DA/MDA setting debate
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: china
DA/MDA setting debate
Hi everyone, a recent debate in my company has centered around the proper setting for DA. Some argue that it should match the exact value shown on the Jeppesen approach chart, such as '214 ft,' while others believe it should be rounded up to the nearest increment, like '220 ft.' Which approach should be considered the standard? I've reviewed materials from the FAA, ICAO, and Jeppesen but couldn't find any guidance addressing this specific question. Perhaps it's not an issue that requires much attention, but I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Joined: Jun 2009
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 405
Likes: 32
From: Asia
The DA is published. We set the value on the chart in the FMS. If I could only set whole tens, instead of 214 I would set 220, not 210.
I thought this was going to rehash DA versus MDA on 2D approaches. I'm disappointed.... ; )
I thought this was going to rehash DA versus MDA on 2D approaches. I'm disappointed.... ; )
Joined: Dec 2023
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 207
Likes: 157
From: UK
DA is published.
MDA is published + a company specified increment.
Circling is published.
Next time someone challenges you on this, gently tell them this true scenario which happened a few years back at my airline:
Published DA is 214ft. They select 220ft because they want to round it up. Minimums call, go around, can't see the required runway elements. They set up again and this time select 214ft for minimums. Another approach, minimums call, runway lights in sight, continue/land.
True story (but with different minima values - I think they set 330 instead of 321 in the real scenario).
MDA is published + a company specified increment.
Circling is published.
Next time someone challenges you on this, gently tell them this true scenario which happened a few years back at my airline:
Published DA is 214ft. They select 220ft because they want to round it up. Minimums call, go around, can't see the required runway elements. They set up again and this time select 214ft for minimums. Another approach, minimums call, runway lights in sight, continue/land.
True story (but with different minima values - I think they set 330 instead of 321 in the real scenario).
Only half a speed-brake
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,459
Likes: 136
From: Commuting not home
Hi everyone, a recent debate in my company has centered around the proper setting for DA. Some argue that it should match the exact value shown on the Jeppesen approach chart, such as '214 ft,' while others believe it should be rounded up to the nearest increment, like '220 ft.' Which approach should be considered the standard? I've reviewed materials from the FAA, ICAO, and Jeppesen but couldn't find any guidance addressing this specific question. Perhaps it's not an issue that requires much attention, but I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Because setting a precise number such as 213 is somewhat meaningless, some other providers (different from Jeppesen) round up to the next whole 10'. Lufthansa Systems NAV definitely, for their LIDO charting product. Many huge airlines have flown with those charts long decades using this solution and never had a problem worth rediscovering the wheel.
Second, compare a NAIP chart with DA in feet to a Jeppesen Chart for one of the domestic airports. You will see the CAAC also rounds the number to whole 10' - but somewhat surprisingly - NAIP round numerically, down or up! E.g. the DA of 213 is printed in NAIP as 210 while Jeppesen references 213 (and where LIDO charts would have 220).
So, clear as mud! Happy Spring Festival and stay safe in the busy weeks.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 696
Likes: 10
From: Shropshire
Hi hawjl
I'm not quite sure why the rounding of the published minima changed, from memory Aerad (as was) published the minima rounded up to the next 10ft until about 2011 and I think Jeppesen might have changed around the same time.
PANS-OPS ICAO Doc 8168 states: "Publication of OCA/H. An OCA and/or an OCH shall be published for each instrument approach and circling procedure. For non-precision approach procedures, either value shall be expressed in 5-m or 10-ft increments by rounding up as appropriate." I am not aware of (and can't find) any similar wording for precision approaches but I do wonder whether that wording from PANS-OPS, or a previous version of it, combined with traditional instrument displays, gave the initial impetus to the rounding up.
Personally, I can't recognise much less than 10 ft on analogue or EFIS displays so I have stuck to rounding up to the next 10.
Cheers
TeeS
I'm not quite sure why the rounding of the published minima changed, from memory Aerad (as was) published the minima rounded up to the next 10ft until about 2011 and I think Jeppesen might have changed around the same time.
PANS-OPS ICAO Doc 8168 states: "Publication of OCA/H. An OCA and/or an OCH shall be published for each instrument approach and circling procedure. For non-precision approach procedures, either value shall be expressed in 5-m or 10-ft increments by rounding up as appropriate." I am not aware of (and can't find) any similar wording for precision approaches but I do wonder whether that wording from PANS-OPS, or a previous version of it, combined with traditional instrument displays, gave the initial impetus to the rounding up.
Personally, I can't recognise much less than 10 ft on analogue or EFIS displays so I have stuck to rounding up to the next 10.
Cheers
TeeS
Joined: Apr 2003
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,652
Likes: 492
From: Europe
I can see some benefit in rounding up if you fly an analog aircraft. But in a modern cockpit, with digital entry of minima and auto callouts, what's the point? Why not go with the official number? What was on LIDO's mind when they decided to round up our minima?
Only half a speed-brake
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,459
Likes: 136
From: Commuting not home
The analogue aircraft (737CL) in the fleet when it was a in-house product? Fed-Ex customer feedback (or was it UPS?) very analogue?
And you don't get fingerslips / brainfarts 219 > 291 that go unnoticed when fatigued. Or less chance of.
But then my point was CAAC rounds down.
And you don't get fingerslips / brainfarts 219 > 291 that go unnoticed when fatigued. Or less chance of.
But then my point was CAAC rounds down.
Joined: Jan 2005
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 303
Likes: 6
From: NA
It’s also worth noting that while the OCH should be rounded up to the nearest 10’, those pesky surveyors have gotten more accurate!
When we add 350’ (for example) to our 13’ field elevation we get a minima of 363’. Should we just revert to using QFE to regain the lost 7’ after the second rounding? And of greater magnitude, what about the altimeter setting? We could be missing almost 30’ for a millibar/hectopascal that’s about to change! If we switch to inches Hg, it would be a maximum of 10’.
Maybe some are missing the big picture? The procedures devised cannot hope to be absolutely precise, just follow your Ops Manual procedure. And if you’re writing your ownask the lawyers…
Good luck.
When we add 350’ (for example) to our 13’ field elevation we get a minima of 363’. Should we just revert to using QFE to regain the lost 7’ after the second rounding? And of greater magnitude, what about the altimeter setting? We could be missing almost 30’ for a millibar/hectopascal that’s about to change! If we switch to inches Hg, it would be a maximum of 10’.
Maybe some are missing the big picture? The procedures devised cannot hope to be absolutely precise, just follow your Ops Manual procedure. And if you’re writing your own
Good luck.
