GM5 CAT.OP.MPA.110 Aerodrome operating minima

• ED Decision 2022/012/R found in: Air Operations (965/2012) Part-ARO Part-ORO Part-CAT Part-SPA Part-NCC Part-NCO Part-SPO (Sep 2023)

GM5 CAT.OP.MPA.110 Aerodrome operating minima ED Decision 2022/012/R USE OF DH FOR NPAs FLOWN USING THE CDFA TECHNIQUE [AMC3 CAT.OP.MPA.110](#_DxCrossRefBm318086086) provides that, in certain circumstances, a published MDH may be used as a DH for a 2D operation flown using the CDFA technique. The safety of the use of MDH as DH in CDFA operations has been verified by at least two independent analyses concluding that the CDFA using MDH as DH without any add-on is safer than the traditional step-down and level-flight NPA operation. A comparison has been made between the safety level of using MDH as DH without an add-on with the well-established safety level resulting from the ILS collision risk model. The NPA used was the most demanding, i.e. most tightly designed NPA, which offers the least additional margins. It should be noted that the design limits of the ILS approach design, e.g. the maximum GP angle of 3,5 degrees, must be observed for the CDFA in order to keep the validity of the comparison. There is a wealth of operational experience in Europe confirming the above-mentioned analytical assessments. It cannot be expected that each operator is able to conduct similar safety assessments, and this is not necessary. The safety assessments already performed take into account the most demanding circumstances at hand, like the most tightly designed NPA procedures and other ‘worst‑case scenarios’. The assessments naturally focus on cases where the controlling obstacle is located in the missed approach area. However, it is necessary for operators to assess whether their cockpit procedures and training are adequate to ensure minimal height loss in case of a go-around manoeuvre. Suitable topics for the safety assessment required by each operator may include: — understanding of the CDFA concept including the use of the MDA/H as DA/H; — cockpit procedures that ensure flight on speed, on path and with proper configuration and energy management; — cockpit procedures that ensure gradual decision-making; and — identification of cases where an increase of the DA/H may be necessary because of non-standard circumstances, etc. GM5 CAT.OP.MPA.110 Aerodrome operating minima ED Decision 2022/012/R USE OF DH FOR NPAs FLOWN USING THE CDFA TECHNIQUE [AMC3 CAT.OP.MPA.110](#_DxCrossRefBm927678466) provides that, in certain circumstances, a published MDH may be used as a DH for a 2D operation flown using the CDFA technique. The safety of the use of MDH as DH in CDFA operations has been verified by at least two independent analyses concluding that the CDFA using MDH as DH without any add-on is safer than the traditional step-down and level-flight NPA operation. A comparison has been made between the safety level of using MDH as DH without an add-on with the well-established safety level resulting from the ILS collision risk model. The NPA used was the most demanding, i.e. most tightly designed NPA, which offers the least additional margins. It should be noted that the design limits of the ILS approach design, e.g. the maximum GP angle of 3,5 degrees, must be observed for the CDFA in order to keep the validity of the comparison. There is a wealth of operational experience in Europe confirming the above-mentioned analytical assessments. It cannot be expected that each operator is able to conduct similar safety assessments, and this is not necessary. The safety assessments already performed take into account the most demanding circumstances at hand, like the most tightly designed NPA procedures and other ‘worst‑case scenarios’. The assessments naturally focus on cases where the controlling obstacle is located in the missed approach area. However, it is necessary for operators to assess whether their cockpit procedures and training are adequate to ensure minimal height loss in case of a go-around manoeuvre. Suitable topics for the safety assessment required by each operator may include: — understanding of the CDFA concept including the use of the MDA/H as DA/H; — cockpit procedures that ensure flight on speed, on path and with proper configuration and energy management; — cockpit procedures that ensure gradual decision-making; and — identification of cases where an increase of the DA/H may be necessary because of non-standard circumstances, etc. ##### GM5 CAT.OP.MPA.110 Aerodrome operating minima *ED Decision 2022/012/R* **USE OF DH FOR NPAs FLOWN USING THE CDFA TECHNIQUE** [AMC3 CAT.OP.MPA.110](#_DxCrossRefBm523088021) provides that, in certain circumstances, a published MDH may be used as a DH for a 2D operation flown using the CDFA technique. The safety of the use of MDH as DH in CDFA operations has been verified by at least two independent analyses concluding that the CDFA using MDH as DH without any add-on is safer than the traditional step-down and level-flight NPA operation. A comparison has been made between the safety level of using MDH as DH without an add-on with the well-established safety level resulting from the ILS collision risk model. The NPA used was the most demanding, i.e. most tightly designed NPA, which offers the least additional margins. It should be noted that the design limits of the ILS approach design, e.g. the maximum GP angle of 3,5 degrees, must be observed for the CDFA in order to keep the validity of the comparison. There is a wealth of operational experience in Europe confirming the above-mentioned analytical assessments. It cannot be expected that each operator is able to conduct similar safety assessments, and this is not necessary. The safety assessments already performed take into account the most demanding circumstances at hand, like the most tightly designed NPA procedures and other ‘worst‑case scenarios’. The assessments naturally focus on cases where the controlling obstacle is located in the missed approach area. However, it is necessary for operators to assess whether their cockpit procedures and training are adequate to ensure minimal height loss in case of a go-around manoeuvre. Suitable topics for the safety assessment required by each operator may include: — understanding of the CDFA concept including the use of the MDA/H as DA/H; — cockpit procedures that ensure flight on speed, on path and with proper configuration and energy management; — cockpit procedures that ensure gradual decision-making; and — identification of cases where an increase of the DA/H may be necessary because of non-standard circumstances, etc.