Precision FAF

[m4j2t]

where does is state specifically that the final approach fix is reached while intercepting the glideslope at or below the published altitude?

with regaurds to 121 operations can you be in the final approach segment above the published intercept altitude?

looking for a refernce--thanks

 

[satpak77]

IAP consists of IAF, Initial Approach Fix, the IF (middle part) Intermediate Fix, and the last part, the FAF, Final Approach Fix

the PUBLISHED FAF is reached when you are physically at or past the fix, defined in DME, cross radials, etc etc. It is not dependent on altitude (the "reaching" of the FAF as your post discusses). You could be high on the approach, but be inside the FAF. You could also be low on altitude, and be inside the FAF

Say WOOLE is the FAF, and on a normal approach, is the GS intercept point. Lets say for whatever reason you have NOT intercepted the GS and are high/low and Tower asks, are you inside WOOLE yet?

what is the answer? its either yes or no, period. (for 2 seconds you will be AT WOOLE but you see my point)

"Gear down point" is commonly taught to occur at the FAF, but if you intercept the GS from a "high intercept" (FYI: GS and/or localizor is only guaranteed 18 or was it 22 miles....) you can put gear down if you want. He11, you can put it down whereever you want, just put it down.

 

[SiuDude]

To expand on what satpak said:
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The intersection of the published intercept altitude with the glideslope/path, designated on approach charts by the lightning bolt symbol, is the precision FAF, however, when ATC directs a lower altitude, the resultant lower intercept position is then the FAF."

Looking at this chart:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0511/00026I27L.PDF

If ATC says "maintain 4000 until established, cleared for the approach," then ANVAL becomes your FAF.
If they tell you to maintain 2800 'till established, then Depot is the FAF.

In the first example, if you have a full scale glideslope deflection when passing ANVAL, ANVAL is still your FAF.
[/FONT]

 

[atldc9]

From the pilot controller glossary...

"FINAL APPROACH FIX- The fix from which the final approach (IFR) to an airport is executed and which identifies the beginning of the final approach segment. It is designated on Government charts by the Maltese Cross symbol for nonprecision approaches and the lightning bolt symbol for precision approaches; or when ATC directs a lower-than- published glideslope/path intercept altitude, it is the resultant actual point of the glideslope/path intercept."

It is not possible to be on the final approach segment of an instrument approach above the published intercept altitude by definition.

 

[TheBaron]

A good place to find the information is the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures FAA Order 8260.3B (TERPS). It's certainly more likely to be accurate than the many "experts" on flightinfo that have just enough knowledge to sound like they know what they're talking about
I tried to find a link to an online version but didn't have any luck...you may have to break down and buy a paper copy from the GPO if you really want to know. It's very boring technical reading...but you can only spend so many hours a day in the crashpad searching for porn on the internet.

satpak77...
IAP consists of IAF, Initial Approach Fix, the IF (middle part) Intermediate Fix, and the last part, the FAF, Final Approach Fix

atldc9...
It is not possible to be on the final approach segment of an instrument approach above the published intercept altitude by definition.

sometimes... There are plenty of approaches that don't have IAF's or Initial segments (radar required); plenty that don't have intermediate fixes, and plenty more with no FAF (NDB or VOR on the field). The majority (not all) of intermediate segment altitudes are minimums... not mandatory.

 

[Doc Holiday]

Check out atldc9's post. He cited a reference...I really don't see why there should be a debate.

 

[Dumbledore]

The reference is correct

Check out atldc9's post. He cited a reference...I really don't see why there should be a debate.

It's some of the stuff other people have tried to say that's debatable.

 

[satpak77]

sometimes... There are plenty of approaches that don't have IAF's or Initial segments (radar required); plenty that don't have intermediate fixes, and plenty more with no FAF (NDB or VOR on the field). The majority (not all) of intermediate segment altitudes are minimums... not mandatory.

My answer was the standard FAA IFR approach definition, based on the AIM and the 8083.15 handbook. In part:


AIM - 5-4-6. Approach Clearance

a. An aircraft which has been cleared to a holding fix and subsequently "cleared . . . approach" has not received new routing. Even though clearance for the approach may have been issued prior to the aircraft reaching the holding fix, ATC would expect the pilot to proceed via the holding fix (his/her last assigned route), and the feeder route associated with that fix (if a feeder route is published on the approach chart) to
the initial approach fix (IAF) to commence the approach.

