Where is the FAF on the GPS 23 approach to KUCP?

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 Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

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.

I'll give Richard the benefit of the doubt that the inclusion of the Bryne
intersection makes this approach just a bit different from your typical
on-airport "No FAF" out-n-back approach. The Bryne intersection only serves
as a step-down when using the Pittsburgh altimeter setting. While it serves
to aid in situational awareness when flying the approach without GPS, it
does not serve as a FAF. The fact that there is no timing information from
FAF to MAP is another clue.

Brad Z

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...

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 Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

In article m, "Richard
Kaplan" writes:

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?


My refference is Trevor Thom's Instrument Flying.


He says:

"The FAF is marked on IAP charts with a maltese cross or a lighting bolt
symbol. Where no final approach fix is shown, final descent should not be
commenced until the airplane is established within +or- 5 deg of the final
approach course."

This is confusing to me as it says it is marked and then says what to do when
it isn't. If I were flying it, I would assume Bryne (though assumptions on
fimal are dangerous). Another interesting point, for flying the NDB, it
doesn't say VOR required.

Chuck

"PaulaJay1" wrote in message
...

Another interesting point, for flying the NDB, it doesn't say VOR
required.


Bryne is not required to be identified unless you are using the Pittsburgh
altimeter setting and need to use it as a stepdown fix. Besides, I've never
seen a "VOR required" note on an approach. Anyone else?

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.

Brad Z wrote:

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

Well, you have built-in "DME" if you're using GPS to fly this type of approach,
so you would know when you're within 10 miles. Bigger question is whether the
TAC facility would have this type of IAP video mapped for vectors.

"Brad Z" wrote in message
news:83Vdc.3108$xn4.16249@attbi_s51...

Semi-related question: Can vectors be issued for this type
of approach?


Yes.



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.


ATC must issue position information relative to a fix on the final approach
course. If none is portrayed on the radar display, or if none is prescribed
in the procedure, position information is issued relative to the
navigational aid which provides final approach course guidance or relative
to the airport.

Brad Z wrote:

I'll give Richard the benefit of the doubt that the inclusion of the Bryne
intersection makes this approach just a bit different from your typical
on-airport "No FAF" out-n-back approach. The Bryne intersection only serves
as a step-down when using the Pittsburgh altimeter setting. While it serves
to aid in situational awareness when flying the approach without GPS, it
does not serve as a FAF. The fact that there is no timing information from
FAF to MAP is another clue.

*Every* on-airport, no-FAF NRB orVOR IAP approved for GPS overlay has a sensor
FAF. It is not unique to this location. What is different about this location
is that BRYNE is a stepdown fix for optional lower minimums, but nonetheless it
becomes the sensor FAF when it's tagged as "FAF" in the database. And, this
isn't the only on-airport, no-FAF IAP with an optional stepdown fix. Those have
been around for years, long before GPS.

Brad Z wrote:

I'll give Richard the benefit of the doubt that the inclusion of the Bryne
intersection makes this approach just a bit different from your typical
on-airport "No FAF" out-n-back approach. The Bryne intersection only serves
as a step-down when using the Pittsburgh altimeter setting. While it serves
to aid in situational awareness when flying the approach without GPS, it
does not serve as a FAF. The fact that there is no timing information from
FAF to MAP is another clue.

*Every* on-airport, no-FAF NRB orVOR IAP approved for GPS overlay has a sensor
FAF. It is not unique to this location. What is different about this location
is that BRYNE is a stepdown fix for optional lower minimums, but nonetheless it
becomes the sensor FAF when it's tagged as "FAF" in the database. And, this
isn't the only on-airport, no-FAF IAP with an optional stepdown fix. Those have
been around for years, long before GPS.