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

Normal verbage: 6 miles from Hunter, trun left heading xxx maintain
xx until established, cleared..


On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:13:19 -0500, J Haggerty
wrote:

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

What altitude do they assign? Is it 2400? Or higher?

Bill Zaleski wrote:
Normal verbage: 6 miles from Hunter, trun left heading xxx maintain
xx until established, cleared..


On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:13:19 -0500, J Haggerty
wrote:


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

2400' until established.


On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:35:41 -0500, J Haggerty
wrote:

What altitude do they assign? Is it 2400? Or higher?

Bill Zaleski wrote:
Normal verbage: 6 miles from Hunter, trun left heading xxx maintain
xx until established, cleared..


On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:13:19 -0500, J Haggerty
wrote:


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

The Garmin 300XL is the same way. Whatever fix you're going to cross twice
in a row you need to put it in Hold mode before you go over it the first
time.
I've seen some like this with the NDB on the airport where the psuedo-FAF is
NOT shown on the FAA IAP charts, but is shown on the route page on the
GPS. So you need to scan the route page to find it so you can get it in
Hold mode at the correct time or it messes up the sequencing.


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

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

"KP" wrote
Didn't say it *couldn't* be done. Said it wasn't likely to be done. So the
concern over getting vectors to final is probably going to be moot.

Just FYI, my home base (EYQ) in the Houston terminal area has exactly
this kind of approach. It used to have a GPS overlay just like this
approach does, but that went away and a separate GPS approach was
created with a slightly lower MDA.

Vectors to final are provided as a matter of course - I've never shot
the full approach except in training.

Michael

Sounds like ATC isn't abiding by their own regulations.
Consider also that the procedure designer can not use a PT completion
altitude higher than 2400 based on the full 10 mile PT length
(completion altitude must be within 1500' of MDA). If the procedure had
a 5 mile PT distance (which it doesn't), the maximum completion altitude
would be limited to 1900 (must be within 1000' of MDA), based on the
design constraints of the TERPS manual for the descent gradient on an
NDB no-FAF procedure.
So, as far as I can tell, ATC is not only ignoring their own rules on
vectors to final; they are also exceeding the maximum allowable descent
gradient based on the procedure design.
I'll run it by the New York FPO to get their feelings on it; the one
I'll talk to is a retired controller and a procedures specialist.
JPH

Bill Zaleski wrote:
2400' until established.


On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:35:41 -0500, J Haggerty
wrote:


What altitude do they assign? Is it 2400? Or higher?

Bill Zaleski wrote:

Normal verbage: 6 miles from Hunter, trun left heading xxx maintain
xx until established, cleared..


On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:13:19 -0500, J Haggerty
wrote:



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

Richard Kaplan wrote:

"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.


It didn't help that the IAP was charted incorrectly with respect to RASS
minimums, either. The following NOTAM was issued by AVN-100 yesterday:

!FDC 4/3217 UCP FI/T NEW CASTLE MUNI, NEW CASTLE, PA. NDB OR GPS RWY 23,
AMDT 2. CHANGE NOTE TO READ: USE YOUNGSTOWN ALTIMETER SETTING; IF NOT
RECEIVED, USE PITTSBURGH ALTIMETER SETTING AND INCREASE ALL MDA'S 80 FEET.