FAF for ILS 25L
short flights long nights
Umm....I don't have one in front of me...but isn't it on the chart?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Down South
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAF/FAP both designate the start of the final approach segment and if you don't know how to determine the location of the FAF or FAP you shouldn't be flying under IFR.
Based on some of your other posts you are a Canadian who commutes to Hong Kong to be a crewmember of a widebody airliner. Therefore, you shouldn't be flying under IFR. Maybe you're an SO, in which case you DON'T fly at ALL.
Based on some of your other posts you are a Canadian who commutes to Hong Kong to be a crewmember of a widebody airliner. Therefore, you shouldn't be flying under IFR. Maybe you're an SO, in which case you DON'T fly at ALL.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: a Galaxy far far away
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To my understanding the meaning changes a little between countries and for someone on International ops It would not be surprising to miss the subtle differences. In some countries, FAF is the final point on a Non-Precision Approach beyond which the Final Approach Segment is deemed to Commence. The previous post was correct in stating that the FAP, is the point on a Precission Approach at which the Final Approach segment is deemed to commence, and is usually the lowest level before which the final descent is initiated on the approach. The FAP and FAF are often coincident, howveer not always. Also, often the OM is coincident with the FAP, but not always, which in my experience has let to some confusion.
As far as HK is concerned, FAF and FAP mean the same thing, though FAF is used in reference to Precission and non precission approaches, and is the lowest level able to be assigned, or published prior to Final Decent on the Final Approach.
Happy to take any advance on this, hope it helps
As far as HK is concerned, FAF and FAP mean the same thing, though FAF is used in reference to Precission and non precission approaches, and is the lowest level able to be assigned, or published prior to Final Decent on the Final Approach.
Happy to take any advance on this, hope it helps
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Disneyland - with Mickey Mouse
Age: 54
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approach ban and FAF/FAP is not the same.
Approach ban would in most ops' I've seen be outer marker or equalivent, if no such thing exists it's a 1000' agl.
Steve the P. is right about both FAP and FAF for HKG. FA(F)is for (F)ix as in a ground based determined fix point, I think usually on a non precision approach like the LOC only in HK. FA(P) is only on (P)recision approaches and normally where the nominel glide path intercepts with the "platform" final approach altitude.
Good luck
Approach ban would in most ops' I've seen be outer marker or equalivent, if no such thing exists it's a 1000' agl.
Steve the P. is right about both FAP and FAF for HKG. FA(F)is for (F)ix as in a ground based determined fix point, I think usually on a non precision approach like the LOC only in HK. FA(P) is only on (P)recision approaches and normally where the nominel glide path intercepts with the "platform" final approach altitude.
Good luck
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really.
Its not that difficult.
http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/AIP/AD/HK_AD2-94A.pdf
http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/AIP/AD/HK_AD2-92A.pdf
Its not that difficult.
http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/AIP/AD/HK_AD2-94A.pdf
http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/AIP/AD/HK_AD2-92A.pdf
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approach ban regulations seem to vary among different countries for the situation initially described in the original post where no Final Approach Fix exists. As I listed below, you can see that it varies among many countries. I recently saw that no FAF was published for 25L at VHHH. I know, I could have looked in the AIP, but I was at my computer and in order to save time, I had thought at the time that I might ask on this forum what the rule is for this location. It appears that Hong Kong has a different definition than many other locations.
While I appreciate the professional responses, we are unfortunately reminded on this thread that on occasion in life and in aviation, we encounter the most repulsive of personalities. They are best ignored.
Examples given below.
(a) In the US it says describes the location for an approach ban as “Where a final approach fix is not specified, has completed the procedure turn and is established inbound toward the airport on the final approach course within the distance prescribed in the procedure.”
eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations
(b) In Canada for the same situation the rules say that "where there is no FAF, the point where the final approach course is intercepted". No distance is specified in this case.
Part VI - General Operating and Flight Rules - Transport Canada
(c) In the EU, the rules say that "Where no OM or EP exist, the pilot shall make the decision to continue or abandon the approach before descending below 1000ft AAL on the final approach segment. If the MDA is 1000ft or more AAL the operator shall establish a height for each approach procedure, below which the approach shall not be continued if the RVR/VIS is less than the applicable minimum."
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...01:0175:EN:PDF
(d) I may be wrong but it appears that Australia doesn't even have an approach ban or if they do, it was only implemented recently.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - NPRM 0906AS
(e) In Japan, “an aircraft shall not takeoff or start an approach to land at any airport if the observed RVR is less than the meteorological minimums for that airport.”
Not sure what you are talking about concerning my straight-forward question. I do encourage people to look at my posts. You will find that they are mostly technical questions and small anecdotes that I have posted in a friendly manner with probably an opinion or two along the way. Happy reading.
While I appreciate the professional responses, we are unfortunately reminded on this thread that on occasion in life and in aviation, we encounter the most repulsive of personalities. They are best ignored.
Examples given below.
(a) In the US it says describes the location for an approach ban as “Where a final approach fix is not specified, has completed the procedure turn and is established inbound toward the airport on the final approach course within the distance prescribed in the procedure.”
eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations
(b) In Canada for the same situation the rules say that "where there is no FAF, the point where the final approach course is intercepted". No distance is specified in this case.
Part VI - General Operating and Flight Rules - Transport Canada
(c) In the EU, the rules say that "Where no OM or EP exist, the pilot shall make the decision to continue or abandon the approach before descending below 1000ft AAL on the final approach segment. If the MDA is 1000ft or more AAL the operator shall establish a height for each approach procedure, below which the approach shall not be continued if the RVR/VIS is less than the applicable minimum."
