Jeppesen Approach Charts Non Precision DA
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry about the advanced copy...but this is a good explanation from ICAO PansOps..
I would especially note the difference for the determination of the OCH/OCA between precision and non-precision, then the different additives to the OCH to get the DA or MDA....
A precision approach has a defined obstacle surface for the missed, the NPA does not...
I would especially note the difference for the determination of the OCH/OCA between precision and non-precision, then the different additives to the OCH to get the DA or MDA....
A precision approach has a defined obstacle surface for the missed, the NPA does not...
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 17th Aug 2011 at 23:10.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was posted by JimL over in the rotorheads forum, but is applicable here...
Safety Reminder Message from Eurocontrol (dtd. 03/02/2010):
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]
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]
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlightPathOBN,
Thanks for sharing. I happened to read that in the other forum yesterday, quite a few discussions going on about DA(H)/MDA(H) nowadays it seems.
As far as I can tell from this thread, some operators indeed use the same height that used to be a MDH and now treat as a DH. As I interpret EU-OPS this may be an acceptable practice under EU-OPS 1.430 (a)1. If the Authority determines it's a safe practice, it can be approved as such.
Aerodrome operating minima — General
Thanks for sharing. I happened to read that in the other forum yesterday, quite a few discussions going on about DA(H)/MDA(H) nowadays it seems.
YOUR ATTENTION IS REQUIRED
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.
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.
OPS 1.430
Aerodrome operating minima — General
a(1) An operator shall establish, for each aerodrome planned to be used, aerodrome operating minima that are not lower than the values given in Appendix 1(Old) or Appendix 1 (New) as applicable. The method of determination of such minima must be acceptable to the Authority. Such minima shall not be lower than any that may be established for such aerodromes by the State in which the aerodrome is located, except when specifically approved by that State.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concur,
However, I feel that far too many operators are cavalier about this.
The OCH is different for PA and NPA, even for an NPA with a FAF or without...the additives that determine the MDA for the NPA or the DA for a PA could be radically different.
Another significant issue is noted on the explanation, that for precision approach, obstacles are considered for the approach AND missed approach,
while for the non-precision approach, obstacles are only evaluated on the final approach, missed approach is not considered in the obstacle evaluation.
Another issue is the additives to the OCH. NPA has set MOC per CAT for the MDA, while the precision approach lower limit, or DA, is variable depending on many factors.
Using the MDA as a DA, is fraught with issues...if nothing else, the way that the obstacles are used in the MDA or DA determinations...
So has everyone submitted a custom minima for approval, or use what is on the chart?
However, I feel that far too many operators are cavalier about this.
The OCH is different for PA and NPA, even for an NPA with a FAF or without...the additives that determine the MDA for the NPA or the DA for a PA could be radically different.
Another significant issue is noted on the explanation, that for precision approach, obstacles are considered for the approach AND missed approach,
while for the non-precision approach, obstacles are only evaluated on the final approach, missed approach is not considered in the obstacle evaluation.
Another issue is the additives to the OCH. NPA has set MOC per CAT for the MDA, while the precision approach lower limit, or DA, is variable depending on many factors.
Using the MDA as a DA, is fraught with issues...if nothing else, the way that the obstacles are used in the MDA or DA determinations...
OPS 1.430
Aerodrome operating minima — General
a(1) An operator shall establish, for each aerodrome planned to be used, aerodrome operating minima that are not lower than the values given in Appendix 1(Old) or Appendix 1 (New) as applicable. The method of determination of such minima must be acceptable to the Authority. Such minima shall not be lower than any that may be established for such aerodromes by the State in which the aerodrome is located, except when specifically approved by that State.
Aerodrome operating minima — General
a(1) An operator shall establish, for each aerodrome planned to be used, aerodrome operating minima that are not lower than the values given in Appendix 1(Old) or Appendix 1 (New) as applicable. The method of determination of such minima must be acceptable to the Authority. Such minima shall not be lower than any that may be established for such aerodromes by the State in which the aerodrome is located, except when specifically approved by that State.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlightPathOBN:
Help me out on that one, please.
Another significant issue is noted on the explanation, that for precision approach, obstacles are considered for the approach AND missed approach, while for the non-precision approach, obstacles are only evaluated on the final approach, missed approach is not considered in the obstacle evaluation.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only precision approach procedures include a missed approach.
NPA, ie VOR, NDB, etc.. procedures have never included a missed approach...
the diagram from 8168 notes that the OCA is based on obstacles in the final approach...
NPA, ie VOR, NDB, etc.. procedures have never included a missed approach...
the diagram from 8168 notes that the OCA is based on obstacles in the final approach...
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weird, every NPA i have flown so far has a missed approach procedure. And the minima used for the approach are often different for different achievable missed approach climb gradients to clear the obstacles. Granted, nearly all of those were in europe where things sometimes are different.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FltPathOBN:
I can't read that diagram. But, I do know that every precision and non-precision IAP developed under PANS-OPS or TERPS is required to have a published missed approach procedure.
Usually, the minimums on a NPA, whether LOC, NDB, VOR, or RNAV, are predicated on a controlling obstacle in the final approach segment. But, if the missed approach segment is not 40:1-clear then either a climb gradient must be establish to clear the missed approach controlling obstacle, or the MDA must be adjusted upwards to provide a 40:1-clear missed approach surface.
Can you provide an example that is done otherwise?
Only precision approach procedures include a missed approach.
NPA, ie VOR, NDB, etc.. procedures have never included a missed approach...
the diagram from 8168 notes that the OCA is based on obstacles in the final approach...
NPA, ie VOR, NDB, etc.. procedures have never included a missed approach...
the diagram from 8168 notes that the OCA is based on obstacles in the final approach...
