Flying to Aerodrome Operating ah, look at all the minima !

Where do they all come from?

Minima Where do they all belong?
(adapted from a famous Beatles song)

This is not written

for real aviation,
rather it’s done for
flight simulation,
in order to get an
insight on
Aerodrome
Minima and some
flight operations
as we simulate
them in domestic
flight simulators.

The information contained in this paper should not be considered as official. While the information
contained have been collected from official sources, from the European Union agencies, USA
agencies, international agency like ICAO, an extract was made and only partial information was
retained for the following pages. This collected data now helps construct a better understanding of
existing approach types / operations / regulations, in regard to minimums written on approach plates,
but the integrity of the data presented in the following pages cannot be guaranteed.
In particular, in this rapidly evolving legal field, there is no guaranty that the information displayed in
this paper is still valid at the time of your reading. You should not use this paper to base your
understanding, and you should revert to official and current sources only. In particular if you are into
real aviation.
Also, collecting the data and understanding the provenance of the minima depicted on approach plates
is a tremendous effort : each regulation is complex, have ramifications in various legal and advisory
papers, regulations are varying depending on your location on the world. Moreover, in the recent
years, international efforts to harmonize them while keeping the pace with technological advances in
aviation, intersecting with the bureaucratic nature of organizations, have produced a jungle of both
current and rapidly outdated documentation, of which one must sort the wheat from the chaff.
I don’t pretend to be exhaustive, I’m trying to bring a better understanding at best.
Last update of this paper : April 2022.
ICAO document « Manual of All-weather Operations » makes a clear distinction between
approach procedures and approach operations.

Shown above are the existing approach procedures, as recognised by the ICAO.

An Instrument approach procedure is the instrument flight procedure allowing an aircraft to navigate
on the final approach down to a given obstacle clearance height (OCH), relying on a given type of
navigational infrastructure.

Procedures are classified as either :

- non-precision (NPA) ;
- approach procedure with a vertical guidance (APV) ;
- precision approach (PA) procedure.

Source : Doc 9365, https://elibrary.icao.int/reader/

 3D CDFA pushing
the border

CONV Baro
LNAV VNAV
SBAS CONV GBAS
VOR ILS
2D 3D

« RNP LNAV » « RNP « RNP LPV » « GLS »

LNAV/VNAV »

MDA (+ Mapt) MDA (+ Mapt) DA DA DA, DHRA DA,DH

An operation method, is the manner in which an operated aircraft will follow the procedure. The
classification approach operations is based on the performance, or ability to join an aerodrome minima
throughout a flight method.
A 2D operation uses lateral navigation only. All 2D operations are classified as type A and are flown to an
MDA/H.

3D approach operations use both lateral and vertical navigation guidance. LNAV/VNAV operations are an
example of 3D Type A operations, SBAS would be used in 3D type B.

Type A : a MDH or DH at or above 250 ft ;

Type B : a DH below 250 ft
 Obstacle clearance
height OCH is the
height on an IAP with
the minimum
permitted clearance
above obstacles on
the final approach. It
does not take into
account the
limitations associated
with the navaid
(system minimums)
nor airplane
minimums. Thus the
DH or MDH is the
CDFA highest of the OCH or
the system minimums
or the airplane
minimums.
2D 3D

« RNP LNAV » « RNP « RNP LPV » « GLS »

LNAV/VNAV »
Controlling minimums →
MDA (+ Mapt) MDA (+ Mapt) DA DA DA, DHRA
OCA/H is the lowest that MDA/H can be.
LIDO LGSA VOR Y 29 CAT I : DH ILS CAT I = max {200 ft ; OCH} → converted to DA
OCH → kept as
MDH
MDH + CAT II : DH ILS CAT II = max {100 ft ; OCH} and DH < 200 ft
Elevation DH APV Baro-VNAV ≥ 246 ft (75m) or 295 ft (90m) ILS CAT II