​

FAA Controller Handbook - 4-8-1. APPROACH CLEARANCE​

a. Clear aircraft for "standard" or "special" instrument approach procedures only. To require an aircraft to execute a particular instrument approach procedure, specify in the approach clearance the name of the approach as published on the approach chart. Where more than one procedure is published on a single chart and a specific procedure is to be flown, amend the approach clearance to specify execution of the specific approach to be flown. If only one instrument approach of a particular type is published, the approach needs not be identified by the runway reference. An aircraft conducting an ILS/MLS approach when the glideslope/glidepath is reported out of service shall be advised at the time an approach clearance is issued. Standard Instrument Approach Procedures shall commence at an Initial Approach Fix or an Intermediate Approach Fix if there is not an Initial Approach Fix. Where adequate radar coverage exists, radar facilities may vector aircraft to the final approach course in accordance with para 5-9-1, Vectors to Final Approach Course.​

​

 

[TheBaron]

Read the book...all will be revealed

 

[Dumbledore]

My answer was the standard FAA IFR approach definition, based on the AIM and the 8083.15 handbook. In part:


AIM - 5-4-6. Approach Clearance

a. An aircraft which has been cleared to a holding fix and subsequently "cleared . . . approach" has not received new routing. Even though clearance for the approach may have been issued prior to the aircraft reaching the holding fix, ATC would expect the pilot to proceed via the holding fix (his/her last assigned route), and the feeder route associated with that fix (if a feeder route is published on the approach chart) to
the initial approach fix (IAF) to commence the approach.

​

FAA Controller Handbook - 4-8-1. APPROACH CLEARANCE​

a. Clear aircraft for "standard" or "special" instrument approach procedures only. To require an aircraft to execute a particular instrument approach procedure, specify in the approach clearance the name of the approach as published on the approach chart. Where more than one procedure is published on a single chart and a specific procedure is to be flown, amend the approach clearance to specify execution of the specific approach to be flown. If only one instrument approach of a particular type is published, the approach needs not be identified by the runway reference. An aircraft conducting an ILS/MLS approach when the glideslope/glidepath is reported out of service shall be advised at the time an approach clearance is issued. Standard Instrument Approach Procedures shall commence at an Initial Approach Fix or an Intermediate Approach Fix if there is not an Initial Approach Fix. Where adequate radar coverage exists, radar facilities may vector aircraft to the final approach course in accordance with para 5-9-1, Vectors to Final Approach Course.​

​

Yeah, but neither of these things answers the original question. The original question asked for a published reference for the definition of the FAF on a precision approach.

You're all wrapped around the axle about segmets and whatnot when the correct answer is located in two places - The Pilot Controller Glossary in the AIM and the Jeppesen introduction section - BOTH under Final Approach Fix.

There! That's where you find (officially) that the final approach segment of a precision approach begins either ON GS at the lowest altitude published for GS intercept, or upon intercepting GS when GS intercept is at any lower altitude authorized by ATC.

That's it. That's all. There's nothing more to debate!

 

[TheBaron]

Dumbledore has the correct definition...no debate
However...I wouldn't call the AIM or the intro section to the Jepp's the "official" source. They are only quoting the official (as in regulatory) source which is:
FAA Order 8260.3B
'nuff said

 

[Dumbledore]

However...I wouldn't call the AIM or the intro section to the Jepp's the "official" source. They are only quoting the official (as in regulatory) source which is:
FAA Order 8260.3B
'nuff said

Not quite. I'm sifting through my numerous PTSs and by golley if I'm not finding ANY reference whatsoever to FAAO 8260.3B. Hmmmm. I wonder what the official source for information on instrument procedures could be. I wouldn't be this thing they DO reference REAPEATEDLY called the AIM, would it???

As for the Jepp intro sxn, I agree that it is merely a recitation and actually far less of an "official" source but I would submit that its covereage is more internationally oriented for thiose who might need that. It covers a braoder spectrum of issues.

I know where the info comes from but that's not where pilots are expected to get it and actually, presupposing a lack of internet access, it's not REASONABLE to expect them to get it from 8260.3B. either.

Pilots are expectd to have a grasp of this information and the two easiest places to obtain it - reprint or not - is the AIM, and if you happen to have Jepps the intro sxn to those.

 

[satpak77]

Yeah, but neither of these things answers the original question. The original question asked for a published reference for the definition of the FAF on a precision approach.

You're all wrapped around the axle about segmets and whatnot when the correct answer is located in two places - The Pilot Controller Glossary in the AIM and the Jeppesen introduction section - BOTH under Final Approach Fix.

There! That's where you find (officially) that the final approach segment of a precision approach begins either ON GS at the lowest altitude published for GS intercept, or upon intercepting GS when GS intercept is at any lower altitude authorized by ATC.

