That applies generically to every instrument approach: don’t fly below hard altitudes at fixes. If it is coded correctly in the database, then the automation (monitored) should respect these altitudes; if you’re using basic modes you make sure you cross these fixes at or above. Why should this particular NPA be “special” and what’s the proposed difference in technique between flying this and a VOR/DME anywhere else?

Flying the approach conventionally without the FMS, at DME fixes you sometimes land up high or low and then correct the descent for the next DME. In this procedure the DME fixes are hard safety altitudes you cannot go below. So you will have treat them as minimums and that cannot be progressively done all the way to the lowest minimum of 2.8DME. so if the fixes are not coded in the FMS then the highest minimum will apply whether you use the FMS or fly with manual vertical guidance.

Only if that is what your SOP says. Surely you are not suggesting you step down fix in the altitude selector and treat each as an MDA until you are past it?

In any case, that is what the dist/altitude table is for. Follow that, either using FMS VNAV if approved, or manually, and you will miss all the steps.

Which brings us back to the original question. Why are there 3 MDAs and when would you use each one?

Boeing FCOM SP - Instrument Approach Using V/S

Approximately 2 NM before the final approach fix, set the first intermediate altitude constraint or MDA(H).
Set the MCP altitude to the nearest 100 foot increment at or below each intermediate altitude constraint.
When the current constraint is assured, set the next constraint before ALT is engaged to achieve a continuous descent path.

My CAA’s standards doc. for the IR Skills Test states: ‘Not below’ minima (from FAF altitude down to MDA/H) vertical tolerance -0’, so this is well established and part of normal operations. If you think you might go below a hard altitude approaching a fix, you reduce the rate-of-descent so you don’t.

The procedure under discussion is not available without DME, so the fixes will always be there to check. If you don’t have an FMS but do have a VOR receiver with DME, you should be able to use the lowest minima for your aircraft category? An FMS 3D approach has different tolerances.

So in the space of ~1nm and less than 500ft to the MDA, you have to reset the altitude selector from 130ft above the MDA to the MDA (650, if you can set it). It appears to me that the Americans still don't have the distance/altitude profile table on their FAA approach charts so one is forced into this altitude selector catch-basket fiddle at every limiting step on the way down final. Getting off topic though...

The final segment from FAF is supposed to have 246ft obstacle clearance but here 1330ft at 7.5 DME there's nothing. It's hard altitude. So in a conventional descent how will you ensure exact 1330ft. or above?Therefore this becomes the minimum for non FMS coded approach. Because even 10ft below will compromise obstacle clearance. Only the two subsequent minimas are coded only then the lower minimas can be used. That's how it's used by local carriers.

Interesting. I think that it is actually the opposite way round: using raw data and VS/FPA, you can ensure that you are at or above any hard heights by adjusting the vertical profile; if you’re using VNAV (3D) then up to 75’ deviation is allowable and there is no way of controlling that short of using another mode and/or taking the autopilot out, which is contrary to many carriers' SOPs for this type of approach.

All this could be made moot by coding a straight-in RNP procedure like they’ve done with all the other runways. It would even avoid flying directly over the obstacle!

No, you are not. The safety case can be explained with simple geometry, that's why it is approved.

However on PPRuNe not allowed to discuss lest the wrath of the Oztronauts is unleashed, mate.

Especially those who think altitude table distance table should be mirrored on alt selector.

Please can you explain the geometry Flight Detent, I'm genuinely trying to get my head around that one.
Thanks
TeeS

That's not me. I say set the real MDA (650) and fly down the profile. Been doing it for years.

Vilas, if you're worried about clipping a step, fly the profile + 100ft. Better than resetting the altitude selector three times inside the FAF.

Blogs in Airbus we set the go around altitude not the minimum anyway. And the NPA is flown with FPV to whatever FPA and not with ROD. Well for safety it can be flown with higher FPA than required to the lower minimum. But this approach has complications that need to be understood and taken care off. May be airlines just restrict it to higher minimum if not coded in FMS.

I'd say use one minima, either 2.8 or 3.8 if vis is more then 3k, if vis is below 3k you need D2.8... Only thing i can think of why use the 3.8 is some better than standard missed approach climb gradients needed below 780', but that is usually depicted on the chart when that's the case...

The way I would fly this:

- set the lowest MDA if using FMS vertical guidance, with SDF1 and SDF2 correctly coded. - monitor
- set the lowest MDA if using raw data, ensuring to be at or above the SDFs while
monitoring and correcting the profile all the way down.

In case of a Missed approach - Do not descend below the MDA that is relevant for the segment at the commencement of missed approach. (Eg if the missed approach is commenced between D7.5 and D3.8 - the 1330’ MDA would be applicable)

1. Yes...
2. Once you have commenced the final approach, I guess you could. That was the whole point of my previous post, because obstacle clearance is guaranteed.
3. When flying a CDFA you go around once reaching you minima and no contact. The missed approach an be flown without DME.