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...01:0175:EN:PDF
(d) I may be wrong but it appears that Australia doesn't even have an approach ban or if they do, it was only implemented recently.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - NPRM 0906AS
(e) In Japan, “an aircraft shall not takeoff or start an approach to land at any airport if the observed RVR is less than the meteorological minimums for that airport.”
Not sure what you are talking about concerning my straight-forward question. I do encourage people to look at my posts. You will find that they are mostly technical questions and small anecdotes that I have posted in a friendly manner with probably an opinion or two along the way. Happy reading.
Last edited by JammedStab; 26th Aug 2013 at 13:25.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JammedStab
ATC here, so I'm not going to get into the approach ban issue.
You do seem however to have some confusion about the correct terminology and therefore why you are not seeing what you expect on the charts.
Under ICAO PANS-OPS, a FAF is only applicable to a non-precision approach eg LOC, VOR, RNAV.
Precision approaches (including Baro VNAV) refer to a FAP (Final Approach Point), which is where the Final Approach Altitude intercepts the glideslope. In essence, that point is not a 'FIX' as such.
If you look at the 25L LOC approach plate (your example runway, http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/AIP/AD/HK_AD2-92C.pdf), you will see there is a FAF, located at 12DME IFL. This is a hard fix that you cannot descend below 4500ft until passing.
So, apples and oranges.
You do seem however to have some confusion about the correct terminology and therefore why you are not seeing what you expect on the charts.
Under ICAO PANS-OPS, a FAF is only applicable to a non-precision approach eg LOC, VOR, RNAV.
Precision approaches (including Baro VNAV) refer to a FAP (Final Approach Point), which is where the Final Approach Altitude intercepts the glideslope. In essence, that point is not a 'FIX' as such.
If you look at the 25L LOC approach plate (your example runway, http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/AIP/AD/HK_AD2-92C.pdf), you will see there is a FAF, located at 12DME IFL. This is a hard fix that you cannot descend below 4500ft until passing.
So, apples and oranges.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No problems.
I'm not au fait with TERPS (The N.A. equivalent of PANS-OPS), so not sure if they define differently.
Here is an article you might find useful on the derivation of FAF/FAP in the U.S.
http://jeppesen.com/download/aopa/jul99aopa.pdf
I'm not au fait with TERPS (The N.A. equivalent of PANS-OPS), so not sure if they define differently.
Here is an article you might find useful on the derivation of FAF/FAP in the U.S.
http://jeppesen.com/download/aopa/jul99aopa.pdf
Last edited by bekolblockage; 26th Aug 2013 at 14:49.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
I think I see where the confusion comes from. Here is what you are used to for an approach ban back home. No difference is shown between precision and non-precision approaches. In both cases, you use the FAF as published or intercepting final if there is no FAF.
Where the visibility is less than the minimum visibility set out in subsection (1), no person shall land unless
(a) at the time a visibility report is received, the aircraft has passed the FAF inbound or, where there is no FAF, the point where the final approach course is intercepted.
The following exceptions to the above prohibitions apply to
all aircraft when:
a. the below-minima RVR report is received, the aircraft is
inbound on approach and has passed the FAF, or where
there is no FAF, the point where the final approach course
is intercepted;
Now that you are venturing into the rest of the world, things are slightly different in the US and PANS-OPS regs. You just need to read up on the slight differences to clear things up for yourself.
From the original question it sounds like there is no Maltese cross on that approach chart. I guess one of the local guys would know why.
Enjoy the new flying and don't lose faith when you come across the "repulsive" types on occasion.
Where the visibility is less than the minimum visibility set out in subsection (1), no person shall land unless
(a) at the time a visibility report is received, the aircraft has passed the FAF inbound or, where there is no FAF, the point where the final approach course is intercepted.
The following exceptions to the above prohibitions apply to
all aircraft when:
a. the below-minima RVR report is received, the aircraft is
inbound on approach and has passed the FAF, or where
there is no FAF, the point where the final approach course
is intercepted;
Now that you are venturing into the rest of the world, things are slightly different in the US and PANS-OPS regs. You just need to read up on the slight differences to clear things up for yourself.
From the original question it sounds like there is no Maltese cross on that approach chart. I guess one of the local guys would know why.
Enjoy the new flying and don't lose faith when you come across the "repulsive" types on occasion.
Last edited by punkalouver; 26th Aug 2013 at 17:39.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I see where the confusion comes from. Here is what you are used to for an approach ban back home. No difference is shown between precision and non-precision approaches. In both cases, you use the FAF as published or intercepting final if there is no FAF.
Where the visibility is less than the minimum visibility set out in subsection (1), no person shall land unless
(a) at the time a visibility report is received, the aircraft has passed the FAF inbound or, where there is no FAF, the point where the final approach course is intercepted.
The following exceptions to the above prohibitions apply to
all aircraft when:
a. the below-minima RVR report is received, the aircraft is
inbound on approach and has passed the FAF, or where
there is no FAF, the point where the final approach course
is intercepted;
Now that you are venturing into the rest of the world, things are slightly different in the US and PANS-OPS regs. You just need to read up on the slight differences to clear things up for yourself.
From the original question it sounds like there is no Maltese cross on that approach chart. I guess one of the local guys would know why.
Where the visibility is less than the minimum visibility set out in subsection (1), no person shall land unless
(a) at the time a visibility report is received, the aircraft has passed the FAF inbound or, where there is no FAF, the point where the final approach course is intercepted.
The following exceptions to the above prohibitions apply to
all aircraft when:
a. the below-minima RVR report is received, the aircraft is
inbound on approach and has passed the FAF, or where
there is no FAF, the point where the final approach course
is intercepted;
Now that you are venturing into the rest of the world, things are slightly different in the US and PANS-OPS regs. You just need to read up on the slight differences to clear things up for yourself.
From the original question it sounds like there is no Maltese cross on that approach chart. I guess one of the local guys would know why.