That's it. That's all. There's nothing more to debate!

Dumble nobody is wrapped around the axle partner, I was expanding upon Barons comment about IAF's

 

[Dumbledore]

Okay, but...

Dumble nobody is wrapped around the axle partner, I was expanding upon Barons comment about IAF's

There seems to be an airing out of irrelevant information here. Sorry for snapping.

On a precision approach there really isn't a final approach fix - at least not technically. There is a point on the approach that is considered to be the end of the initial/intermediate approach segment and the beginning of the final approach segment. That point is determined by being on GS at the lowest altitude published for GS intercept for the approach. In some cases ATC may authorize a lower altitude for GS intercept - happens all the time at LAX. When this is the case the the interception of the GS at the lower authorized altitude is the point at which the final approach segment begins.

DME distances, cross radials, OMs, etc., have nothing to do with any of it on a purely precision approach. Those things are all there if the approach is being conducted as a non-precision apparoach (GS inop or GS transmitter OTS), or if the approach will terminate in a circling maneuver, thus necessitating abandonment of the electronic GS prior to reaching the MAP as defined for a precision approach - DA(H) and on GS. In such a case the non-precision MAP must be used because technically there is no way to determine the missed approach point once you leave the GS on an ILS. You need a place to start your clock.

None of this is intended to school you on the subject. If you know all this then you know it. There are others here who might not and all I'm trying to do is strip the non-essential stuff from the program.

 

[TheBaron]

Dumbledore...
You are correct in stating that the AIM is an accepted reference and any examiner would take what you have said as an excellent answer. My whole point in giving the reference is that you learn more when you put the effort into doing a little research versus just passively accepting the answers from chat board experts. As far as the TERPS not being in the PTS, you have to look a little closer. Pilots are expected to have a working knowledge of the FAR's (CFR 14).

Part 97 is titled "Standard Instument Approach Procedures", in part it says:

§ 97.20 General.

(a) This subpart prescribes standard instrument procedures and weather takeoff minimums based on the criteria contained in FAA Order 8260.3, U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPs), and other related Orders in the 8260 series that also address instrument procedure design criteria.

(b) Standard instrument procedures and associated supporting data adopted by the FAA are documented on FAA Forms 8260–3, 8260–4, 8260–5. Weather takeoff minimums are documented on FAA Form 8260–15A. These forms are incorporated by reference. The Director of the Federal Register approved this incorporation by reference pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The standard instrument procedures and weather takeoff minimums are available for examination at the FAA's Rules Docket (AGC–200) and at the National Flight Data Center, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

(c) Standard instrument procedures and weather takeoff minimums are depicted on aeronautical charts published by the FAA National Aeronautical Charting Office. These charts are available for purchase from the FAA's National Aeronautical Charting Office, Distribution Division, 6303 Ivy Lane, Suite 400, Greenbelt, MD 20770.

[Doc. No. FAA–2004–19247, 70 FR 23004, May 3, 2005]


My other point is...information in the AIM wasn't just pulled out of someone's butt. Information on Terminal Instrument Procedures (IAP's, DP's, SID's, STARS) comes from the TERPS, and by it's inclusion in Part 97, it is the regulatory source for all US standard instrument approach procedures. ICAO used it as their reference when they developed their IAP's as well as PAN-OPS and JAR-OPS.

Just the way I was raised. If I wanted to know something, my parents handed me a book and said "look it up."

 

[bigD]

Check out atldc9's post. He cited a reference...I really don't see why there should be a debate.

You're new here, aren't you? This is FlightInfo. There is ALWAYS a debate!

 

[Dumbledore]

I understand Baron

Well the ways you and I were raised seem to have a lot in common. I too have looked a lot of this crap up.

But ya know what? I've been flying for 28 years and have over 18,000 hours on seven jet type ratings (no bravado intended - just facts) and never once, in the heat of ANY moment, have I EVER had to know any more than the fact that I had better have a decent weather report by the time I reach GS intercept altitude as published on the chart or as cleared lower by ATC. That bit of regulatory info hasn't changed in all the time I've been working at this business.

Please understand that I mean no one here any disrespect about this. I salute your insistance that knowing how to derive the answer is a good start. it means you can do so at any time. But this stuff belongs in a classroom. On the line what matters is practical application of the restrictions imposed by the FARs. Not whether you can tell me what part of Part 97 the whole business comes from.

But hey, maybe there's a place in someone's heart for it. The more I fly the more I am absolutely CERTAIN of what I don't know.

On a different note, tell your friend in the avatar that she's gonna need more support than that. She's about to burst at the seams! Or perhaps that was the point!