If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why is ADF or Radar Required on MFD ILS RWY 32 Approach Plate? | S. Ramirez | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | April 2nd 04 11:13 AM |
Why an NDB approach with a miss to an intersection? | Ben Jackson | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | March 25th 04 03:53 AM |
Changes to Aircraft Approach Categories?! | skyliner | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | February 9th 04 08:55 PM |
Completing the Non-precision approach as a Visual Approach | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 45 | November 20th 03 05:20 AM |
IR checkride story! | Guy Elden Jr. | Instrument Flight Rules | 16 | August 1st 03 09:03 PM |