Initial Approach Fixes, FAFs and a rant!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I would also like to challenge the statement that MSA is solely for emergency use. We routinely do use the MSAs during descent (until established on a so called "black line" part of the approach, or until the IAF), and we routinely use grid-MORA before that.
Where is it specified we can't do that? I would most definately like to know!
Where is it specified we can't do that? I would most definately like to know!
We also routinely use MSAs. In fact with our line of work we don't have any black lines to follow, we have to make our own lines until we get to an IAF or a position to make a visual approach. We use MSA and grid LSALT on a daily basis to ensure terrain clearance.
bfisk and AeroCatS2A
Sorry, I am referring to US TERPS, other countries do use the MSA for normal operations. US TERPS Manual is quite explicit that MSA is for "emergency use only" and does not guarantee navigation signal coverage. PANS-OPS, as practiced elsewhere maybe different. Still approaches begin at an IAF, which is regulatory, not optional.
GF
Sorry, I am referring to US TERPS, other countries do use the MSA for normal operations. US TERPS Manual is quite explicit that MSA is for "emergency use only" and does not guarantee navigation signal coverage. PANS-OPS, as practiced elsewhere maybe different. Still approaches begin at an IAF, which is regulatory, not optional.
GF
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyboyfloyd
Have a look at jaipur ILS 27, theres a box that says that ATC may allow a aircraft to join the arc from any radial which basically means if you arrive from a short cut and not on the airway radial you could join the arc procedure, in that case you would not be flying over a IAF. I think thats what your check pilot meant. The same is mentioned in VABP/VILK too. In case of an emergency fly the IAF/IF/FAF sequence when things go wrong SA goes out of teh Captains window first.
Have a look at jaipur ILS 27, theres a box that says that ATC may allow a aircraft to join the arc from any radial which basically means if you arrive from a short cut and not on the airway radial you could join the arc procedure, in that case you would not be flying over a IAF. I think thats what your check pilot meant. The same is mentioned in VABP/VILK too. In case of an emergency fly the IAF/IF/FAF sequence when things go wrong SA goes out of teh Captains window first.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These "RADAR REQUIRED" approaches, as at DFW, have been controversial in the TERPS community as lacking a defined intermediate segment, prior to the appearance of an "IF" and RNAV. So, technically, when radar vectored, the pilot is vectored to a segment that does not exist.
Radar vectors substitute for the initial approach segment.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a look at jaipur ILS 27, theres a box that says that ATC may allow a aircraft to join the arc from any radial which basically means if you arrive from a short cut and not on the airway radial you could join the arc procedure, in that case you would not be flying over a IAF. I think thats what your check pilot meant. The same is mentioned in VABP/VILK too. In case of an emergency fly the IAF/IF/FAF sequence when things go wrong SA goes out of teh Captains window first.
aterpster
Great name, welcome to madhouse that is Pprune. We don't have a procedures expert here. TERPS and PANS-OPS have some notable differences that sometimes confuse the conversation.
My comment on 'radar required" approaches is certainly dated, I was referring to comments published by Wally Roberts and the Jeppesen series of the late '90s. And I agree that approach at KDFW does have an intermediate segment, as drawn. Was that part of Chg 18? I know there were approaches at major hubs that were drawn with only a FAF marked "RADAR REQUIRED".
GF
Great name, welcome to madhouse that is Pprune. We don't have a procedures expert here. TERPS and PANS-OPS have some notable differences that sometimes confuse the conversation.
My comment on 'radar required" approaches is certainly dated, I was referring to comments published by Wally Roberts and the Jeppesen series of the late '90s. And I agree that approach at KDFW does have an intermediate segment, as drawn. Was that part of Chg 18? I know there were approaches at major hubs that were drawn with only a FAF marked "RADAR REQUIRED".
GF
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My comment on 'radar required" approaches is certainly dated, I was referring to comments published by Wally Roberts and the Jeppesen series of the late '90s. And I agree that approach at KDFW does have an intermediate segment, as drawn. Was that part of Chg 18? I know there were approaches at major hubs that were drawn with only a FAF marked "RADAR REQUIRED".
The design department of the FAA was overruled by higher authority and all of those IAPs soon were amended to include intermediate segments.
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GF
I beg to differ on this point. You wouldn't believe just how many of us look into topics such as this and end up shaking our heads and moving to the next topic. I can't speak for TERPs procedures but, with PANS Ops, what do you think is the REAL significance of an IAF?
Here's a clue... IAS!
You have to start slowing down to the maximum speed for your category of aircraft. I agree that it isn't especially critical when you're under radar vectors but, from the point at which you join an initial approach segment - i.e. anywhere between the IAF and IF, you need to start slowing down a bit.
If you don't do that, you'll find yourself much too fast when starting the Final Approach segment. This is really important because WE go to great pains to ensure a reasonable ROD on final so that you can level off without busting a MDA, or without going thru a DA more than is provided for in the procedure.
That sort of thing can definitely ruin your day.
We don't have a procedures expert here.
Here's a clue... IAS!
You have to start slowing down to the maximum speed for your category of aircraft. I agree that it isn't especially critical when you're under radar vectors but, from the point at which you join an initial approach segment - i.e. anywhere between the IAF and IF, you need to start slowing down a bit.
If you don't do that, you'll find yourself much too fast when starting the Final Approach segment. This is really important because WE go to great pains to ensure a reasonable ROD on final so that you can level off without busting a MDA, or without going thru a DA more than is provided for in the procedure.
