Jeppesen Approach Charts Non Precision DA
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Playing Golf!
Age: 46
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all in the Jepp to read...
Approach Chart Legend — EU-OPS 1 Aerodrome Operating Minimums (AOM)
Publication of minimums does not constitute authority for their use by all operators. Each individual operator must obtain appropriate approval for their use.
GENERAL
Beginning in November 2008 Jeppesen will replace the current JAR-OPS 1 minimums with the new minimums introduced by the 2nd amendment to EU-OPS 1.
The “Standard” label in the upper left corner of the minimums box indicates that the minimums are based on EU-OPS 1 (Subpart E - Appendix 1 new to OPS 1.430). The “JAR-OPS” label in the upper left corner of the minimums box indicates that the minimums are based on JAR-OPS 1 or EU-OPS 1 (Subpart E -Appendix 1 old to OPS 1.430).
For a detailed excerpt of EU-OPS 1 minimums refer to Air Traffic Control (ATC) Series 600 pages.
Jeppesen charted minimums are not below any State-provided minimums. Higher existing minimums for FAR 121 operators and those applying U.S. Operations Specifications are footnoted. RVR/CMV/VIS values are shown in measuring units as reported by the governing agency.
AOM for take-off and landing are either shown on Jeppesen instrument approach or aerodrome charts or on a separate minimums listing. Landing minimums will be shown as RVR, but values above 2000m will be designated as Converted Meteorological Visibility, prefixed “CMV”. Take-off minimums are shown without prefix because they are either RVR or VIS. Circling minimums are always visibilities which is indicated in the circling minimums box. For the separate minimums listings RVR, CMV and VIS are abbreviated as R, C and V.
TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS
The application of these minimums may be limited by the obstacle environment in the take-off and departure area. The RVR/VIS minimums are determined to ensure the visual guidance of the take-off run phase. The subsequent clearance of obstacles is the responsibility of the operator. Low visibility take-off with RVR/VIS below 400m requires the verification that Low Visibility Procedures (LVP) have been established and are in force. RVR/VIS for the initial part of take-off run can be replaced by pilot assessment. The multiple RVR requirement means, that the required RVR value must be achieved for all of the relevant RVR reporting points, except for the initial part, which can be determined by pilot assessment. Approved operators may reduce their take-off minimums to 125m (aircraft categories A, B, C), 150m (category D) or to 75m (all categories) with an approved lateral guidance system.
CIRCLING MINIMUMS
Circling minimums will only be charted if a circling OCA(H) or MDA(H) is provided by the procedure source. Otherwise, the circling box will be removed. If circling is not authorized by the procedure source, it will be noted in the notes box of the Briefing Strip header. Where straight-in minimums are higher than circling minimums (DH/MDH or RVR/VIS), the circling MDH or visibility will be raised to match the straight-in minimums.
NON-PRECISION APPROACH MINIMUMS AND CHART PROFILE VIEW
According to the EU-OPS requirements, all non-precision approaches shall be flown using the continuous descent final approach (CDFA) technique with decision altitude (height), and the missed approach shall be executed when reaching the DA(H) or the missed approach point (MAP), whichever occurs first. The lateral part of the missed approach procedure must be flown via the MAP unless stated otherwise in the procedure. Normally only CDFA minimums are shown. These are identified by the use of a DA(H). Jeppesen does not include an add-on when publishing a DA(H) for a CDFA non-precision approach. Non-CDFA minimums
are shown in exceptional cases and identified by an MDA(H).
The profile depiction will be modified to show the continuous descent on final approach. Source-published minimum altitudes will be shown as segment minimum altitudes in the profile (grey shaded box). These minimum altitudes are typically provided for obstacle clearance and must not be violated to remain clear of obstacles or terrain.
If not published by the procedure source, a table depicting DME vs altitude, distance vs altitude, or timing vs altitude will be calculated by Jeppesen and shown above the profile view. The timing table includes the descent angle, the FAF and the altitude at the FAF. Altitudes are calculated for 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100s from FAF and are based on speeds of 90, 120, 140, 160 and 180kt. Only altitudes above the decision altitude are provided.