DH → terrain analysis → converted to RA height

A

= 1310 ft depending on runway certification → converted to DA

DF
if C

CAT III :
A

CAT II on charts
DD

DH APV SBAS ≥ 246 ft (75m) or 295 ft (90m) ICAO State NavBlue

→

MDA
State depending on runway certification → converted to DA

LPV CAT I DH ≥ 200 ft 175m

Source : « Mémento à l’usage des utilisateurs des procédures de vol aux instruments », French
AIP
« DA » writtenJeppesen (not revised since 2016)
but it's an DA The Jeppesen LIDO
MDA with LIDO
Jeppesen 175m cleaner
CDFA in mind
EASA : keep 200m instead of 175 m above
Jeppesen (another VOR app. but revised in 2018)
« DA/MDA(H) » written The
to ''clarify'' it's an MDA heavier
with CDFA → use as
DA Shows terrain impact
Sour
ce :
Doc
9365
, http
s://e
li brary
.icao
.int/r
eade
r/
 ICAO DOC 9365 : CDFA is the recommended technique.

ICAO says ICAO PANOPS states CDFA with advisory VNAV guidance by onboard systems
are 3D operations.
Otherwise, like with manual calculations of time-to-height and rate of descents, it’s a 2D
operation.

There is no
add-on
requirement for
NON-CDFA
techniques from
ICAO. ICAO
just mentions
States may
require it.
 ICAO DOC 9365 continues by defining Aerodrome Operating Minima (AOM)

2D approach operations AOM

The MDA/H is based upon the OCA/H. It may be higher, but never lower than the OCA/H.
States can determine their OCA/H from PAN-OPS DOC 8168.

The visibility required is dictated by the local requirements by the pilot to establish in time visual
references and safely descend from the MDA/H to land.
ICAO says a large number of situations may trigger States to rules the visibility from 750 meters to
5km.
 DH APV Baro-VNAV ≥ 246 ft (75m) or 295 ft (90m)
depending on runway certification → converted to DA
3D approach operations AOM
DH APV SBAS ≥ 246 ft (75m) or 295 ft (90m)
depending on runway certification → converted to DA

CAT I : DH ILS CAT I = max {200 ft ; OCH} + RVR > 550 m → converted to DA
 ICAO DOC 9365

ICAO Procedures, described in ICAO

Doc 8168 Procedures for Air Navigation
Services (PANS-OPS). PANS-OPS
procedures are the international standard
and are used throughout Europe and in
many other countries world-wide.

United States Standard for Terminal Instrument

Procedures (TERPS), described in FAA Order No
8260.3E. US TERPS are used in USA and in certain
other countries. These include Canada, Korea,
Saudi Arabia and Taiwan.

AESA AIR OPS TERPS AOM FAA

Practically, airlines and operators are subject to Union, Federation, or State regulations.
Those regulations are inspired by the International Aviation conventions.

Therefore, pilot will not directly apply ICAO recommendations and concepts but rather use the
legislation applicable to their operator, like EASA AIR OPERATIONS or FAA regulations.
 Note : the ICAO Doc 9365
does not require CDFA, and
makes no mentions of any
visbility penalty for non-CDFA
techniques. This is purely an
EASA regulation.

EASA RVR AOM are intended for CDFA.

CDFA is required, otherwise, a visiblity penalty must be added to the published minimum when condicted an NPA
without CDFA.

EASA-based AIR operators

must fly with CDFA.
Otherwise, they have to
apply a penalty visiblity on
published RVR minima of
200m for Cat A and B
airplanes and 400m for Cat
C and D airplanes.

Visibility penalty and add-

on to the MDA are different
things...
Jeppesen publications
 On RNP approaches LP and VNAV, minimums depicted on LIDO charts are DA.
LIDO On RNP approaches with LNAV only, minimums depicted on LIDO charts are MDA.

LFPG
RNP
APCH
R26L

LIDO chart

French State
chart
 On RNP approaches LP and VNAV, minimums depicted on LIDO charts are DA.
LIDO On RNP approaches with LNAV only, minimums depicted on LIDO charts are MDA.

