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

Gotta remember that Thom's frame of reference is Europe, specifically
England. Although he flies/flew into US airspace, there is always the law of
primacy to consider....what did he learn first, our way or their way?

Bob Gardner

"PaulaJay1" wrote in message
...
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

wrote:

If there is no FAF what would preclude them from video mapping the approach gate
5 miles from the threshold?

The requirement for the approach gate is that it has to be 1 mile from
the FAF "and" at least 5 miles from the threshold. Without a FAF, there
can be no approach gate.

J Haggerty wrote:

wrote:

If there is no FAF what would preclude them from video mapping the approach gate
5 miles from the threshold?

The requirement for the approach gate is that it has to be 1 mile from
the FAF "and" at least 5 miles from the threshold. Without a FAF, there
can be no approach gate.

Then that means ATC can never vector to one of these on-airport approaches?

"KP" wrote in message ...

Can't speak for centers but even absent the requirement to have a
FAF (real or pseudo) to establish an approach gate, the probability
of a terminal facility cluttering up it's radar display with the FACs
for on-airport non-precision NDB, GPS, or even VOR approaches
is (or used to be) pretty slim.


So just put them on another video map and select it as needed.

wrote:

The requirement for the approach gate is that it has to be 1 mile from
the FAF "and" at least 5 miles from the threshold. Without a FAF, there
can be no approach gate.


Then that means ATC can never vector to one of these on-airport approaches?


Keep in mind that there are 2 types of "on-airport" approaches; ones
with FAF's, and those without FAF's. Those with FAFs have both an
initial segment and an intermediate segment. Radar vectors to a
procedure with a FAF will set you up onto either the initial or
intermediate segment of the procedure, prior to the FAF. Trying to
vector an aircraft to final for a no-FAF procedure would be akin to
vectoring an aircraft to intercept inside the FAF for a procedure that
has a FAF.

FAAH 7110.65 (controllers bible) states what is needed for controllers
to vector an aircraft to the final approach course. As far as I can tell
from reading the applicable paragraphs in 7110.65, it appears there is
no authorization for controllers to vector an aircraft to intercept
final for a no-FAF procedure, based on the requirement to intercept
prior to the FAF, and a no-FAF procedure does not have a FAF. You can
review this chapter at the following website;
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp5/atc0509.html

Also, the TERPS manual states the requirements for initial segments of a
procedure. In most cases, it states that radar vectors can be
substituted for the initial approach segment (see para 711 and para
230), but in the paragraph that governs on-airport NDB no-FAF procedures
(para 611), it does not give this option, and limits the initial segment
to overheading the navigation facility on a procedure turn. You can
review the TERPS manual at;
http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Directi...260.3_1-18.pdf

Based on the rules and regulations of those 2 manuals, I would say that
you're safe in saying that ATC can not normally vector to an on-airport
no-FAF NDB final. (I try to never say never, emergencies trump all regs!)

JPH

We customarily get vectors to final all the time on the NDB 22 SCH.
It has no FAF, and is a terminal approach.



On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:17:40 -0500, J Haggerty
wrote:

wrote:

The requirement for the approach gate is that it has to be 1 mile from
the FAF "and" at least 5 miles from the threshold. Without a FAF, there
can be no approach gate.


Then that means ATC can never vector to one of these on-airport approaches?


Keep in mind that there are 2 types of "on-airport" approaches; ones
with FAF's, and those without FAF's. Those with FAFs have both an
initial segment and an intermediate segment. Radar vectors to a
procedure with a FAF will set you up onto either the initial or
intermediate segment of the procedure, prior to the FAF. Trying to
vector an aircraft to final for a no-FAF procedure would be akin to
vectoring an aircraft to intercept inside the FAF for a procedure that
has a FAF.

FAAH 7110.65 (controllers bible) states what is needed for controllers
to vector an aircraft to the final approach course. As far as I can tell
from reading the applicable paragraphs in 7110.65, it appears there is
no authorization for controllers to vector an aircraft to intercept
final for a no-FAF procedure, based on the requirement to intercept
prior to the FAF, and a no-FAF procedure does not have a FAF. You can
review this chapter at the following website;
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp5/atc0509.html

Also, the TERPS manual states the requirements for initial segments of a
procedure. In most cases, it states that radar vectors can be
substituted for the initial approach segment (see para 711 and para
230), but in the paragraph that governs on-airport NDB no-FAF procedures
(para 611), it does not give this option, and limits the initial segment
to overheading the navigation facility on a procedure turn. You can
review the TERPS manual at;
http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Directi...260.3_1-18.pdf

Based on the rules and regulations of those 2 manuals, I would say that
you're safe in saying that ATC can not normally vector to an on-airport
no-FAF NDB final. (I try to never say never, emergencies trump all regs!)

JPH

wrote in message ...

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.

Thanks... I agree with all that... what is particularly interesting is how
this sort of approach is handled differently in different GPS databases,
with the KLN94 for example requiring use of OBS mode to prevent sequencing
through the procedure turn early and with the Garmin 430/530 including a
procedure turn before the sensor FAF.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Brad Z" wrote in message
news:HtUdc.5713$rg5.29836@attbi_s52...

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

That is correct... particularly least from the operational perspective of
flying the approach on various GPS units. Usually it is very clear when a
sensor FAF exists but in this case since Bryne is a published intersection
it is not immediately obvious that the FAF in the GPS database is not a
published FAF on the approach chart. On the KLN94 it becomes necessary to
engage OBS mode during the procedure turn to avoid prematurely sequencing
through Bryne.

The above seems like a small subtlety but it could easily be a source of
confusion flying the approach for real with a KLN94, whereas it is much more
clear using the Garmin 530. I will readily state that I have flown
uncountable numbers of GPS approaches both in my simulator and in airplanes
using just about all IFR GPS units out there, yet I definitely learned
something from flying this approach for the first time in the simulator and
it will change my approach to briefing GPS approaches in the future -- there
is always something new to learn. I have shown it to other pilots who
regularly fly GPS approaches as well and they agreed that the use of Bryne
as the pseudo-FAF creates a bit of a new "twist" to the variations of GPS
approaches out there.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Bill Zaleski wrote:
We customarily get vectors to final all the time on the NDB 22 SCH.
It has no FAF, and is a terminal approach.

I'm curious, what do they say in the clearance? Do they give a position
in relation to the NDB and an altitude to maintain until intercepting
the final segment?
Based on their own regulation, I don't see how they can legally do that.
Based on the procedure design, it's not authorized.

JPH

"KP" wrote in message
...

Didn't say it *couldn't* be done. Said it wasn't likely to be done.


If the radar coverage is available there's no reason not to have the
approach on a video map.



How many maps are available at your current facility?


Up to ten possible, we use six. The maps are digital now, no more glass
slides.



Do any of them show
all the non-precision FACs at low traffic satellite airports?


All are mapped where radar coverage allows vectors.