Final Approach Fix (FAF)
Joined: Oct 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 7,383
Likes: 933
From: Den Haag
I stand corrected! While not surprised to hear about Navaids being placed correctly (I've reported two errors to Jepp myself) I'm surprised to hear they publish inhouse procedures. There must be some interesting litigation issues there in the event of an accident during an approach.
PPRuNeaholic
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
From: Cairns FNQ
I don't know about Aerad but do know a bit about Jeppesen, having been involved with them for many years. First point is that, when they reproduce a States' charts in their own format, they depend on the data from the State being correct. If it is wrong, their chart will be wrong, simple as that, Of course, they are usually very quick to correct errors when notified.
Jepps have quite a large commercial procedure design office in Atlanta. They do contract work for anyone who wants it - using TERPs or Pans Ops, as dictated by the customer. They also prepare complete AIP to order. I feel sure that they carry a LOT of insurance for this work and am equally sure that it's included in the prices they charge for these services.
I guess that Aerad probably does much the same thing.
Jepps have quite a large commercial procedure design office in Atlanta. They do contract work for anyone who wants it - using TERPs or Pans Ops, as dictated by the customer. They also prepare complete AIP to order. I feel sure that they carry a LOT of insurance for this work and am equally sure that it's included in the prices they charge for these services.
I guess that Aerad probably does much the same thing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
From: A oneworld lounge near you
Jepps
They do carry a lot of insurance. The have designed charts for operators who visit Africa which have been significantly more up to date than the AIP. As stated earlier, they do publish more accurate stuff where possible! I have even been known to send them the odd photo of a VOR which has grown up overnight and nobody seemed to know was there, etc.
Joined: Oct 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 7,383
Likes: 933
From: Den Haag
Ozexpat and discouninvestigator,
thanks: I didn't doubt their ability or fact that they can design procedures; I was implying it would be unlikely that they would add 'missing' bits to an existing AIP procedure, such as the FAF off their own back.
thanks: I didn't doubt their ability or fact that they can design procedures; I was implying it would be unlikely that they would add 'missing' bits to an existing AIP procedure, such as the FAF off their own back.
PPRuNeaholic
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
From: Cairns FNQ
alfalpha, a FAF is associated with non-precision approaches. It is a positive fix.
A FAP, OTOH, is associated with precision approaches because it marks the position for commencement of the precision segment (ie glidepath). It is not, strictly speaking, a positive fix because the actual point of intercept will only be exactly the same as the nominal point if standard ISA conditions exist at the time of GP intercept. To a lesser extent, the point of interception can differ due to altimeter error or a higher altitude at the point of intercept (ie intercepting the GP further out than the nominal distance that's shown in the chart).
212man... there can be many other reasons. Firstly, it might've been an error in the chart produced by the State, which Jeppesen simply copied to ensure that their depiction is identical to the State's own depiction. Secondly, it could simply be an error in the Jepp production.
The only sure way to find out for sure is to ask Jeppesen about it.
A FAP, OTOH, is associated with precision approaches because it marks the position for commencement of the precision segment (ie glidepath). It is not, strictly speaking, a positive fix because the actual point of intercept will only be exactly the same as the nominal point if standard ISA conditions exist at the time of GP intercept. To a lesser extent, the point of interception can differ due to altimeter error or a higher altitude at the point of intercept (ie intercepting the GP further out than the nominal distance that's shown in the chart).
212man... there can be many other reasons. Firstly, it might've been an error in the chart produced by the State, which Jeppesen simply copied to ensure that their depiction is identical to the State's own depiction. Secondly, it could simply be an error in the Jepp production.
The only sure way to find out for sure is to ask Jeppesen about it.
