Deltajax From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 19511 times:
I was talking with my instructor and he said even though it says in the 'time- speed' section on the approach chart "FAF to MAP" (which on a precision approach, the glideslope interception is the FAF) that you are supposed to start timing at the maltese cross, not the glideslope intercept. Does anyone know why this confusion exists?
Ralgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6 Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 19478 times:
Time is only valid on a non-precision approach, therefore you start timing at the non-precision final approach fix. This is one of the many reasons why I like Jeppesen plates better. Where it gives the times, it names the fix to start timing at rather than just saying "FAF".
Raggi From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 975 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 19464 times:
Timing starts when you are at the FAF for the nonprecision apch. ( for instance passing the outer marker on an ILS, then if you lose your GS you use LOC minimums and go missed apch when timing runs out. )
The GS interception is usually a few seconds before passing the maltese cross.
Philsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 19443 times:
Technically, on an ILS there is no FAF. A good "technique" is to time for the localizer as you cross what would be the LOC only FAF. However, most ILS where I fly have a DME associated with them. So timing really isn't necessary since they now become ILS/DME or LOC/DME approaches.
Ralgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 19418 times:
No, technically there is a FAF on an ILS.
From the Pilot/Controller Glossary: GLIDESLOPE INTERCEPT ALTITUDE- The minimum altitude to intercept the glideslope/path on a precision approach. The intersection of the published intercept altitude with the glideslope/path, designated on Government charts by the lightning bolt symbol, is the precision FAF; however, when the approach chart shows an alternative lower glideslope intercept altitude, and ATC directs a lower altitude, the resultant lower intercept position is then the FAF.
Philsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 19400 times:
I suggest you take a look at the Jepp manual. In addition, AFM 51-37, although for me it's been 20 years since I've looked at that manual. Those publications are quite clear about the concept of a FAF on an ILS. I do agree if you want to have a LOC backup and there is no DME associated with the MAP then you do have to time and the timing starts from the FAF. However, in a pure ILS there is technically no FAF. There might be an OM associated with the approach.
Ralgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 19346 times:
What part of "The intersection of the published intercept altitude with the glideslope/path, designated on Government charts by the lightning bolt symbol, is the precision FAF" was not understood here? The FAF is where the glideslope intercepts the published intercept altitude.
Jepp is not the FAA, nor is the Air Force. The Pilot/Controller Glossary is an addendum to the Aeronautical Information Manual, which is the (and I quote) "Official Guide to Basic Flight Information and ATC Procedures".
Jhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6197 posts, RR: 13 Reply 9, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 19321 times:
some controllers don't even understand this. I've been asked to report the FAF inbound, and so I'll do so at glideslope intercept (being at the correct altitude, of course), and then they'll gripe at me for not being at the LOM when making this report. Many times, they're in the same place; sometimes they aren't.
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
Philsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 19318 times:
Skyguy11, I guess I don't understand your question.
But I will try to answer what I think you're asking. Let's take a hypothetical approach, where the field elevation and TDZ are both at sea level 0'. The approach is an ILS/DME and the G/S intercept alt is at 5DME and 1500' and there is the maltese cross there indicating a FAF (I say loc only).
Suppose you are vectored in your altitude is 3000' and you are turned final at 15 miles, your approach clearance is "turn R/L Heading XXX intercept the localizer, cleared for the approach". Once you are established on the Loc and have intercepted the G/S you are on the approach. If what you were saying was true then you would have to leave 3000 on the localizer and then descend to 1500 as you would if the g/s was out because you are not on the final approach segment of the approach.
I can tell you in 35+ years of flying I have never had, in the US or anyplace else in the world a controller ask me to report the FAF on an ILS. If they ask anything they will ask to report the marker inbound.
However, for a localizer only, I have been asked on almost every approach to call the FAF.