LFPG
RNP
APCH
R26L

770 ft + 50 ft makes
820 ft DDA
for CDFA
(Derived Decision
LIDO chart Altitude)

MDA

French State
chart
Jeppesen

CAO LFPG
Jeppesen RNP
chart APCH
Jeppesen writes R26L
« DA/MDA(H) » but the
comparison with the
State AIP shows 770 ft is
an MDA.
770 ft + 50 ft makes
820 ft DDA
for CDFA
(Derived Decision
Altitude)

IMPORTANT NOTES: Jeppesen will

not add any Height Loss
Adjustment to any charted DA(H)
or MDA(H) Descent Limit values
unless specified by the State.

When using the CDFA

flight technique and using
a DA(H) in lieu of MDA(H),
operators must determine
and apply an appropriate
Height Loss Adjustment
applicable to the aircraft,
landing configuration
French State and/or operating
chart requirements.
Source : eBriefing JEP 19A-2 , 2019
 830 ft + 50 ft makes
LGIR
880 ft DDA RNP
for CDFA APCH
(Derived Decision
Altitude) R27

Hellenic State chart

Note the difference

LIDO chart

IMPORTANT NOTES: Jeppesen will not add any Height Loss Adjustment to any charted DA(H) or MDA(H) Descent
Limit values unless specified by the State.

When using the CDFA flight technique and using a DA(H) in lieu of MDA(H), operators
must determine and apply an appropriate Height Loss Adjustment applicable to the
aircraft, landing configuration and/or operating requirements.

If it cannot be determined if the State has incorportated a Heught Loss Adjustment,

the ball note below will be shwon on applicable Non-Precision IAP approach charts.
It’s the ooerator’s responsability to provide necessary guidance to pilots.
“VNAV DA(H) in lieu of MDA(H) depends on operator policy”.
Source : eBriefing JEP 19A-2 , 2019

Jeppesen chart
 Obstacle clearance height OCH is the
height on an IAP with the minimum
permitted clearance above obstacles on
LGIR the final approach. It does not take into
RNP account the limitations associated with
the navaid (system minimums) nor
APCH airplane minimums. Thus the DH or
MDH is the highest of the OCH or the
R27 system minimums or the airplane
minimums.

MDH is 750 ft

OCH is 749 feet

MDH is
LIDO will read the chart, 749 ft
Find that there are missing information,
And apply EASA AIR OPS to fill the gaps

We check the system minima and find 250ft for a VOR DH.
 OCH = 750 ft is not limited by the system minimum
LGIR according to EASA rules, therefore, we can keep and
RNP display 750 ft as MDH on the chart.
APCH
R27
Now we need to check the RVR minima.
As they are ont provide in the State AIP, LIDO has applied EASA guidelines.

LGIR With an MDH of 749 to 750 ft, I find my self in a categories of RVR ranging from 2700 meters required to 3500 meters,
depending on runway lighting equipment.
RNP
APCH
R27
 We now check the value obtained against the EASA cutoff table.

There is a cut-off value.

There are This table of maximum value
conditions for is a specificity of the EASA
the maximum rules, as such a cutoff table
RVR cut-off ! cannot be found in FAA
(TERPS).
i.e. the
approach
should be
relatively
standard
See next page
Cut-off
value
retained
LGIR I found my self in a categories of RVR ranging from 2700 meters
V2.4
required to 3500 meters, depending on runway lighting equipment,
RNP however this can be topped up to 2400 meters. Because it fulfils
APCH the criteria of a relatively standard non-offset ~3° approach.

R27

Remember, under EASA rules, those minimas are required to be flown CDFA.
EASA-based AIR operators must fly with
CDFA.
If one specific AIP of study complied with
NCC.OP.110, but you fly it non-CDFA,
you have to apply a penalty visiblity on
published RVR minima of 200m for Cat
A and B airplanes and 400m for Cat C
and D airplanes.
CDFA
required

The maximum cut-off value can be

applied because the LGIR RNP 27
approach has
➔ a final approach track not offset to
the runway,
➔ a FAF,
➔ a final approach segment of more
than 3 NM,
➔ a vertical profile less than 3.77°
➔ And is flown CDFA
 Jeppesen also checked the value against the EASA cutoff table.