Where CDFA minimums are shown, the profile will be modified to depict the continuous descent. The missed approach pull-up arrow is shown at the point where the decision height is reached. There is no level segment depicted prior to the MAP, and the MAP is shown as published by the procedure source.
In exceptional cases it may be necessary to include CDFA and non-CDFA minimums. Where this occurs, a level segment is shown prior to the missed approach point and the pull-up arrow is shown at the MAP.
Publication of minimums does not constitute authority for their use by all operators. Each individual operator must obtain appropriate approval for their use.
GENERAL
Beginning in November 2008 Jeppesen will replace the current JAR-OPS 1 minimums with the new minimums introduced by the 2nd amendment to EU-OPS 1.
The “Standard” label in the upper left corner of the minimums box indicates that the minimums are based on EU-OPS 1 (Subpart E - Appendix 1 new to OPS 1.430). The “JAR-OPS” label in the upper left corner of the minimums box indicates that the minimums are based on JAR-OPS 1 or EU-OPS 1 (Subpart E -Appendix 1 old to OPS 1.430).
For a detailed excerpt of EU-OPS 1 minimums refer to Air Traffic Control (ATC) Series 600 pages.
Jeppesen charted minimums are not below any State-provided minimums. Higher existing minimums for FAR 121 operators and those applying U.S. Operations Specifications are footnoted. RVR/CMV/VIS values are shown in measuring units as reported by the governing agency.
AOM for take-off and landing are either shown on Jeppesen instrument approach or aerodrome charts or on a separate minimums listing. Landing minimums will be shown as RVR, but values above 2000m will be designated as Converted Meteorological Visibility, prefixed “CMV”. Take-off minimums are shown without prefix because they are either RVR or VIS. Circling minimums are always visibilities which is indicated in the circling minimums box. For the separate minimums listings RVR, CMV and VIS are abbreviated as R, C and V.
TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS
The application of these minimums may be limited by the obstacle environment in the take-off and departure area. The RVR/VIS minimums are determined to ensure the visual guidance of the take-off run phase. The subsequent clearance of obstacles is the responsibility of the operator. Low visibility take-off with RVR/VIS below 400m requires the verification that Low Visibility Procedures (LVP) have been established and are in force. RVR/VIS for the initial part of take-off run can be replaced by pilot assessment. The multiple RVR requirement means, that the required RVR value must be achieved for all of the relevant RVR reporting points, except for the initial part, which can be determined by pilot assessment. Approved operators may reduce their take-off minimums to 125m (aircraft categories A, B, C), 150m (category D) or to 75m (all categories) with an approved lateral guidance system.
CIRCLING MINIMUMS
Circling minimums will only be charted if a circling OCA(H) or MDA(H) is provided by the procedure source. Otherwise, the circling box will be removed. If circling is not authorized by the procedure source, it will be noted in the notes box of the Briefing Strip header. Where straight-in minimums are higher than circling minimums (DH/MDH or RVR/VIS), the circling MDH or visibility will be raised to match the straight-in minimums.
NON-PRECISION APPROACH MINIMUMS AND CHART PROFILE VIEW
According to the EU-OPS requirements, all non-precision approaches shall be flown using the continuous descent final approach (CDFA) technique with decision altitude (height), and the missed approach shall be executed when reaching the DA(H) or the missed approach point (MAP), whichever occurs first. The lateral part of the missed approach procedure must be flown via the MAP unless stated otherwise in the procedure. Normally only CDFA minimums are shown. These are identified by the use of a DA(H). Jeppesen does not include an add-on when publishing a DA(H) for a CDFA non-precision approach. Non-CDFA minimums
are shown in exceptional cases and identified by an MDA(H).