Again, I'm not quite sure what it is your asking
UPDATE: Again, I disagree. I understand what you're saying about the glideslope intercept altitude, but again the OM would come into play on the approach. For example, if the field goes below minimums you can continue once you're inside the OM, not the FAF, because there isn't one.
Philsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 19298 times:
Ok, I finally found the reference I was looking for. It is in the Jeppesen web site and it talks about the "maltese cross" being the FAF for a localizer only approach and how on an ILS there is no final approach, only the final segment of the approach, ie., that part of the approach inside the OM. The OM in terms of TERPS is known as the Final Approach Point or the point at which the intermediate approach segment intersects the glide slope.
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2712 posts, RR: 48 Reply 14, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 19294 times:
I must agree with Philsquares....
You have a FAF for Non-Precision Approach
and a FAP for Precision Approach
On a Precision Approach plate you will also find a FAF, just in case you fly the Non-Precision Approach portion of the Approach (e.g: LOC only) but when you are on the Precision Appoach, you should not be talking FAF.
Philsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19291 times:
I have been trying to remember where and when but I have seen a precision approach without a localizer only option.
The symbology was such that there was no maltese cross only the electric arrow at the g/s intercept altitude.
Skyguy11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 19270 times:
It's obviously pointless arguing with each other... also funny how that FAA link you gave said nothing of precision vs nonprecision, nor did it mention an FAF; but you'll notice that under glideslope intercept altitude from the very same link it actually defines the FAF on a precision as being at GS intercept. The Jepp / AOPA link did not work for me.... no matter it's not the FAA.
The only approaches with a FAP (final approach point) are the kind where you fly outbound a fix, do a course reversal, and fly the final approach; these approaches also have no time.
Philsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 19264 times:
I didn't realize we were arguing. I gave you the TERPS reference and the way the FAA breaks down precision and non-precision approaches.
If you go digging in there you will find the FAA speaks of two different markings on approaches.
The first is the "maltese cross" which they specifically refer to in non-precision approaches. The other marking they refer to is the "lightening bolt". That is specifically referred to the recommended g/s intercept point and the final approach point. It goes on to talk about intercepting above or below the depicted altitude and if that it the case then the intercept point becomes the "final approach point".
As I said, I didn't realize we were arguing. I don't know what your background is, but I have been flying in the military, civil for over 35 years. Do I get things wrong, do I make mistakes, you bet. I do it every day!!!
But, in this case I am not mistaken. I know there is a great deal of confusion on this issue and I am just trying to clarify the point. I will agree that in reality they are almost the same thing. However, in the days of ILS/DME approaches, timing is almost a thing of the past on an ILS.
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2712 posts, RR: 48 Reply 20, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 19233 times:
Guys, can we get something clear here? There seems to be ONCE AGAIN a difference between worldwide ICAO terminology and US FAA terminology
ICAO is straight forward and as easy as can be:
You have a FAF for Non-Precision Approach
and a FAP for Precision Approach
Philsquares, you were looking for an example of a Precision Approach without Maltese cross to prove your point? Well, here you are... Just have a look at any CAT II approach plate worldwide! It is the most common example of a Precision Approach without possibility to 'downgrade' to a Non-Precision Approach (LOC only) I can come up with!
Will you find a Maltese cross on the profile? NO!
Why? Because a Maltese cross represents the FAF and on a Precision Approach, there is NO FAF!
As I have said before, the reason you'll find them on normal (CAT I) ILS approaches is because they are there for the Non-Precision Approach which is depicted on the same plate...
I hope this cleared things up?
Jderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1749 posts, RR: 31 Reply 21, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 19136 times:
this is the way i understand it:
on an ILS, glideslope interception is the final approach point...that's with the glideslop operative, now if the glideslope is out of service or whatever the case may be, it becomes a localizer only (non-precision) approach and so the maltese cross/lightning bolt is the designated final approach fix...
they are on the same chart for practical purposes, and the ILS charts even include localizer only minimums at the bottom...