Cut-off
value
retained
LGIR RVR 2.4
RNP
APCH
R27

Jeppesen followed the same path and provides the same results than LIDO for this approach.
This cartouche, following the 2019 JEPP briefing on AOM, should be updated at some point.
I expect the mention « Std/State » to replace « Standard », and the mention regarding VNAV DA in lieu of MDA to be operator driven, to
appear.
Remember, under EASA rules, those minimas are required to be flown CDFA.
 CDFA under FAA rules
Are dealt with AC 120-108

By default, as of
2022,
CDFA is a
recommandation,
And it does not
seem a visibility
penalty (like an
increased RVR/Vis
is applied in case a
NON-CDFA
technique is used ?

BUT
(...)
visibility penalty
are a possibility, let
open (as I
understand it).
 LGIR
RNP
APCH
That was for the straight-in approach. R27
LIDO chart
However, this is not finished.

Circling minimums are also regulated

by TERPS (FAA, in the USA) and by
EASA (Europe).

NCC.OP.112 Aerodrome operating minima — circling

operations
with aeroplanes

In this case, both LIDO and Jeppesen applied and pictures the EASA limits.
2400 m for Cat C circling

3600 m for Cat D circling

Jeppesen chart
All of that has an
implication on
how the private
companies like
Jeppesen will
chart the AIP !

For instance,
Jeppesen
mentions the
text
« DA/MDA(H) »
for NPA
approaches
flown with CDFA
(a 3D
operation).
From the 2015 Jeppesen AOM briefing I can read :

We will retrieve State-published visibilities and, if necessary, compare them to the ICAO-based
values. When available, State AOM will always be depicted. State AOM may be supplemented
with higher ICAO AOM values and noted accordingly.

Caution : that has changed between 2015 and the new Jeppesen briefing of 2019 !

Quote :
State-provided AOM will always be depicted as published by the State. State-provided
visibilities may be lower than the visibilities determined according to ICAO’s AWOM. The
determination of lower values by the State is not precluded by ICAO if such values result in an
acceptable level of safety. Therefore,the State-provided visibilities will not being raised to
match the visibilities from the tables in ICAO AWOM. Where a State does not provide
anyAOM, Jeppesen will determine visibility values according to the rules and tables in ICAO’s
AWOM.

That means beginning 2019, all minimums on Jeppesen

plates in the USA are TERPS (= from FAA direct).
The previous, outdated,
2015 briefing exposed a
more complicated usage of
ICAO AWOM and State
minimums.

...
 CDFA technique : Jeppesen charting evolution in time
LGIR 2006
After 2010, Jeppesen LGIR 2010
remakes the approcah
plate with a profile view
suited to CDFA operations,
and labels the minimum as
« DA ».

The old school :

the advantage of
symplicity for a The « man in the
better middle » : the
understanding of 2010s DA(H) was
the hard altitudes. used alone on
And still we could, NPA charts. That
if flying this as followed the
CDFA, derive a transition to CDFA
decision altitude profiles to fly
from the MDA with NPAs.
regard to any
company policy.

« DA » was written on NPA

charts, which confused a lot
of people because CDFA was
not explicitely mentionned.

STATE 1 STATE 2
LGIR (After 2015 LGIR (After 2019
Jeppesen Briefing) In this 2018 chart,
CDFA mentions
Jeppesen Briefing)
have changed.

It's to be seen as an
improvement over
the previous 2010s
chart.

On revised CDFA
charts, Jeppesen
is telling us :

«Consider this as a DA ! »

« But it still is the number of the MDA »

« You can add an addon to this, to

get a Derived Decision Altitude
(DDA), say 1100 + 50 = 1150 ft DDA Expecting a further revision at some point in the
(but you don't have to, see what future with the mention below :
your company says). »

Jeppesen, by those marks,

suggest this MDA should be
treated as a DA, to execute a
missed approach when reaching
this altitude according to CDFA
technic.
But it's still true that it is an MDA of
an NPA ! Jeppesen "do NOT
include an add-on when publishing
a DA(H) for a CDFA non-precision
approach."
STATE 4
(to come)
STATE 3
 The chart went
straight to the
« 2019 JEP
Chart depicted in BRIEF format »
its 2010 state with
« DA ». With the mention
That was « Std/STATE » of VNAV DA
confusing for depending on
many, this IAP operator policy
being an NPA. appearing.
 In the USA... JEPPESEN

The chart is as
KBOI described in the
RNP 10L « 2019 JEP
BRIEF»

The TERPS text

shows that in the
USA Jeppesen
uses FAA-derived
minima.

