NPA minima adjustments for a non-precision approach?

NPA minima adjustments for a non-precision approach?

• A. NPA minima + 200 ft cloud base and +1000 m RVR
• B. NPA minima unchanged
• C. NPA minima - 200 ft cloud base and -1000 m RVR
• D. NPA minima replaced by precision approach minima

Answer: (A)

Non-precision approaches give you lateral guidance only, so you rely on the published minimums for obstacle clearance and the ability to see the runway environment without vertical guidance. When conditions or operational factors reduce margin, authorities often require a safety uplift to those minima. This means raising both components of the NPA minimums: the cloud base (ceiling) and the visibility (RVR). The scenario in question uses a built-in conservative uplift of 200 ft to the cloud base and 1000 m to the visibility, resulting in higher minimums than the standard NPA. You would not keep them unchanged, and you wouldn’t replace them with precision minima unless a published precision approach exists for that runway. This upshift reflects adding a margin to account for the lack of vertical guidance and the associated safety risk.

Non-precision approaches give you lateral guidance only, so you rely on the published minimums for obstacle clearance and the ability to see the runway environment without vertical guidance. When conditions or operational factors reduce margin, authorities often require a safety uplift to those minima. This means raising both components of the NPA minimums: the cloud base (ceiling) and the visibility (RVR). The scenario in question uses a built-in conservative uplift of 200 ft to the cloud base and 1000 m to the visibility, resulting in higher minimums than the standard NPA. You would not keep them unchanged, and you wouldn’t replace them with precision minima unless a published precision approach exists for that runway. This upshift reflects adding a margin to account for the lack of vertical guidance and the associated safety risk.