Where's the FAF?

Captain

Captain

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 12, 2012
Messages
8,002
Location
NOYB
Display Name
Display name:
First Officer
Okay, I run into this all the freaking time. I fly with ATPs who screw this up...

You're flying an ILS. Where is the dag gum FAF? I'll give you a hint...there is NO maltese cross associated with it.


It makes a difference as if you fly non-91 ops then if the Wx drops after the FAF you can keep going. Useful to know on that weird approach where tower starts giving info you don't want to hear...
 
Captain said:
Okay, I run into this all the freaking time. I fly with ATPs who screw this up...

You're flying an ILS. Where is the dag gum FAF? I'll give you a hint...there is NO maltese cross associated with it.
Click to expand...

It's where the glideslope intersects the published intercept altitude.
 
Teller1900 said:
There is no FAF on an ILS.
Click to expand...

From the P/CG:

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.
 
roncachamp said:
It's where the glideslope intersects the published intercept altitude.
Click to expand...


I had this question on the checkride. Examiner wanted to see that I could point out the lightning bolt (gs intercept) as the FAF for the ILS and the Maltese Cross as the FAF for the LOC. They are pretty close together on the approach we looked at so it is a potential gotcha for someone
 
I haven't seen the correct answer yet. It's the LOWEST published altitude for glide slope intercept. Many approaches have several intercept altitudes depending on what ATC clears you. Often they are annotated in the notes.

Often this comes into play for commercial pilots as once past the FAF we can continue if visibility reports deteriorate from that point on. At some places that FAF can happen at 5,000 AGL plus so we're looking at a ton of time where if tower says, "RVR 1,000, or 1/4sm" then you can keep going. If you don't know and you're outside the maltese cross then you may go around.

Okay, it's a small point. But there is a chance it would be a good thing to know...



By the way. On Jepps, the ILS FAF is ALWAYS annotated as the end of the ILS arrow. There may be notes making it lower, but the highest alt is the end of the arrow.
 
The final approach segment (or precision FAF if you would prefer) on an ILS begins at glideslope intercept at the minimum glideslope intercept altitude. Always ask for the latest RVR readout inside that point... :D
 
Captain said:
I haven't seen the correct answer yet. It's the LOWEST published altitude for glide slope intercept. Many approaches have several intercept altitudes depending on what ATC clears you. Often they are annotated in the notes.
Click to expand...

I believe those are vanishing.
 
roncachamp said:
From the P/CG:

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.
Click to expand...

BTW, this is correct and I said I hadn't seen the correct answer yet. It's just that the bolded part ended and the non-bolded part described what I was saying about 'lowest published altitude'.
 
roncachamp said:
I believe those are vanishing.
Click to expand...

Maybe. I still see them though. KDEN ILS17R. Cross JOULE at 7,000 and FAF is 9,000 with a note that FAF is 7,000 'when assigned by ATC'. See my point?
 
But it's not the lowest published altitude. It's the published glideslope intercept you are AUTHORIZED to use. If ATC doesn't tell you to use the alternate intercept altitude, the regular one is the one that determines the FAF.
 
Captain said:
I haven't seen the correct answer yet. It's the LOWEST published altitude for glide slope intercept. Many approaches have several intercept altitudes depending on what ATC clears you. Often they are annotated in the notes.

Often this comes into play for commercial pilots as once past the FAF we can continue if visibility reports deteriorate from that point on. At some places that FAF can happen at 5,000 AGL plus so we're looking at a ton of time where if tower says, "RVR 1,000, or 1/4sm" then you can keep going. If you don't know and you're outside the maltese cross then you may go around.

Okay, it's a small point. But there is a chance it would be a good thing to know...



By the way. On Jepps, the ILS FAF is ALWAYS annotated as the end of the ILS arrow. There may be notes making it lower, but the highest alt is the end of the arrow.
Click to expand...

All of the multiple GS intercept altitudes higher than the charted PFAF have been eliminated that have step down minimum altitudes, many of them in the March 8, 2012 chart update cycle. Those that did not make the update cycle had the note permitting multiple higher GS intercept altitudes removed by NOTAM. The reason this was done was because the note was misleading as the pilot still had to comply with any step down minimum altitude requirements, which meant the glideslope could not be followed on a hot day.
 
Captain said:
Maybe. I still see them though. KDEN ILS17R. Cross JOULE at 7,000 and FAF is 9,000 with a note that FAF is 7,000 'when assigned by ATC'. See my point?
Click to expand...

Interesting case. There isn't a NOTAM eliminating the note, but there are no step downs on the approach and the note authorizes a lower GS intercept than the charted PFAF rather than a higher GS intercept altitude. The higher intercept altitude with step downs is the area being addressed by the recent changes, so I guess it doesn't apply to this approach. Thanks for pointing this approach out.
 
John Collins said:
Interesting case. There isn't a NOTAM eliminating the note, but there are no step downs on the approach and the note authorizes a lower GS intercept than the charted PFAF rather than a higher GS intercept altitude. The higher intercept altitude with step downs is the area being addressed by the recent changes, so I guess it doesn't apply to this approach. Thanks for pointing this approach out.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.

