Like 362 Share Tweet

How Can A Non-Precision Approach

Get You Lower Than A Glide Path?
By Colin Cutler | 11/18/2017

Boldmethod

You're getting ready to brief your GPS approach, and

you see something strange: the LNAV MDA minimums
are lower than the LNAV/VNAV DA minimums. How
can that be? And which one should you fly?

View the full Harrisburg GPS RWY 13 Approach

You would assume that approaches with vertical

guidance will get you lower than non-precision
approaches, but that's not always the case. Here's
why.

How Approach Minimums Are Calculated

There's a lot that goes into calculating the minimum
altitudes for an approach, but there are a few general
rules that all of them follow. For the purposes of this
article, we won't go into LPV approaches - we'll stick
to LNAV/VNAV, and LNAV only approaches.

First, let's look at approaches with no vertical

guidance. For LNAV (lateral navigation) approaches,
the FAA looks at the obstacle heights along the
approach path, and draws a straight line called the
Obstacle Clearance Surface (OCS). Then, they add
250 feet to that line for the LNAV Required Obstacle
Clearance (ROC). That altitude becomes the LNAV
MDA. So at a minimum, the LNAV MDA on an
approach is at least 250 feet above the highest
obstacle in your path. But, there are several factors
that can cause the MDA to be higher. If the MDA needs
to be raised, they do it in 20 foot increments.

Next up, let's look at approaches with vertical

guidance. For LNAV/VNAV approaches, the FAA draws
the same Obstacle Clearance Surface horizontal line.
At the controlling obstacle, they draw a horizontal line
away from the runway until it reaches the Obstacle
Clearance Surface (OCS) plane, which in our diagram
is the the gray angled line. From there, they draw a
vertical line that reaches the glide path. That point (the
orange arrow) becomes the Decision Altitude (DA).

Why do they do it that way? By moving the DA outside

of the controlling obstacle, it gives you the chance to
see and avoid the obstacle while you're descending on
the approach.

Boldmethod

What Minimums Should You Choose?

So with all of that in mind, it brings you back to the
original question, which descent minimums should you
choose? The LNAV, or the LNAV/VNAV?

It depends on your situation. First off, using vertical

guidance on an approach is almost always the best
idea. When you fly an approach on a glide path, you
have a continuous vertical path to follow. And on top of
that, you don't have to make as many power changes
as you would on a "dive-and-drive" approach. Once
you're configured for your descent, it only takes minor
changes to maintain your glide path.

As for a non-precision approach, you have a lot more

workload to deal with. You need to keep track of your
step down altitudes, and manage your power settings
as you transition from level flight to descents through
your step down fixes. That makes the approach more
prone to error.

What's The Weather Doing?

On an approach like this, your decision is really going
to come down to the weather. Where are the ceilings
at, and will the LNAV/VNAV approach get you under
them?

On the Harrisburg approach, the LNAV/VNAV

approach will get you down to 1,264 feet above
touchdown, and the LNAV will get you down to 872
feet above touchdown. That's a difference of 392
feet, which is quite a bit when the ceilings are low.

To give yourself some breathing room on the approach,

you would probably want at least 1,500 foot ceilings to
shoot the LNAV/VNAV approach. That would give you
a little over 200 feet of room between you and the
clouds when you reach DA. If the ceilings were lower
than that, you probably would want to opt for the LNAV
only approach, which gets you quite a bit lower.

Making The Best Choice For Your

Approach
The next time you see an approach with MDA
minimums lower than DA minimums, take a minute to
think about what your best choice is going to be. If
you're a WAAS capable airplane, and there are LPV
minimums, that's probably going to be your best route.
But if you're at an airport with LNAV/VNAV and LNAV
only, you have a choice to make.

If the DA minimums will easily get you out of the

clouds, following the glide path is almost always the
best choice. A constant glide path will lighten your
workload, reduce your chance of error, and make your
passengers more comfortable during the descent.

But if the clouds are near your DA, the MDA is

probably the way to go. Managing your descent profile
and making sure you break out of the soup is better
than having to go missed and try the approach all over
again.

Become a better pilot.

Subscribe to get the latest videos, articles, and quizzes
that make you a smarter, safer pilot.

Your Email Sign Up >

Like 362 Share Tweet

8 Comments Sort by Top

Add a comment...

Kevin Carson
This is an excellent explanation! Colin and crew, you
guys are the cat's pajamas. Thanks!
Prof. Carson
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 2 · 2y

Andrew Kernytsky
I’ve always wondered this but I still don’t understand it.
Why are there two lines being referred to as Obstacle
Clearance Surfaces? There’s a horizontal one at the
obstacle height that the horizontal line is drawn from but
then another diagonal gray line is then also called an
OCS. And what is this diagonal one? Is it related to the
glide path? It just appears in the narrative with no
explanation. Thanks for helping to understand this.
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 5 · 2y

Rob Noand
Maybe this helps;
http://code7700.com/doa_required_obstacle_cle
arance.htm
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 1 · 2y

Tawnya Yarger
Pretty good description regarding the TERPS criteria for
approaches however, the title to the article is misleading
at best. Just because a pilot uses a LNAV MDA, does
not mean they have to "Dive and Drive". You are
suggesting the pilot must leave the glide path, drop the
nose, and unstabilize the approach to achieve MDA.
The selection of type minimums does not change the
glide path on the approach. It is the same and should be
flown. There is nothing prohibiting a pilot from the "Dive
and Drive" as that is their choice, but same holds true
for following the glide path.

Your last picto… See More

Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 2y

Phill Drew
How can the OCS plane in the VNAV image pass
through the obstacle? This doesn’t make sense.
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 4 · 2y

Andrew Escue
I'm confused too. The image titled "How DA is
calculated" and the accompanying text doesn't
make sense to me.
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 2y

Dale Schwartz
The article is sort of confusing. You make no mention of
slooping OCS as it pertains to the final segment of the
approach. Also no mention is made of the lateral
demensions of the ROC or the OCS in reference to the
controlling obstacle. However it was effective in piquing
my interest for further study so as to gain a better
understanding of how approach minimums are obtained.
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 2y

Load 3 more comments

Facebook Comments Plugin

Colin Cutler
Colin is a Boldmethod co-
founder, pilot and graphic artist.
He's been a flight instructor at
the University of North Dakota,
an airline pilot on the CRJ-200,
and has directed development of
numerous commercial and military training systems.
You can reach him at colin@boldmethod.com.

Images Courtesy:
Boldmethod, Boldmethod
Previous Story Next Story

Recommended Stories

What's The Difference This Is Why There's A 250

Between Approach Speed Knot Speed Limit Below
And Threshold Crossing 10,000 Feet
Speed?

How A Cracked Muffler Each Runway Stripe Is 120

Caused A Fatal Accident Feet Long. Here's What Else
Runway Markings Can Tell
You...

Latest Stories
Load More
Article IFR Light Aircraft Navigation Safety Weather

Improve your pilot skills. Get Boldmethod

flying tips and videos direct to your inbox.

Your Email

Sign Up

Support
support@boldmethod.com
720-663-7754

Contact
info@boldmethod.com
720-663-7754
facebook.com/boldmethod
@boldmethod
YouTube
More

About
About Boldmethod

©2019 Boldmethod, LLC Terms and Policies

Contact Us