The profile depiction will be modified to show the continuous descent on final approach. Source-published minimum altitudes will be shown as segment minimum altitudes in the profile (grey shaded box). These minimum altitudes are typically provided for obstacle clearance and must not be violated to remain clear of obstacles or terrain.
If not published by the procedure source, a table depicting DME vs altitude, distance vs altitude, or timing vs altitude will be calculated by Jeppesen and shown above the profile view. The timing table includes the descent angle, the FAF and the altitude at the FAF. Altitudes are calculated for 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100s from FAF and are based on speeds of 90, 120, 140, 160 and 180kt. Only altitudes above the decision altitude are provided.
Where CDFA minimums are shown, the profile will be modified to depict the continuous descent. The missed approach pull-up arrow is shown at the point where the decision height is reached. There is no level segment depicted prior to the MAP, and the MAP is shown as published by the procedure source.
In exceptional cases it may be necessary to include CDFA and non-CDFA minimums. Where this occurs, a level segment is shown prior to the missed approach point and the pull-up arrow is shown at the MAP.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PT6A:
Really are two separate issues:
1. Constant angle or constant descent profiles are certainly safer than dive-and-drive.
2. OCH is, or should be, sacred during the IMC phase of flight.
Both can be optimized for safety by applying a DA additive to MDA.
It has to be better than dive n drive right?
1. Constant angle or constant descent profiles are certainly safer than dive-and-drive.
2. OCH is, or should be, sacred during the IMC phase of flight.
Both can be optimized for safety by applying a DA additive to MDA.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cyprus
Age: 80
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to PT6A (and all the others) who have responded to this. The chart in question is EHAM 13-4, VOR DME Rwy 27, dated 6 MAR 09 (Effective 12 Mar), downloaded from Jeppview at the FSC Training Centre in Amsterdam.
This whole issue seems to be quite confused. I think it might be useful if CAA issued some guidance.
This whole issue seems to be quite confused. I think it might be useful if CAA issued some guidance.
Last edited by Greenfly07; 7th Feb 2011 at 10:59. Reason: Include reference to PT6A
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone have access to either an older Jepp plate or AERAD plate to compare minima (DA/MDA)?
AIP Netherland has MAPt (THR) 730 (740)
v JEPP DA(H) 730 (742)
AIP Netherland has MAPt (THR) 730 (740)
v JEPP DA(H) 730 (742)
Last edited by JAR; 7th Feb 2011 at 13:25.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cyprus
Age: 80
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PT6A thanks again for all your very useful input. However, I am still confused. If the new Jepp DAs for Non-Precision Approaches do NOT include any add on, then surely they should always be factored to prevent descent below this 'hard' altitude? As far as I can see, the new DA is the same as an old MDA. The difference is that the charts now display the approach as a continuous descent procedure with an arrow showing the latest point at which the Go Around should be initiated.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also confused
Greenfly07
The AIP source indicates that the "DA" (730' MSL) for the VOR DME 27 approach at EHAM is in fact an MDA.
The Jeppesen chart is tagged PANS-OPS 4, with "Standard" depicted in reverse type within the minima box.
Isn't it bit perplexing that an EU charting spec (i.e., -- not a revision to procedure criteria) seems to have become a de facto revision to PANS-OPS?
FAA's Advisory Circular 120-108 makes clear that a crew must never descend below the MDA during a go-around in IMC:
Absent a DDA additive, isn't there significant risk of losing the designed obstacle clearance?
From where does the authority to descend below an MDA originate?
However, I am still confused. If the new Jepp DAs for Non-Precision Approaches do NOT include any add on, then surely they should always be factored to prevent descent below this 'hard' altitude? As far as I can see, the new DA is the same as an old MDA. The difference is that the charts now display the approach as a continuous descent procedure with an arrow showing the latest point at which the Go Around should be initiated.
The Jeppesen chart is tagged PANS-OPS 4, with "Standard" depicted in reverse type within the minima box.
Isn't it bit perplexing that an EU charting spec (i.e., -- not a revision to procedure criteria) seems to have become a de facto revision to PANS-OPS?
