OPS 1 and contains a new method to determine Aerodrome Operating
Minimums (AOM). The new method will become the European Standard on 16 July 2011 at the latest.

I'm not flying in Europe, but if you take a look to EU-OPS 1 (and that is now the law) you will find:

Quote:

OPS 1.430
Aerodrome operating minima — General
(See Appendix 1 (old) and Appendix 1 (new) to OPS 1.430)

(d)1. All approaches shall be flown as stabilised approaches (SAp) unless
otherwise approved by the Authority for a par-
ticular approach to a particular runway.

(d)2. All non-precision approaches shall be flown using the continuous de
scent final approaches (CDFA) technique unless
otherwise approved by the Authority for a particular approach to a particu
lar runway.

Appendix 1 (New) to OPS 1.430
Aerodrome operating minima

(b) Category I, APV and non-precision approach operations

2. A non-precision approach (NPA) operation is an instrument approach usi
ng any of the facilities described in Table
3 (System minima), with a MDH or DH not lower than 250 ft and an RVR/CMV of not l
ess than 750 m, unless accepted by the Authority.

9. “Continuous descent final approach (CDFA)”. A specific technique for f
lying the final-approach segment of a non-
precision instrument approach procedure as a continuous descent, withou
t level-off, from an altitude/height at or above
the Final Approach Fix altitude / height to a point approximately 15 m (50 fe
et) above the landing runway threshold
or the point where the flare manoeuvre should begin for the type of aeroplan
e flown.

10. “Stabilised approach (SAp)”. An approach which is flown in a controlle
d and appropriate manner in terms of configu-
ration, energy and control of the flight path from a pre-determined point o
r altitude/height down to a point 50 feet
above the threshold or the point where the flare manoeuvre is initiated if h
igher.

I don't see anything wrong with the Jeppesen explanation. Better check with your operator and start flying CDFA using add-on height to the DA...

Regards

Not if you are a helicopter pilot - EUops1 is for FW.

Isnt it funny how we keep going round in this circle? It really emphasises the fact that EASA has done a p**ss poor job of letting us all know what we should be doing. There are a lot of experienced people on rotorheads - many of us are teaching this stuff. We cant even get a straight answer from our own national authorities.
Can anyone else see James Reason's slices of emmenthal starting to align themselves?

Quote:

EASA has done a p**ss poor job of letting us all know what we should be doing.

At some point does the Industry need to tell EASA what to do?

Crab you are right, I know eu-ops 1 is for fix wing.
But if want to fly a non-precision app with a jepp. chart and there is only a CDFA profile with no map on that specific chart... then what?

a) Don't use it, keep non-jepp charts on board.
b) Read eu-ops 1, learn what a cdfa is, get the operator to stablish a DA for the app. and get ready for the replacement of jar-ops 3.

Some people said here that we can't have a DA in a non-precision app, well I prefer to read fixed wing stuff and not get confused...

Or do you mean we can't fly a cdfa profile in a helicopter?

regards!

So this is where I have got with all this this week (all information pertinent to helicopters only)....

CAA say that the option to fly CDFA or non-CDFA "rests with operators, assuming the approach designer does not prohibit non-CDFA."
Having spoken to the approach designer (NATS) PANS-OPS does not prohibit or allow CDFA or non-CDFA approaches as it is an operator’s consideration, not an approach design consideration. There aren't separate design criteria/rules that are applied if an approach is going to be CDFA or non-CDFA, the approach designer simply applies the PANS-OPS rules to provide the minimum obstacle clearance etc. So, provided you fly the approach above the step heights and minima then you are safe.
Take the NATS plate for NDB 27 Norwich as an example http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2011-06-30.pdf It makes no mention of CDFA (the charts our operators provide give separate CDFA and non-CDFA minima for this procedure) which backs up the approach designers claims that it isn't a design consideration. In my honest opinion (and I am most definitely NOT an authority on this) we can therefore chose to use either technique and just obey the step heights and minima on the plate.

The CAA appreciate that we could do with some info/guidance and are trying to arrange the publication of a CAA Information Notice to help get the message out. Not sure if it will have the information from the approach designer though as that was my own leg work. Finger crossed that has helped someone!?

Seems to make sense, the only question I still have, is how you to find your MDA if you are doing the old fashioned technique on an approach with a plate that only depicts the CDFA? If you only have a DA to go on, because there is no obstacle clearance altitude info on the plate, do you just treat the DA as an MDA, and accept that you are going to be at least level with, if not above the actual OCA?

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

Quote:

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.

I don't use Jepp plates so not in a position to comment. Wouldn't it make life easier though if they applied one logic for all plates and approach types i.e. just write the absolute minima which you cannot go below without the required visual references?
Presumably whoever decided that we can dip below DA on an ILS has already built in some fat to make sure that we are safe/don't hit anything during the go around and presumably they applied a worst case scenario to allow for anything from cessnas to Jumbos. If we are coming up with our own derived DA for NPA (or hopefully not given the information above) surely they can just give us the absolute minima so that each aircraft type can build in a suitable factor to stay above the minima and get us down as low as safely possible? A common solution that caters for a vast array of aircraft types.

I was looking for something on a totally different subject when I stumbled across this.

It is from EASA Annex to ED Decision 2012/018/R and is offered to us as Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidence Material.

Quote:

AMC3 CAT.OP.MPA.110 Aerodrome operating minima
NPA, APV, CAT I OPERATIONS
(a) The decision height (DH) to be used for a non-precision approach (NPA) flown with the continuous descent final approach (CDFA) technique, approach procedure with vertical guidance (APV) or CAT I operation should not be lower than the highest of:
(1) the minimum height to which the approach aid can be used without the required visual reference;
(2) the obstacle clearance height (OCH) for the category of aircraft;
(3) the published approach procedure DH where applicable;
(4) the system minimum specified in Table 3; or
(5) the minimum DH specified in the aircraft flight manual (AFM) or equivalent document, if stated.

(b) The minimum descent height (MDH) for an NPA operation flown without the CDFA technique should not be lower than the highest of:
(1) the OCH for the category of aircraft;
(2) the system minimum specified in Table 3; or Annex to ED Decision 2012/018/R
(3) the minimum MDH specified in the AFM, if stated.

So here's a question - What do you do if you fly CDFA without APV?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedWhite&Blue (Post 8098484)

So here's a question - What do you do if you fly CDFA without APV?

Fly the required rate of descent.

Aser,

If you have a Jepp chart with a published DA/H will you know the MDH for your cat of aircraft? (I can't see a Jepp plate right now to compare. I guess it may be listed on a seperate Heli ops Minima Page for the Aerodrome).

If you can only fly a DH by uing APV and only MDH/A without APV what minima will you descend to when flying CDFA at the "required rate of descent"?