Note : Jeppesen writes ALS-out information

on chart from ICAO DOC 9365.
 In the USA... LIDO
LIDO states their
minima are EASA
ops based.
(Similar to ICAOM
AWOM except
that in this later,
the concept of
visibility penalty
for a niche of NPA
has not be
retained)

Two LIDO flavors seems actually

available, EASA OPS worldwide, or
US customers flavor, which has
TERPS within Canada and USA
territories.

Since I see TERPS minimums in

Aerosoft Lido KBOI charts for
instance, it is my understanding that
Aerosoft is distributing the second
option
The TERPS text
shows that in the
USA this very
LIDO flavor uses
FAA-derived
minima.

Check the measuring

unit used !
New FAA rules for
circling minima.

LIDO pilots have to look for the ALS-out values in their LIDO manual, introduction part.
 LIDO

New FAA rules for

Check the measuring circling minima.
unit used !
 Previously in this presentation, we have seen than EASA had regulations relevant for circling appraoch minima.
Let’s see what TERPS has for us.

ment
Source : https://www.faa.gov/TERPS
rd fo r Te rminal Instru
United State
s Stan da
s c rib e d in FAA Order No
(TERPS), de 2020
Procedures 8260.3E,

Jeppesen
3-3-3. Establishing Circling Visibility Minimums. Establish as a statute (SM) value. Meter
(M) values are for locations outside the United States only. Determine circling visibility as the
highest of:
a. The value specified in the applicable row and column of table 3-3-7.
b. The distance from the MAP to the nearest surface authorized for landing by a circling
aligned procedure

height
above
airport

LIDO

Check the
measuring unit
used !
In this paper, we explored examples with straight-in 2D or 3D approaches on VOR or RNP AIP, or circling AOM.
That’s not all about it. Both EASA and TERPS contains regulations for the other categories of approaches.
A specific review of Cat III minimums for precisions approaches
Around 2007

In this table FAA says

CATIIIA is DH50ft
minimum if fail-passive
aircraft. That was an old,
removed, ICAO
guidance.

Recent update on the

FAA side as of 2022 were
hard to find to update this
review.
EASA 2022, about to drop
the R75 m Cat III

Removes Cat IIIA/B

distinction

Jeppesen
ICAO Application to LFPG ILS 26R LIDO
NavBlue
175m

175m
State chart Only says Cat 3 avail.

Consistent with AIP

(1) DH greater than 50 ft if fail passive
Only uses Cat IIIB DH,
consistent with fail Says Cat IIIA, a
As a matter of fact CAT III minimums are often tailored on charts to specific airlines. So regarding CAT IIIA/B conservative view.
operational conditions !
operations, take what the company says, instead of relying on default untailored charts.
 ICAO (old)
ICAO DOC 9365

(1) DH greater than 50 ft if fail passive

ICAO

EASA (EUOPS) Regulation 2021/2237

EFFECTIVE OCT-22 175m

175m

(1) note removed

Note : it seems EASA regulation evolves

in 2022, to drop the RVR75 m limitations
for cat III operations

Source : https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R2237
ASA Paving the way for a
n t 2 0 18-06(C) - E CAT IIIC definition in
me
Pro po s ed Amend the future in EU-
Notice of OPS ?
This is an ongoing story. Regulations on minimum are constantly evolving.
For instance, in 2018, EASA AIR OPS provisioned a change to the CATIIIA minimal
RVR to 175m instead of previously 200m, following a change at the ICAO level.
However, I fail to see the actual change on Actual, feb 2022 AEASA eRules, which still
07-2018 states 200m, so that must have stayed dead letter...
ICAO DOC 9365 CAT III Operations – as of April 2022
Recent evolution

« LPV Cat I » approach making their appearance (DH 200 ft). 2015-...