EASA Part NCO AMCs
AMC1 NCO.OP.111 Aerodrome operating minima — NPA, APV, CAT I operations NPA FLOWN WITH THE CDFA TECHNIQUE
When flying a non-precision approach operation using the CDFA technique, the pilot-in-command should ensure that when executing a missed approach, the initiation of the go-around is done at or above the DA/H to avoid flying below the MDA/H.
OK, its AMCs (an interpretation) but it sums up the European stance quite nicely.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Yes, a MDA, but not a DA. When you fly using the CDFA technique, you don’t use a MDA, you use a DA…
There is still an MDA but you treat reaching it as a DA. Ie there is no level off – you are either visual or you are not. This is indeed one the main criticisms of CDFA vs dive and drive.
Dave_Phillips wrote:
OK, its AMCs (an interpretation) but it sums up the European stance quite nicely.
Well, it’s nonsense isn’t it. There is no MDA/H. There might be an OCH.
Is anyone coming to the AWO workshop at EASA on 9-11 Nov. There’s a session on day 2 when we might sort this out.
bookworm wrote:
Is anyone coming to the AWO workshop at EASA on 9-11 Nov. There’s a session on day 2 when we might sort this out.
Unfortunately, I am not invited… but I don’t really think it needs to be “sorted out”. Just expressed in words that an averagely gifted human, capable of operating an aeroplane, can understand!
JasonC wrote:
This is indeed one the main criticisms of CDFA vs dive and drive.
You mean criticism in CDFA because of the DA vs. a MPt? No hidden sarcasm here, I want to know why this is crticised.
TobiBS wrote:
You mean criticism in CDFA because of the DA vs. a MPt? No hidden sarcasm here, I want to know why this is crticised.
There is an argument, which has some validity, that in certain circumstances getting down to the MDA and flying at it gives you more time to find the runway. Personally i am in favour of CDFA but it is true that in marginal conditions it can make the runway hard to find.
As non-instrument pilot I was getting a wee bit confused by the acronyms bandied about here, so decided to look it up and learn something. For the benefit of all, here’s a pretty good description of what the fine gents posting here are talking about: http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Continuous_Descent_Final_Approach
172driver wrote:
here’s a pretty good description of what the fine gents posting here are talking about:
Good initiative. No sarcasm or other nastiness intended.
Most people tend to take acronyms for granted and do not realise they are exclusive. I once sent a link to a trip report to a friend if mine (non pilot) and was told it was way too technical 
You really need to keep in mind who the audience is when writing.
172driver wrote:
… http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Continuous_Descent_Final_Approach …
But keep in mind that most this discussion is not related to the topic of this thread, namely a crash that happened during a precision approach!
JasonC wrote:
There is an argument, which has some validity, that in certain circumstances getting down to the MDA and flying at it gives you more time to find the runway.
Completely agree on that, but in my understanding the main purpose of CDFA is to prevent the pitch/power changes, especially the last one at MDA, because the first (establishing level flight) can easily lead to a stall, while the second (establishing final descent) can lead to an unstable approach, because the MAPt does not assure 3deg GPA.
@172driver: Sorry bad habit as flying is my hobby and I am also working in aviation. So TLAs all over the place. ;-)
So here is thelist of acronyms:
MDA: Minimum descend Altitude
MAPt: Missed Approach Point
CDFA: Continous Descend Final Approach
GPA: Glide Path Angle
TLA: Three Letter Acronym
