If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
GPS approach step-down fixes
As far as I can see, step-down fixes on GPS approaches are always defined by
a distance to the threshold. Are there exceptions? Do GPS approaches exist with waypoints (forming part of the approach sequence) between the FAF and the runway threshold waypoint? Or is it guaranteed that after passing the FAF, my distance-to-waypoint will always be the distance to the threshold? Counter-examples useful. References to publications guaranteeing no counter-examples even better! Thanks Julian |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
GPS approach step-down fixes
Julian Scarfe wrote:
As far as I can see, step-down fixes on GPS approaches are always defined by a distance to the threshold. Are there exceptions? Do GPS approaches exist with waypoints (forming part of the approach sequence) between the FAF and the runway threshold waypoint? Or is it guaranteed that after passing the FAF, my distance-to-waypoint will always be the distance to the threshold? Counter-examples useful. References to publications guaranteeing no counter-examples even better! Thanks Julian The criteria are evolving and changing. You have to take each procedure as it is charted and as it appears in your database. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
GPS approach step-down fixes
"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message ...
As far as I can see, step-down fixes on GPS approaches are always defined by a distance to the threshold. Are there exceptions? Do GPS approaches exist with waypoints (forming part of the approach sequence) between the FAF and the runway threshold waypoint? Or is it guaranteed that after passing the FAF, my distance-to-waypoint will always be the distance to the threshold? Counter-examples useful. References to publications guaranteeing no counter-examples even better! Thanks Julian Did you mean strictly "distance to the threshold"? Where the Missed Approach Point is short of the threshold, stepdown fixes are likely to be defined by distance to the MAP. In Colorado, here are a few examples which illustrate that: KCAG (Craig) GPS Rwy 7 KDRO (Durango) GPS Rwy 2 KEGE (Eagle County) GPS-D KHDN (Hayden) RNAV (GPS) Y Rwy 10 KLXV (Leadville) GPS Rwy 16 KMTJ (Montrose) GPS Rwy 17, GPS Rwy 35 KRIL (Rifle) GPS Rwy 8, GPS Rwy 26 Most of those stepdown points are defined only by distance, but at least in the case of Hayden, ZULON is a named stepdown fix, at 1.9 nm to RAPVE, which is the MAP located 1 nm from the runway. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
GPS approach step-down fixes
John R. Copeland wrote:
"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message ... As far as I can see, step-down fixes on GPS approaches are always defined by a distance to the threshold. Are there exceptions? Do GPS approaches exist with waypoints (forming part of the approach sequence) between the FAF and the runway threshold waypoint? Or is it guaranteed that after passing the FAF, my distance-to-waypoint will always be the distance to the threshold? Counter-examples useful. References to publications guaranteeing no counter-examples even better! Thanks Julian Did you mean strictly "distance to the threshold"? Where the Missed Approach Point is short of the threshold, stepdown fixes are likely to be defined by distance to the MAP. In Colorado, here are a few examples which illustrate that: KCAG (Craig) GPS Rwy 7 KDRO (Durango) GPS Rwy 2 KEGE (Eagle County) GPS-D KHDN (Hayden) RNAV (GPS) Y Rwy 10 KLXV (Leadville) GPS Rwy 16 KMTJ (Montrose) GPS Rwy 17, GPS Rwy 35 KRIL (Rifle) GPS Rwy 8, GPS Rwy 26 Most of those stepdown points are defined only by distance, but at least in the case of Hayden, ZULON is a named stepdown fix, at 1.9 nm to RAPVE, which is the MAP located 1 nm from the runway. As I said: "The criteria are evolving and changing. You have to take each procedure as it is charted and as it appears in your database." |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
GPS approach step-down fixes
"John R. Copeland" wrote in message
... Did you mean strictly "distance to the threshold"? Where the Missed Approach Point is short of the threshold, stepdown fixes are likely to be defined by distance to the MAP. You're right, I meant distance to MAP, not distance to threshold. So perhaps that changes the question into whether there are waypoints on the approach between the FAF and the MAP. KHDN (Hayden) RNAV (GPS) Y Rwy 10 but at least in the case of Hayden, ZULON is a named stepdown fix, at 1.9 nm to RAPVE, which is the MAP located 1 nm from the runway. OK, good example. So when I pass INEDE (the FAF) inbound on that approach, what does my distance-to-waypoint read? 3.5, counting down to ZULON, or 5.4 counting down to RAPVE? Julian |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
GPS approach step-down fixes
"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message ...
"John R. Copeland" wrote in message ... KHDN (Hayden) RNAV (GPS) Y Rwy 10 but at least in the case of Hayden, ZULON is a named stepdown fix, at 1.9 nm to RAPVE, which is the MAP located 1 nm from the runway. OK, good example. So when I pass INEDE (the FAF) inbound on that approach, what does my distance-to-waypoint read? 3.5, counting down to ZULON, or 5.4 counting down to RAPVE? Julian I've run several other examples through the GNS480 simulator, and they all have computed a smooth glide path from the FAF to the MAP, displaying nothing regarding the named stepdown fixes. The distance counts down from the FAF to the MAP, as in your supposition. I don't know of any approaches near me with suitable stepdown fixes to try actually flying one for real. But previously I've found the simulator to be very faithful to the actual equipment. If you have the GNS430/530 simulator, try running some approaches on it. It might behave differently, since it would not supply vertical guidance. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
GPS approach step-down fixes
"John R. Copeland" wrote in message
.. . If you have the GNS430/530 simulator, try running some approaches on it. It might behave differently, since it would not supply vertical guidance. Thanks, I'll give it a go. Julian |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
GPS approach step-down fixes
"Peter" wrote in message ...
The other question I would ask here is whether an FAA approved IFR GPS is *capable* of continuously displaying the distance to the MAP, during the flight from the FAF to the MAP, if there are *any* waypoints between the two. I don't think it is. I don't think it's possible to have FAF X Y Z MAP and somehow force the GPS to display the distance *to the MAP* while one is flying past X,Y,Z. The GPS will always display the distance to the next waypoint in the database. In other words, I don't think it's possible to get the GPS to produce a DME-like distance readout. One way to achieve a distance readout to some waypoint which is past the current one would be to have a sort of "invisible" attribute on a waypoint (in the GPS database) causing the GPS to ignore it for the distance calculation. Yes, it is possible for at least some GPSs to do what you doubt. I don't have a TSO-C129 GPS to compare with, but my TSO-C146 unit will display distance to MAP, ignoring stepdowns, but possibly only when it can compute an uninterrupted glide path to MAP. In that case, even though named stepdown fixes exist, they aren't used. That's the behavior I've seen in the U.S.; I don't know the rules behind it. Of course, in the UK, with EGNOS not yet available, TSO-C146 units could not compute that glide path, so I shouldn't try to guess what they'd do without augmentation. But I'd expect them to revert to TSO-C129-like behavior. I think Julian may experiment with a Garmin 430/530 simulator, and he'll surely tell us if he turns up behavior different from the GNS480. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
IFR Approach questions | Roy Smith | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | November 7th 05 02:11 AM |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
Canadian holding procedures | Derrick Early | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | July 22nd 04 04:03 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |