Jeppesen Approach Charts Non Precision DA

[Greenfly07]

Jeppesen Non-Precision Approach charts display a 'DA'. Jepp's own glossary defines a 'DA' as relevant to a Precision Approach, and an 'MDA' applying to a Non-Prec Approach. Most companies add an increment to an MDA, but of course this is not necessary if the figure shown on the chart is a DA. The sharp crew I was checking last night claimed that Jepp has changed the way it calculates minima on their Non-Prec charts and that the DA on their Non-Prec charts is just that, and no increment now needs to be added. I am ancient Check Captain - have I missed something while searching for my teeth? Thanks to anyone who can clarify (the DA/MDA issue; I have found the teeth)

[PT6A]

Hi,

Yes Jeppesen are in the process of changing their charts.

I have two questions for you so I can investigate further.

Was this a company specific plate?

What airport and approach are we talking about?

PT6A

[Zeffy]

Yes Jeppesen are in the process of changing their charts.

Please provide the pertinent Briefing Bulletin or other authoritative reference.

FAA recently issued AC 120-108.

Unless a U.S. air carrier holds OpSpec C073, the DDA additive remains necessary.

from the AC:

f.
Derived Decision Altitude (DDA). Pilots must not descend below the MDA when executing a missed approach from a CDFA. Operators should instruct their pilots to initiate the go-around at an altitude above the MDA (sometimes referred to as a DDA) to ensure the aircraft does not descend below the published MDA. Operators conducting approaches authorized by operations specification (OpSpec) C073, IFR Approach Procedures Using Vertical Navigation (VNAV), may use MDA as a DA.

[PT6A]

Zeffy, standby and I will find it.

Your post is not relavant as the change is because of EU-OPS nothing to do with the FAA.

PT6A

[PT6A]

AERODROME OPERATING MINIMUMS ACCORDING TO EU-OPS 1

25 AUG 2006

–
–
–
–
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
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).
EUR-Lex - Official Journal
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 operator’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
procedures (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
In May 2008 we asked commercial operators about their plans for this EU-OPS implementation. The following items are directly related to the results of that
survey:
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 depicted
on Jeppesen charts.
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 JAR-OPS 1 minimums pages on customer request only.
Please contact your Jeppesen customer service representative for any special requirements, such as airline tailored minimums, airborne equipment
considerations or your conversion priorities.
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
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.
All non-precision approaches will be reviewed to show CDFA (Continuous Descent Final Approach) profile and minimums.
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 source
but the missed approach initiation arrow is moved to the point where the DA(H) is reached.
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.
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.
Non-CDFA profiles and minimums will be shown in exceptional cases only and may be combined with CDFA profiles and minimums.
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 requirements for using the lower RVR values.
Lower than standard CAT I minimums are charted on request on customer tailored charts.
Other than standard CAT II minimums will be charted if the procedure is approved for such operations by the state of the airport.
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 the highest straight-in minimums.
© JEPPESEN, 2006. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
of the EU-OPS 1.
Future Outlook
The FAA will also publish new minimums which will be harmonized with the EU ones.

Jeppesen’s intention is to replace the current ECOMS and JAR-OPS Aerodrome Operating Minimums with the future harmonized version on a world-wide basis.

[Zeffy]

Thanks, PT6A.

So how do you interpret paragraph c with respect to the OP's quesion?

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.

[emphasis mine]

[Denti]

Exactly what it says, check your OM and if you need to still add something on top of the DA do that, otherwise don't. We do not add anything to a DA for any kind of approach, however we still have to initiate a G/A for an approach that still has a MDA instead of a DA 50ft above MDA to respect that limit.

Pretty easy that way, DA = treat it like a precision approach DA, MDA = treat it as we always did.

[PT6A]

It would depend, my company does not use Jeppesen and we don't have to add anything on as it is already on the plate.

What rules is the OP flying under? are they using JAA Minimums or already made the change to EU-OPS.

Are the charts he is using standard Jeppesen ones or are they specific to his airline?

Without knowing the two things above it is hard to answer as the minimums on the chart might already include the DDA add on, or they may not..... His OPS Manual part A and B should be the source of the answer.

PT6A

[Zeffy]

Thank you, Denti/PT6A --

If you would indulge some additional pestering...

How can guidance in a OM override fundamental concepts embodied in PANS-OPS or TERPS?

That is, an MDA is a hard deck, with no allowance for descent below. Wouldn't the absence of an additive reduce the Required Obstacle Clearance?

[Denti]

If the approach has a MDA, yes. However now approaches do not have a MDA anymore, but rather a DA and obstacle clearance is assured for that.

[PT6A]

Because, European operators are changing the minmums they work to. This is part of EU-OPS, this is why Jeppesen are changing their charts.

They will no longer (at least the ones I use) say PANS OPS 4 down the side etc.

The OM should be checked because it is up to the company to dictate what minimums the crew will use, this is then approved by the operator.

PT6A

[Zeffy]

Thanks.

Have EU states modified their procedure-construction criteria and thus no longer publish MDA's?

It's hard for me to imagine that all states on the planet have modified their criteria and/or that all procedures to permit substitutions of DA for MDA in a world wide context.

In the process of converting state AIP data into an approach chart for flight crews, where exactly is the JAA "assurance" inserted?

[PT6A]

Actually for years Jeppesen have been adjusting things... this is just one more adjustment.

I think they call is EOMS? This is going to be updated soon.

But Jeppesen and other charting providers do have a system for adjusting the minimuns... and is one reason why if you look at two different providers EG, Jeppesen v Lido the same chart might not always have the same minimum this is very true in terms of visability in locations where the state does not publish it.

PT6A

[Zeffy]

OK -- it's become obvious that I need to peruse the Briefing Bulletin more carefully.

[PT6A]

It is all contained within EU-OPS if you pop it into google you can download it as a PDF.

Not that this will be affecting you stateside yet.....


PT6A

[aterpster]

Denti:

If the approach has a MDA, yes. However now approaches do not have a MDA anymore, but rather a DA and obstacle clearance is assured for that.

That's news to me.

[PT6A]

I guess it is news to you because you are not flying under EU-OPS.

However acording to the document above, the FAA are going to change their procedures to be inline with EU-OPS.

MDA, is not to be found anywhere in the new EU-OPS (see below)

Category I, APV and non-precision approach operations
1. A Category I approach operation is a precision instrument approach and landing using ILS, MLS, GLS
(GNSS/GBAS) or PAR with a decision height not lower than 200 ft and with an RVR not less than 550 m, unless
accepted by the Authority.
2. A non-precision approach (NPA) operation is an instrument approach using 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 less than 750 m, unless
accepted by the Authority.

20.9.2008

EN Official Journal of the European Union L 254/71

3. An APV operation is an instrument approach which utilises lateral and vertical guidance, but does not meet the
requirements established for precision approach and landing operations, with a DH not lower than 250 ft and a
runway visual range of not less than 600m unless approved by the Authority.
4. Decision height (DH). An operator must ensure that the decision height to be used for an approach is not lower
than:
(i) the minimum height to which the approach aid can be used without the required visual reference; or
(ii) the OCH for the category of aeroplane; or
(iii) the published approach procedure decision height where applicable; or
(iv) 200 ft for Category I approach operations; or
(v) the system minimum in Table 3; or
(vi) the lowest decision height specified in the Aeroplane Flight Manual (AFM) or equivalent document, if stated;
whichever is higher.
5. Minimum descent height (MDH). An operator must ensure that the minimum descent height for an approach is
not lower than:
(i) the OCH for the category of aeroplane; or
(ii) the system minimum in Table 3; or
(iii) the minimum descent height specified in the Aeroplane Flight Manual (AFM) if stated;
whichever is higher.
6. Visual reference. A pilot may not continue an approach below MDA/MDH unless at least one of the following
visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:
(i) elements of the approach light system;
(ii) the threshold;
(iii) the threshold markings;
(iv) the threshold lights;
(v) the threshold identification lights;
(vi) the visual glide slope indicator;
(vii) the touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings;
(viii) the touchdown zone lights;
(ix) runway edge lights; or

(x) other visual references accepted by the Authority.


PT6A

[aterpster]

PT6A:

We have APVs here in the U.S., which use ILS criteria. They are SBAS IAPs called LPV. They are, in fact, precision IAPs. The FAA just can't (yet) bring themselves to state the obvious.

Not so with the sundry other IAPs with advisory vertical guidance in the U.S.

There is precision obstacle clearance and there is non-precision obstacle clearance. The two are quite different.

Some operators have been able to treat MDA as DA on "qualified" non-precision IAPs in the U.S. for several years. Nonetheless, unlike LPV or Baro VNAV, it lacks an equivalent level of safety in my not so humble opinion.

[PT6A]

ate,

It has to be better than dive n drive right?

For a number of years now at my airline we have been use the DA method on all NPA's

The QA data from our aircraft backs up the fact it works much better for us

It is now law for European operators to now to fly them this way.

PT6A

[Sir George Cayley]

Bit confused here.

Instr App Procs are designed to standards set out in ICAO Doc 8168 PANS-OPS.

Can anyone give me the amendment number that incorporated the change to how MDH(A) for NPA and DA for APV (LPV) are calculated?

Are Jepps acting as a designer or a chart provider?

Sir George Cayley