Usually, the minimums on a NPA, whether LOC, NDB, VOR, or RNAV, are predicated on a controlling obstacle in the final approach segment. But, if the missed approach segment is not 40:1-clear then either a climb gradient must be establish to clear the missed approach controlling obstacle, or the MDA must be adjusted upwards to provide a 40:1-clear missed approach surface.
Can you provide an example that is done otherwise?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Terpster, Denti,
well, now that I have re-read my own post, I can see where I didnt explain this correctly.
your explanation is what I was trying to say, the missed approach surface rather than a missed approach procedure...
With Part 77, the approach obstacle evaluation goes to the FAF or 50 thousand feet from runway end, but the missed eval surface ends 10 to 14 thousand feet from the end of the runway.
I was thinking of designs that were, for lack of a better term, 'diverse missed', one in particular, where the missed turn is initiated before the end of the runway...
and yes Denti, there are quite a few, and becoming more popular, where the minima is based on your real-time climb gradient.
the main point of the diagram, was that for the NPA, the OCH is based on the controlling obstacle plus a MOC, that is fixed for all aircraft at 295 feet without a FAF, and 246 feet with a FAF,
while the PA, the OCH as based on the controlling obstacle, plus a margin that is dependant on aircraft approach speed, height loss, and altimetry...
long story short, the OCH can be different for PA vs NPA.
well, now that I have re-read my own post, I can see where I didnt explain this correctly.
your explanation is what I was trying to say, the missed approach surface rather than a missed approach procedure...
Usually, the minimums on a NPA, whether LOC, NDB, VOR, or RNAV, are predicated on a controlling obstacle in the final approach segment. But, if the missed approach segment is not 40:1-clear then either a climb gradient must be establish to clear the missed approach controlling obstacle, or the MDA must be adjusted upwards to provide a 40:1-clear missed approach surface.
I was thinking of designs that were, for lack of a better term, 'diverse missed', one in particular, where the missed turn is initiated before the end of the runway...
and yes Denti, there are quite a few, and becoming more popular, where the minima is based on your real-time climb gradient.
the main point of the diagram, was that for the NPA, the OCH is based on the controlling obstacle plus a MOC, that is fixed for all aircraft at 295 feet without a FAF, and 246 feet with a FAF,
while the PA, the OCH as based on the controlling obstacle, plus a margin that is dependant on aircraft approach speed, height loss, and altimetry...
long story short, the OCH can be different for PA vs NPA.
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 19th Aug 2011 at 19:43. Reason: part 77 clarification
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlightPathOBM:
For the benefit of lurkers, Part 77 applies only in airspace under FAA jurisdiction. It consists of imaginary surfaces around an airport that a proponent wanting to construct a building or antenna must first consider. If the proposed construction penetrates one of those imaginary surfaces then the proponent must submit the proposed construction to the FAA regional office for an "Aeronautical Study," which will result in either a "No Hazard" or "Hazard" determination in due course.
If a proposed object will exceed 200 feet in height, it must be submitted under Part 77 no matter how far it may be from an airport.
With Part 77, the approach obstacle evaluation goes to the FAF or 50 thousand feet from runway end, but the missed eval surface ends 10 to 14 thousand feet from the end of the runway.
If a proposed object will exceed 200 feet in height, it must be submitted under Part 77 no matter how far it may be from an airport.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes, PansOps Annex 14 conical surfaces are similar, starting at the runway end at 50:1 and 40:1 to a height above runway of 150meters elevation (6600m length) then level to 15,000m from runway end...same evaluation cone for approach and take-off...
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FP OBN:
I take it then that Annex 14 is not terminal instrument criteria, rather simply imaginary surfaces to determine whether a proponent of construction must notify the state aviation authority. Then, is there a uniform process for member states to conduct an aeronautical study with a determination then issued?
Ah yes, PansOps Annex 14 conical surfaces are similar, starting at the runway end at 50:1 and 40:1 to a height above runway of 150meters elevation (6600m length) then level to 15,000m from runway end...same evaluation cone for approach and take-off...
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FPOPN:
Okay, that looks like imaginary surfaces for assessment of proposed obstacles to determine whether they may have an adverse effect on air operations. Do proponents of proposed construction have to submit to an aeronuatical study such as Part 77 requires in the U.S?
Okay, that looks like imaginary surfaces for assessment of proposed obstacles to determine whether they may have an adverse effect on air operations. Do proponents of proposed construction have to submit to an aeronuatical study such as Part 77 requires in the U.S?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: london
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But back to the core question, do we add anything onto th DA(H) or OCA (H) ?
And also, quoting parts of an earlier post :
....." 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)......"
Is an LNAV/VNAV approach ( Managed Approach in Airbus lingo ) considered a Precision Approach ? News to me...
And also, quoting parts of an earlier post :
....." 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)......"
Is an LNAV/VNAV approach ( Managed Approach in Airbus lingo ) considered a Precision Approach ? News to me...
Is an LNAV/VNAV approach ( Managed Approach in Airbus lingo ) considered a Precision Approach ? News to me...
Originally Posted by AIM 5-4-5
(b) Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV). An instrument approach based on a navigation system that is not required to meet the precision approach standards of ICAO Annex 10 but provides course and glidepath deviation information. For example, Baro-VNAV, LDA with glidepath, LNAV/VNAV and LPV are APV approaches.
APV minimums are currently published with a DA rather than a MDA. I have a hazy recollection of seeing at least one RNAV/GPS approach with higher minima on the LNAV/VNAV line than on the LNAV line. I'm not sure, but that may be explained by allowing some room for the descent to climb transition?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a hazy recollection of seeing at least one RNAV/GPS approach with higher minima on the LNAV/VNAV line than on the LNAV line. I'm not sure, but that may be explained by allowing some room for the descent to climb transition?