wrote:

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.


You're partly right, this is a GPS overlay of an existing NDB N0-FAF
procedure, but there is no pseudo-FAF on the procedure. You're probably
thinking about the Computer Navigation Fixes (CNF) added to several
overlays, but BRYNE INT is a stepdown fix that is an integral part of
the NDB procedure, and since it's an existing intersection, GPS can also
use it even though there is no CNF. This procedure does not have a FAF.
The MDA is 1840 for NDB only, but if you are using the NDB and can
pick up the VOR intersection, or are using GPS you can go down to 1740
at BRYNE INT (unless you're using the Pittsburgh altimeter setting).
The procedure designer could have created a FAF on the procedure, but
that would have created an extra requirement for whatever equipment was
used to create the FAF (DME, crossing radial, bearing, etc). If they had
done that, then the failure of that other equipment, or lack of ability
to receive the equipment on the aircraft would have rendered the
procedure unusable.
By using the SDF instead of a FAF, an aircraft still has the ability to
fly the procedure without additional equipment.

JPH