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.

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.

Just curious, how would vectors to the NDB final fit in with the
requirements to vector outside the approach gate if no approach gate
exists? (There is no FAF)

FAAH 7110.65 Section 9. Radar Arrivals

5-9-1. VECTORS TO FINAL APPROACH COURSE

Except as provided in para 7-4-2, Vectors for Visual Approach, vector
arriving aircraft to intercept the final approach course:

a. At least 2 miles outside the approach gate unless one of the
following exists:

1. When the reported ceiling is at least 500 feet above the MVA/MIA and
the visibility is at least 3 miles (report may be a PIREP if no weather
is reported for the airport), aircraft may be vectored to intercept the
final approach course closer than 2 miles outside the approach gate but
no closer than the approach gate.

2. If specifically requested by the pilot, aircraft may be vectored to
intercept the final approach course inside the approach gate but no
closer than the final approach fix.

EXCEPTION. Conditions 1 and 2 above do not apply to RNAV aircraft being
vectored for a GPS or RNAV approach.


AIM Pilot/Controller Glossary
APPROACH GATE- An imaginary point used within ATC as a basis for
vectoring aircraft to the final approach course. The gate will be
established along the final approach course 1 mile from the final
approach fix on the side away from the airport and will be no closer
than 5 miles from the landing threshold.




Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"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.

"J Haggerty" wrote in message
news:GwWdc.10755$wb4.9646@okepread02...

Just curious, how would vectors to the NDB final fit in with the
requirements to vector outside the approach gate if no approach gate
exists? (There is no FAF)


Interesting. It appears the definition of Approach Gate was altered at some
point. As I recall, it did not formerly refer specifically to the FAF, but
to the outer marker or the point used in lieu of the outer marker.

J Haggerty wrote:

Just curious, how would vectors to the NDB final fit in with the
requirements to vector outside the approach gate if no approach gate
exists? (There is no FAF)

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

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

J Haggerty wrote:

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.

Normally the pseudo-FAF would be located 4 miles prior to the NDB. But, since this
on-airport, No-FAF NDB has a stepdown fix 3.5 miles from the runway Jeppesen coded
the CNF at that point, and called it the "FAF" so for GPS purposes it is the sensor
fix.