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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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

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.

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