FAA's Advisory Circular 120-108 makes clear that a crew must never descend below the MDA during a go-around in IMC:
f. Derived Decision Altitude (DDA). Pilots must not descend below the MDA when executing a missed approach from a CDFA.
From where does the authority to descend below an MDA originate?
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a better view of EHAM VOR DME 27 charts go t:
http://tinyurl.com/4f6d3he
PDF File of EHAM Jepp and state source:
Page 1: Comparative
Pages 2 and 3: Original VG Charts
http://tinyurl.com/4f6d3he
PDF File of EHAM Jepp and state source:
Page 1: Comparative
Pages 2 and 3: Original VG Charts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PT6A
OK, I did that (206 pages!) -- and found this on pages 55-56:
In view of the state AIP source per aterpster, how will a pilot or operator using the CDFA method avoid descent below the state-specified OCA of 730' unless an additive is applied?
Have I missed something within the the EU-OPS?
Have I referenced the wrong document?
It is all contained within EU-OPS if you pop it into google you can download it as a PDF.
(2) Minimum Descent Height. An operator must ensure that the minimum descent height for a non-precision approach is not lower than either:
(i) The OCH/OCL for the category of aeroplane; or
(ii) The system minimum.
Have I missed something within the the EU-OPS?
Have I referenced the wrong document?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zeffy, jepp plate 13-4 for VOR DME 27 shows a DA in compliance with the EU OPS as indicated by the suffix STANDARD so you treat it as a DA provided you fly a CFDA technique. It's all in the EU OPS and Jeppesen.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not too sure about that...this is an MDA, not a DA...a procedure design with a DA assumes a momentary descent before the min seg altitude...this chart clearly states this is the min seg altitude...
According to the design, if you penetrate this surface, and go missed, you risk the obstacle clearance that drove this design.
Notice to Operators Flying European Non-precision Approaches | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association
Notice to Operators Flying European Non-Precision Approaches
February 17, 2011
Jeppesen EU-OPS 1 Minimums for Non-Precision Approach Procedures
As indicated in Jeppesen Briefing Bulletin Jep 08-D and Jeppesen Chart Legend pages, EU-OPS and other state regulations may require that Non-Precision Approaches be flown using the Continuous Descent Final Approach (CDFA) technique. The CDFA method prohibits level flight at the published minimum altitude and instead requires an immediate missed approach upon reaching minimums unless visual references have been acquired.
In support of these CDFA procedures, Jeppesen is replacing previously charted MDA(H) minima with DA(H) minima on Non-Precision Approach Procedures in EU, EASA and JAA member states.
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.
(emphasis added)
For more information on this critical safety issue, contact NBAA's Bob Lamond at [email protected].
According to the design, if you penetrate this surface, and go missed, you risk the obstacle clearance that drove this design.
Notice to Operators Flying European Non-precision Approaches | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association
Notice to Operators Flying European Non-Precision Approaches
February 17, 2011
Jeppesen EU-OPS 1 Minimums for Non-Precision Approach Procedures
As indicated in Jeppesen Briefing Bulletin Jep 08-D and Jeppesen Chart Legend pages, EU-OPS and other state regulations may require that Non-Precision Approaches be flown using the Continuous Descent Final Approach (CDFA) technique. The CDFA method prohibits level flight at the published minimum altitude and instead requires an immediate missed approach upon reaching minimums unless visual references have been acquired.
In support of these CDFA procedures, Jeppesen is replacing previously charted MDA(H) minima with DA(H) minima on Non-Precision Approach Procedures in EU, EASA and JAA member states.
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.
(emphasis added)
For more information on this critical safety issue, contact NBAA's Bob Lamond at [email protected].
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to sure about that...this is an MDA, not a DA...a procedure design with a DA assumes a momentary descent before the min seg altitude...this chart clearly states this is the min seg altitude...
According to the design, if you penetrate this surface, and go missed, you risk the obstacle clearance that drove this design.