KA.

KingAir1978

Note 1: DME Required. In plain English, if the DME fails (and you have not yet achieved the required visual reference) you cannot continue the approach. It is NOT optional.

I do hope you are not a professional pilot.

The first step down fix is there because there is a substantial hill just to the left of track rising to the height, the second because there is two high rise buildings under the final course. These step down fixes are coded in the FMS as at or above constraints.

The two step down fixes in this case are required because of the obstacles on final, the only other reason for step down fixes is when the final segment is very long an extra vertical splay needs to be applied, using a step down fix in those cases resets the final segment distance.

swh,

The issue was about MDAs for this approach and why they have three ones available. Of course need to assume the appch is flown per chart vor cdfa and with dme and also comply with the at or aboves for any fixes there as well... My point was about the 650' (w D2.8) or 780' (w D3.8) minimas earlier.

You require DME and ht/dist check also. Air Canada SOP didn't have it they crashed short of RW dispite being on CDFA profile only a parallel little short of the actual.

For those not familiar and the sake of completeness, also because this actually is MDA (OCA) discussion:

That a/c https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r.../a15h0002.html busted minima by 380 feet without visual reference. If they followed the charted profile (some pilots do with their IR not SOP) they may had just crashed onto the runway instead of ploughing through the ravine. Like these clowns https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20150304-0

That is just the way Jepp publishes step down fixes inside the FAF, the charts in the Indian AIP has them as step down fixes. These step down fixes have nothing to do with reported visibility, or missed approach climb gradient. It is for terrain clearance.

"Stepdown Fixes

Occasionally a fix is located on the final approach segment between the FAF and the MAP. This fix is not a final approach fix, but it is called a stepdown fix and is used on nonprecision approaches. When this fix can be identified during the approach, you normally get lower minimums after passing the stepdown fix.

The stepdown fix is used primarily for two reasons. First, there are many cases in which there is a high obstacle in the final approach segment that would cause very high landing minimums. In this case, the FAA will designate a stepdown which is placed beyond the controlling obstruction in the final approach segment. After you have identified and passed the fix, you can descend to the MDA for the airport.

The second reason is when the final approach segment is excessively long, the TERPs criteria requires the MDA to be raised. When the final approach segment exceeds six miles, the MDA is increased at a rate of five feet for each one-tenth of a mile over six miles. When a stepdown fix is incorporated in the final approach segment, the basic obstacle clearance is applied between the stepdown fix and the MAP.

Sometimes, a constant descent rate cannot be made from the FAF down to the runway since a stepdown fix altitude might be higher than the constant descent angle from the FAF to the runway. In these cases the descent rate after the stepdown fix will not exceed 400 feet per nautical mile, or 3.77°, and still have straight-in landing minimums."

SWH, all that is irrelevant because it doesn't explain why there are 3 different MDAs on that approach.

Wow, what a thread about a single Jepp approach plate! I agree with the comments above that publishing multiple MDAs depending on which stepdown fixes are used is more than unusual and non standard. Jeppesen just copied the AIP info verbatim, as they unfortunately often do - just for perspective: The corresponding chart from Lido just mentions one MDA, of course the lowest, and in the profile view shows the stepdown fixes as per usual.

And I suspect there is a lot of over thinking going on here. The most likely reason, IMHO, is that the AIP MDAs have not been changed from when the stepdowns were either crossing radials from another beacon or markers, i.e. before the advent of DME!

That is just the way Jepp publishes step down fixes inside the FAF, other chart providers only list one MDA. This isn’t the best chart Jepp has done, other providers have Trombay Hill clearly shown on the approach path with a MSA of 2100” shown to the left and below the 3.8 BBB waypoint. It’s a big feature that you fly close to, the Jepp chart gives the impression that it is flat terrain with just one mast.
in the FMC the coding is
FD32 +2600 -3.3
38VOR +1330 -3.3
28VOR +980 -3.3
MD32 350

almost.

The AIP chart posted at #32 by Bloggs (2019 edition) has 3 OCA(H)s. Jeppesen only follows that and Lido gents as well.


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....81074eb35c.png

There is no hidden magic. Why the step-down fixes are there nor what is their effect on MDA and the purpose they serve.

Why the regulator chose to publish the 3 OCA(H)s is the unknown. The first OCA of 1330 can certainly do without (not the SDF, the OCA before it). It's overengineered

Which could lay a foundation for sub-optimal ARINC 424 coding as the database specialist has no way of second-guessing the intention behind an element which is unnecessary from the outset. Then you get various fuzzy / quirky interpretations by onboard installation. Last comes the contemporary pilot who was trained FMS = RNAV = GOOD = NOT MODIFY (does not remember anything more or care, other practical experience largely absent or well-forgotten) and ATTEMPTS to make ad-hoc procedures to tie all the loose ends which are not part of the problem itself.

You've seen it before too.