That approach should have been designed with two final approach segments, which would trigger 121.651 (c) in either case.

The last major amendment (Amendment 3) was made in 2005.
 
aterpster said:
No it doesn't.

That approach should have been designed with two final approach segments, which would trigger 121.651 (c) in either case.

The last major amendment (Amendment 3) was made in 2005.
Click to expand...

So, is it an error that will be corrected by NOTAM, but hasn't yet been?
 
Well, there seems to be interest on this. I spent 5 minutes or so and found a few more. I will agree there are fewer now than there were. I remember there used to be a ton of them in KORD and now I just found one.

KLAX ILS 24L
KORD ILS 4R
KMIA ILS 8R
KMIA ILS 9
KMIA ILS 27
 
John Collins said:
So, is it an error that will be corrected by NOTAM, but hasn't yet been?
Click to expand...

I see no reason why it is in error.

It is quite different than the multiple intercept points, all of which lead to one final approach segment.
 
Captain said:
Well, there seems to be interest on this. I spent 5 minutes or so and found a few more. I will agree there are fewer now than there were. I remember there used to be a ton of them in KORD and now I just found one.

KLAX ILS 24L
KORD ILS 4R
KMIA ILS 8R
KMIA ILS 9
KMIA ILS 27
Click to expand...

!FDC 2/4168 (KLAX A0198/12) LAX FI/T IAP LOS ANGELES INTL, LOS ANGELES, CA. ILS OR LOC RWY 24L, AMDT 26... DELETE NOTE: LOC PROCEDURE NA DURING SIMULTANEOUS OPERATIONS. DELETE PROFILE NOTE: WHEN ASSIGNED BY ATC, INTERCEPT GLIDEPATH AT 4000.

!FDC 2/6031 (KORD A1978/12) ORD FI/P IAP CHICAGO O'HARE INTL, CHICAGO, IL. ILS OR LOC RWY 4R, AMDT 6L... CHART NOTE: SIMULTANEOUS APPROACH AUTHORIZED WITH RWY 4L. DELETE PLANVIEW AND PROFILE NOTE: 2500 WHEN DIRECTED BY ATC. THIS IS ILS OR LOC RWY 4R, AMDT 6M.

!FDC 2/5860 (KMIA A0245/12) MIA FI/T IAP MIAMI INTL, MIAMI, FL. ILS OR LOC RWY 8R, AMDT 30A... S-ILS 8R: DA 450/HAT 442 ALL CATS. VIS RVR 5000 ALL CATS. S-LOC 8R: VIS CAT A/B/C RVR 5000, CAT D RVR 6000. NOTE: FOR INOPERATIVE MALSR, INCREASE S-ILS 8 ALL CATS VISIBILITY TO 1 1/2 MILE. CHANGE NOTE TO READ: SIMULTANEOUS APPROACH AUTHORIZED WITH RWY 8L AND RWY 9. DISREGARD NOTE: S-LOC MINIMA NA DURING SIMULTANEOUS OPERATIONS. DISREGARD PROFILE NOTE: WHEN ASSIGNED BY ATC, INTERCEPT GLIDEPATH AT COPRA AT 3000. DISTANCE LAWNN TO MAP 3.24 NM OR AT 3.10 DME. VDP NA. TIME/DISTANCE TABLE: 60=3:14, 90=2:10, 120=1:37, 150=1:18, 180=1:05

!FDC 2/3119 (KMIA A0109/12) MIA FI/P IAP MIAMI INTL, MIAMI, FL. ILS OR LOC RWY 27, AMDT 25... CHANGE NOTE TO READ: SIMULTANEOUS APPROACH AUTHORIZED WITH ILS OR LOC RWY 26L. DELETE NOTE: S-LOC MINIMA NA DURING SIMULTANEOUS OPERATION. DELETE PROFILE NOTE: WHEN ASSIGNED BY ATC, INTERCEPT GLIDEPATH AT SARCO AT 3000. THIS IS ILS OR LOC RWY 27, AMDT 25A.

!FDC 2/3118 (KMIA A0108/12) MIA FI/P IAP MIAMI INTL, MIAMI, FL. ILS OR LOC RWY 9, AMDT 9B... CHANGE NOTE TO READ: SIMULTANEOUS APPROACH AUTHORIZED WITH ILS OR LOC RWY 8R. DELETE PROFILE NOTE: 1500 WHEN DIRECTED BY ATC. THIS IS ILS OR LOC RWY 9, AMDT 9C.
 
LIB

Nice work. That's what I get for doing minimal research!
 
OK, it's probably not worth pursuing, but I don't understand why you commented in your post #15 while quoting my comments from post #13 with "No it doesn't". Maybe it was your way of saying you agree with the comment, in which case I was confused by your wording.
 
John Collins said:
OK, it's probably not worth pursuing, but I don't understand why you commented in your post #15 while quoting my comments from post #13 with "No it doesn't". Maybe it was your way of saying you agree with the comment, in which case I was confused by your wording.
Click to expand...

My "No it doesn't" was meant with the meaning, "I agree with you." Perhaps I should have said, "Indeed it doesn't."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top