top of page

DA vs. MDA: The IFR Minimums Difference That Changes How You Fly the Approach

Every instrument approach eventually asks you the same question: Can I keep going, or do I go missed? The chart answers that with minimums—but how those minimums work depends on whether you’re flying to a DA (Decision Altitude) or an MDA (Minimum Descent Altitude).


DA and MDA aren’t just different numbers on an approach plate. They drive different descent techniques, different cockpit flows, and different ways pilots get into trouble.



Study this full length lesson (video, podcast, flashcards, and quiz) here: Full Length Lesson >


The 10,000-foot view

DA (Decision Altitude)

  • Used on precision approaches and approaches with vertical guidance (e.g., ILS, LPV, LNAV/VNAV).

  • You descend on a glidepath to the DA.

  • At DA, you either continue (if required visual references are in sight and you can land) or go missed immediately.


Think: “continue or climb—right now.”


MDA (Minimum Descent Altitude)

  • Used on non precision approaches (e.g., VOR, LOC-only, LNAV).

  • You descend to MDA and level off.

  • You can continue at MDA until reaching the MAP (Missed Approach Point).

  • You may not descend below MDA until you have the required visual references and can make a normal landing.


Think: “level at the floor and look for the runway.”


Why DA feels smoother (and usually safer)

DA approaches are designed for continuous descent:

  • You intercept a glidepath

  • You maintain a stable descent profile

  • You reach the decision point while already on a normal path to landing


That design tends to support stabilized approach criteria better, because you’re not doing the “descend, level, descend” pattern that non precision approaches can encourage.


Key operational difference: At DA, if you don’t have what you need, you execute the missed approach immediately—no leveling at DA to “take another second.”


Why MDA requires more discipline

MDA approaches often tempt pilots into “dive-and-drive”:

  1. Descend aggressively to MDA to get down early

  2. Level off

  3. Then push down again when the runway appears


That’s where unstable approaches are born: high workload, big pitch/power changes, rushed configuration, and sometimes a late descent that eats up runway.


The safer technique many pilots use for MDA approaches is a CDFA (Constant Descent Final Approach)-style profile—descending continuously to a planned point—but with one important constraint:

  • You still cannot go below the MDA until you have the required visual references.


So even when flying a smooth descent, you treat MDA as a hard floor.


The decision moment: DA vs. MDA

At DA

You need:

  • Required visual references (runway environment)

  • And the ability to make a safe landing


If not: missed approach now.


At MDA

You can:

  • Level at MDA

  • Continue to the MAP at MDA

  • Look for the runway environment


If you reach the MAP without the required visual references: missed approach.


That difference matters when weather is right at minimums:

  • DA approaches usually give you a single, crisp decision point.

  • MDA approaches can feel like a “rolling decision” all the way to the MAP—which can lead to “pressing” if you’re not disciplined.


The plate cues: how to know what you’re flying

On the minima section you’ll see:

  • DA (or sometimes DA(H)) for vertical guidance approaches

  • MDA for non precision


You may also see “DH” (Decision Height), especially on ILS—same concept, different reference (height above touchdown zone elevation).


A quick mental cue:

  • If you have an electronic glidepath and a published DA, it’s a “decision point” approach.

  • If the final segment is basically “descend to a floor and stay there,” it’s an MDA approach.


Common traps pilots fall into

Trap #1: Treating DA like an MDA

Leveling at DA to “see if it shows up” is not how DA is meant to be flown. The missed should be immediate if you don’t have the required references.


Trap #2: Treating MDA like DA

Some pilots mistakenly think they must go missed the instant they hit MDA if they don’t see the runway. Nope—you can continue to the MAP at MDA.


Trap #3: Descending below MDA early

This is the big one. On non precision approaches, it’s easy to “cheat” below MDA while chasing the runway lights or a black-hole illusion at night. MDA is a hard floor until the approach becomes visual and the landing is assured.


Trap #4: Confusing MAP timing/identification

MDA approaches often rely on timing or DME/GPS distance. If you’re hazy on where the MAP is, you can either go missed too early (wasteful) or too late (dangerous). Brief it like it matters—because it does.


A pilot-friendly way to brief minimums

Try this quick script in your approach brief:


If it’s DA

  • “Minimums are DA ____. At DA: land or go missed—no delay.”


If it’s MDA

  • “Minimums are MDA ____. Level at MDA, continue to MAP at ____, descend only with required references and a normal landing.”


That 5 seconds of clarity prevents 80% of minimums confusion.


Bottom line

DA is a decision point on a stabilized descent: continue or miss immediately. MDA is a hard floor: level off, continue to the MAP, descend only when visual and landing is assured.


If you build your technique around that difference—especially resisting the urge to rush or “salvage” an approach—your IFR flying gets smoother and safer fast.



Study Full Aviation Courses:

wifiCFI's full suite of aviation courses has everything you need to go from brand new to flight instructor and airline pilot! Check out any of the courses below for free:


Study Courses:


Checkride Lesson Plans:


Teaching Courses:



 
 
bottom of page