According to the design, if you penetrate this surface, and go missed, you risk the obstacle clearance that drove this design.
Links to additional briefings from Jeppesen and Navtech.
`
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is what that profile means with regards to the criteria...and what the chart means to the operator.
The Approach and Missed Approach are two completely separate designs. From the chart noted, Class A-D aircraft parameters apply, which means, basically the Class D performance was likely the worst case. (note that the criteria does not account for Engine Out)
On Approach, with the 3 degree GPA, a 200 foot ROC applies. Given the chart MDA, the obstacle is in the Missed Approach, or the MA parameters govern. (otherwise there would be an MDA 200 foot above threshold)
Now, the level section on the chart shown is an MDA. What isnt shown is the assumed parabolic curve that an aircraft takes when initiating a missed approach. This parabola is bounded by the level segment shown on the chart.
(note:if one initiates an MA, and the parabolic curve descends below the level segment altitude, one has failed)
Now, this parabola makes the following assumption, which is the same assumption that the crew must take into account when determining the real time DA, given this MDA.
The criteria assumes a 7 second timeframe, broken down as follows:
1. The pilot makes a decision to go missed, from the time the pilot makes that decision, it assumes 3 seconds to initiate the missed with the controls. (As a baseline, in roadway design, traffic lights are set to assume a 2 second decision time)
2. The aircraft takes 4 seconds to respond and begin the climb.
This is the foundation of the level section, a level surface that the aircraft must not penetrate.
For these procedures, the crew must take into account the current configuration, temps, loading, etc, and determine a real time climb gradient. This real time climb must fit within the bounds of the profile, and the crew must determine the real-time DA based on their situation.
This is certainly veiled in the chart, but is absolutely imperative for safe operations.
(In procedure engineering, I use the full 7 seconds, citing unknowns in crew experience, and calculate a DA based on several assumed climb gradients from 1.5% (criteria) to 12%, thus an engineered chart would show performance DA's that would not violate the MDA.)
The Approach and Missed Approach are two completely separate designs. From the chart noted, Class A-D aircraft parameters apply, which means, basically the Class D performance was likely the worst case. (note that the criteria does not account for Engine Out)
On Approach, with the 3 degree GPA, a 200 foot ROC applies. Given the chart MDA, the obstacle is in the Missed Approach, or the MA parameters govern. (otherwise there would be an MDA 200 foot above threshold)
Now, the level section on the chart shown is an MDA. What isnt shown is the assumed parabolic curve that an aircraft takes when initiating a missed approach. This parabola is bounded by the level segment shown on the chart.
(note:if one initiates an MA, and the parabolic curve descends below the level segment altitude, one has failed)
Now, this parabola makes the following assumption, which is the same assumption that the crew must take into account when determining the real time DA, given this MDA.
The criteria assumes a 7 second timeframe, broken down as follows:
1. The pilot makes a decision to go missed, from the time the pilot makes that decision, it assumes 3 seconds to initiate the missed with the controls. (As a baseline, in roadway design, traffic lights are set to assume a 2 second decision time)
2. The aircraft takes 4 seconds to respond and begin the climb.
This is the foundation of the level section, a level surface that the aircraft must not penetrate.
For these procedures, the crew must take into account the current configuration, temps, loading, etc, and determine a real time climb gradient. This real time climb must fit within the bounds of the profile, and the crew must determine the real-time DA based on their situation.
This is certainly veiled in the chart, but is absolutely imperative for safe operations.
(In procedure engineering, I use the full 7 seconds, citing unknowns in crew experience, and calculate a DA based on several assumed climb gradients from 1.5% (criteria) to 12%, thus an engineered chart would show performance DA's that would not violate the MDA.)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I'd like to wake up this thread again since it contains useful information. I am in the process of trying to update myself with the latest EU-OPS, Appendix 1 (New) to Subpart E.
