Which in this case would be the threshold 07 that you will be crossing at an altitude of 1115 ft AGL which is pretty much useless for a subsequent landing unless you are in a helicopter
I think there are many airports where you would not be able to land from the MAP. I don’t think you could do it at Shoreham 20 unless perfectly configured and in a slow plane (a SEP).
but then you must use a chart that has values for MDA
Doesn’t every NP IAP have those?
I am not aware of any country that mandates a continuous descent on NP IAPs, for private ops.
If it was me, I would fly a CD, level off at the MDA, and continue to the MAP, and then go around. I think the main objection to CD is that it is assumed (not sure why – unless one likes to pretend it is an ILS) that you go around at the MDA, which is not necessary and deprives you of the opportunity to get closer.
Whether you then cannot actually land is a separate problem 
I think there are many airports where you would not be able to land from the MAP. I don’t think you could do it at Shoreham 20 unless perfectly configured and in a slow plane (a SEP).
That is a very useful thing for small GA. I flew to LGIR Iraklion, Greece which has a very poor lighting system only NPAs. The visibility was so bad that after a continuous descent to the MDA, there was nothing to see. The airliners in front and behind me had to go around. The MP is 0.3 NM after the threshold and I was able to dive and drive until over the runway at which point I had good visibility and was able to perform a 40° flaps landing because the runway is 2700m long.
Doesn’t every NP IAP have those?
Obviously not. At least not as far as Jeppesen is concerned. I fly NPAs at weekly basis into various German airfields (e.g. EDAB, ETSI, EDVE, EDTY) and they are all without MDA values apart from the circling minima. Browsing through my JeppView I found one MDA value at Paris Le Bourget, but they are clearly a minority now.
I think the main objection to CD is that it is assumed (not sure why – unless one likes to pretend it is an ILS) that you go around at the MDA, which is not necessary and deprives you of the opportunity to get closer.
Exactly. When you have an explicit MDA value you can continue at that altitude to the MAPT. But without MDA and DA instead you go around immediately regardless of your position. MDA and DA a computed differenty and it may not be safe to fly at DA (best example being an LPV to 200ft AGL which is certainly not a safe altitude for the last to miles of a dive&drive procedure.)
Addition: Just had a look at Achims Iraklio chart (another one with only DA given). What he describes is only legal – if anyone can prove it – if he stops descent above that 1100ft DA value… And even with a C182 beginning a landing from 1100ft already behind the threshold consumes a lot of that 2700m runway. You need 6 degrees GPS just to reach the far end or 12 degrees to touch down in the middle. Not something that a slippery airframe can do.
EDAB:
I don’t see it as missing.
What he describes is only legal – if anyone can prove it – if he stops descent above that 1100ft DA value…
I don’t have to prove that I did not deviate from the procedure, someone else would have to prove that I did. However, that was not necessary and I would never descent below the DA/MDA at an airfield that is not intimately known to me and even then not (cranes, etc.).
And even with a C182 beginning a landing from 1100ft already behind the threshold consumes a lot of that 2700m runway. You need 6 degrees GPS just to reach the far end or 12 degrees to touch down in the middle. Not something that a slippery airframe can do.
All you need is an aircraft with very effective flaps, i.e. a lot of drag in landing configuration. The 182 RG has huge flaps (probably twice as large as the TB20) and being a high wing, the gear is much larger and creates more drag. Try flying a 182RG with 40° flaps, it’s like a helicopter. Downside is that it’s not always easy to turn such an approach into a smooth landing. From what I recall in LGIR, my touchdown was still within the “black zone” (tyre wear marks). This approach would certainly not have worked in a SR22.
And even with a C182 beginning a landing from 1100ft already behind the threshold
Is the MAP really behind the runway threshold?
That would be extremely unusual (and useless).
EDAB:
I don’t see it as missing.
It only has DA values now. Not long ago, it had an MDA. In the general part of the Jeppesen manual, the definition for DA is given as (FAA): “Is a specified altitude/height in an instrument approach procedure at which a pilot must decide whether to initiate an immediate missed approach if the pilot does not see the required ….”. The difference (in my understanding) has always been that “immediate”: A decision altitude requires an immediate go around, an MDA allows you to stay at that altitude for some time and look around.
Is the MAP really behind the runway threshold?
Yes, it’s the VOR and the VOR is located next to the runway. If you put the runway on a cliff, you have to put the navaid somewhere dry… 
That would be extremely unusual (and useless).
Unusual yes, useless no. See my report why it is not useless, given the right aircraft
I would say 99% of the dive & drive setups are not doable until the MAP in many larger aircraft due tot he descent angle.
That would be extremely unusual (and useless).
Not useless! The ICAO definition of a missed approach point contains also this phrase: “When executing a missed approach prior to the MAP and not cleared otherwise by an air traffic control (ATC) climb-out instruction, fly the published missed approach procedure. Proceed on track to the MAP before accomplishing a turn.”
The MAPT is the first point where a turn can be initiated! Very important at places like Innsbruck (LOWI which has only non-precision approaches) where the MAPT for the LOC DME West approch is miles beyond the runway. Turn earlier and fly into a mountain…
There must be a reason why Iraklio puts it where it is. Maybe because they want to make sure that this 040 radial on the missed approach procedure gets intercepted from the west so that you stay out of the approach area.
Landing straight in from the MAP is not the purpose of the MAP. It is setting the point at which the missed approach procedure begins. This is the first point at which a turn may commence. In the US, obstacle clearance for the missed approach climb begins after this point. It is not uncommon for approaches based on a ground facility such as a VOR or an NDB to be beyond the runway threshold. In these cases, the MAP is often determined by passing over the facility.
