Semi-related question: Can vectors be issued for this type of approach? In
addition to the verbiage of "vectors for the approach" it was mentioned that
ATC is required to specify distance from the FAF. Can ATC just provide a
vector to intercept the approach course and provide distance to the missed
approach point / Airport / navaid? I've only flown one or two of these as
full practice approaches, so I'm curious if there was anything different
about them.

Brad

wrote in message ...


Richard Kaplan wrote:

I cannot find a charted final approach fix on the GPS 23 approach to
KUCP
(New Castle, PA):

http://download.aopa.org/iap/2004021...gps_rwy_23.pdf

The Garmin 530 and UPSAT GX50 both consider Bryne intersection to be the
FAF, but there is no Maltese cross.

Any ideas? Can an approach exist without a charted FAF? Is there an
alternate nomenclature to replace the Maltese cross?

Jeppesen plates show the same situation.

Richard,

You'are a CFI-I and you don't know the answer to that question? First,
it's
an overlay IAP, so it's really an NDB approach with GPS overlay
authorization
added. Second, the primary approach--the NDB--is what is known in TERPs
as
an "On Airport, NO-FAF NDB instrument approach procedure." Third, because
On-Aiport VOR and NDB IAPs, by definition, have no FAF, the industry added
a
Sensor "FAF" to these on-airport IAPs, so that the GPS avionics would have
a
psuedo-FAF to trigger the approach mode. Jeppesen issued a briefing
bulletin
on all this several years ago, and it is mention, albiet briefly, in the
AIM.

In reality, with a on-airport, No-FAF VOR or NDB IAP, you are in the final
segment as soon as you complete the procedure turn.