First I noticed this one; Zeffy
I think in fact you are referring to the wrong document. First, by the page no. reference it may be EU-OPS Amdt. 1, there is an Amdt. 2 out and you should be looking around page 71 for definitions. Second, the quote is direct from EU-OPS Subpart E OPS 1.430 Appendix 1 (Old). This whole discussion is about the introduction of Appendix 1 (New).
By reading here it seems that some companies, flying CDFA NPA's, simply treat the old MDA now as a DA. PANS-OPS hasn't changed, so I believe this will in fact reduce the obstacle clearance if go-around is initiated at DA. Since all AOMs have to be approved by the Authority according to EU-OPS 1.430 (a)1 this must surely been something these companies' authorities have considered?
I am currently flying light twin in the US where DA is DA and MDA is MDA… dive-and-drive is the norm. So I don't really have practical experience from CDFAs, so please educate me! If you have a pure NDB approach (no DME), how do you conduct a CDFA? From FAF, just set the ROD published for your speed and go-around at MAPt or DA, whichever comes first? If you have FPV, do you set pitch for the published glide path angle and fly until MAPt or DA, whichever comes first? Or do you simply not fly NPA's unless they have advisory DME vs. Altitude tables published?
First I noticed this one; Zeffy
OK, I did that (206 pages!) -- and found this on pages 55-56:
(2) Minimum Descent Height. An operator must ensure that the minimum descent height for a non-precision approach is not lower than either:
(i) The OCH/OCL for the category of aeroplane; or
(ii) The system minimum.
In view of the state AIP source per aterpster, how will a pilot or operator using the CDFA method avoid descent below the state-specified OCA of 730' unless an additive is applied?
Have I missed something within the the EU-OPS?
Have I referenced the wrong document?
(2) Minimum Descent Height. An operator must ensure that the minimum descent height for a non-precision approach is not lower than either:
(i) The OCH/OCL for the category of aeroplane; or
(ii) The system minimum.
In view of the state AIP source per aterpster, how will a pilot or operator using the CDFA method avoid descent below the state-specified OCA of 730' unless an additive is applied?
Have I missed something within the the EU-OPS?
Have I referenced the wrong document?
By reading here it seems that some companies, flying CDFA NPA's, simply treat the old MDA now as a DA. PANS-OPS hasn't changed, so I believe this will in fact reduce the obstacle clearance if go-around is initiated at DA. Since all AOMs have to be approved by the Authority according to EU-OPS 1.430 (a)1 this must surely been something these companies' authorities have considered?
I am currently flying light twin in the US where DA is DA and MDA is MDA… dive-and-drive is the norm. So I don't really have practical experience from CDFAs, so please educate me! If you have a pure NDB approach (no DME), how do you conduct a CDFA? From FAF, just set the ROD published for your speed and go-around at MAPt or DA, whichever comes first? If you have FPV, do you set pitch for the published glide path angle and fly until MAPt or DA, whichever comes first? Or do you simply not fly NPA's unless they have advisory DME vs. Altitude tables published?
In our operation (not EU OPS or FAA), our company specific Jepp charts show an MDA. I recently did a sim in the UK where I provided our company's charts for the check. The TIRE had his company charts with him which showed a DA which was higher than our MDA, despite the charts having the same date. In our operation, we add the aircraft allowance which differs depending on the type. There's no point in restricting aircraft with an uneccessarily high minima.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right here: Förordningen - Transportstyrelsen
Press: Engelskspråkig version av EU-OPS bilaga 3 ändring 2, i kraft 2008-09-20
"ändring 2" means that it is Amendment 2. It's effective from 2008-09-20 so it's been around for a while. I have come across an older version of EU-OPS once when I googled, since then I just use the link above.
Press: Engelskspråkig version av EU-OPS bilaga 3 ändring 2, i kraft 2008-09-20
"ändring 2" means that it is Amendment 2. It's effective from 2008-09-20 so it's been around for a while. I have come across an older version of EU-OPS once when I googled, since then I just use the link above.