That sort of thing can definitely ruin your day.
My apologies, OzExPat, I did not know did have a procedures design expert hereabouts. Quite right about speed control, esp. in non-radar airspace.
GF
GF
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denmark
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doc 8168
According to Doc 8168 a published procedure needs either an IAF og IF however if no such available you need a reversal-, racetrack- or holding procedure.
At least that is how I read the Doc
Regards
At least that is how I read the Doc
Regards
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GF
Some, like me, as a (former) airline pilot have been looking into TERPs since just after the ark sailed. 
PANS-OPS is a much tougher nut to crack because ICAO tries to make the criteria and flight procedures sound so neat and uniform. Yet, each state is free to do its own "spin" on the PANS-OPS criteria.
Remember Dubrovnik?
We don't have a procedures expert here.
I beg to differ on this point. You wouldn't believe just how many of us look into topics such as this and end up shaking our heads and moving to the next topic. I can't speak for TERPs procedures but, with PANS Ops, what do you think is the REAL significance of an IAF?
I beg to differ on this point. You wouldn't believe just how many of us look into topics such as this and end up shaking our heads and moving to the next topic. I can't speak for TERPs procedures but, with PANS Ops, what do you think is the REAL significance of an IAF?
PANS-OPS is a much tougher nut to crack because ICAO tries to make the criteria and flight procedures sound so neat and uniform. Yet, each state is free to do its own "spin" on the PANS-OPS criteria.
Remember Dubrovnik?
aterpster
All too well. I was at an AF Standards Agency conference where we were briefed by none other than Jepp's VP who has a last name remarkably like your handle here. Long briefing on that accident and related discussion, lots of good information that changed AF policy. Much to my relief.
OzExPat
I believe it was a TWA/United mid-air over NYC that brought about three changes:
DME required in the PCA (Class A airspace, now)
Report all navigation malfunctions to ATC
Slow to holding airspeed 3 minutes prior to the fix.
IIRC UAL overran the hold due to DME failed and was cross-tuning, let the speed get away and sped past the fix. EMPIRE, I think.
So, yes, slowing is very desirable and required, as is using the entire procedure to be configured prior to the FAF.
GF
PS Did the ark sail in 1967? Ha Ha
All too well. I was at an AF Standards Agency conference where we were briefed by none other than Jepp's VP who has a last name remarkably like your handle here. Long briefing on that accident and related discussion, lots of good information that changed AF policy. Much to my relief.
OzExPat
I believe it was a TWA/United mid-air over NYC that brought about three changes:
DME required in the PCA (Class A airspace, now)
Report all navigation malfunctions to ATC
Slow to holding airspeed 3 minutes prior to the fix.
IIRC UAL overran the hold due to DME failed and was cross-tuning, let the speed get away and sped past the fix. EMPIRE, I think.
So, yes, slowing is very desirable and required, as is using the entire procedure to be configured prior to the FAF.
GF
PS Did the ark sail in 1967? Ha Ha
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Galaxy Flyer:
aterpster
All too well. I was at an AF Standards Agency conference where we were briefed by none other than Jepp's VP who has a last name remarkably like your handle here. Long briefing on that accident and related discussion, lots of good information that changed AF policy. Much to my relief.
Jim Terpstra
OzExPat
I believe it was a TWA/United mid-air over NYC that brought about three changes:
DME required in the PCA (Class A airspace, now)
Report all navigation malfunctions to ATC
Slow to holding airspeed 3 minutes prior to the fix.
IIRC UAL overran the hold due to DME failed and was cross-tuning, let the speed get away and sped past the fix. EMPIRE, I think.
So, yes, slowing is very desirable and required, as is using the entire procedure to be configured prior to the FAF.
That was December, 1960; a United DC-8 arriving IDL (JFK) and a TWA Connie that had (I believe) departed LGA. United had an inoperative VOR, so he was cross tuning to determine his clearance limit fix of EMPIRE will doing barber pole at 5 or 6,000. He blew through the fix. That resulted in 250 knots below 10,000 within 30 miles of destination airport and the requirement to report an inoperative piece of nav equipment.
Then, in April, 1967, a TWA DC-9-10 rear-ended a Beech Baron at 8,000 going barber pole from PIT to CMH. That resulted in 250 knots below 10,000 without the 30 mile provisio.
The December, 1974 TWA 514 crash near IAD probably caused more changes to ATC procedures and regulations than any other single accident.
Could be. TERPs came into effect in November, 1967. That immediately elminated the requirement for reported ceiling to begin an approach, but it took 10 years to convert all the IAPs from the 1956 superceded criteria to TERPs.
aterpster
All too well. I was at an AF Standards Agency conference where we were briefed by none other than Jepp's VP who has a last name remarkably like your handle here. Long briefing on that accident and related discussion, lots of good information that changed AF policy. Much to my relief.
OzExPat
I believe it was a TWA/United mid-air over NYC that brought about three changes:
DME required in the PCA (Class A airspace, now)
Report all navigation malfunctions to ATC
Slow to holding airspeed 3 minutes prior to the fix.
IIRC UAL overran the hold due to DME failed and was cross-tuning, let the speed get away and sped past the fix. EMPIRE, I think.
So, yes, slowing is very desirable and required, as is using the entire procedure to be configured prior to the FAF.
Then, in April, 1967, a TWA DC-9-10 rear-ended a Beech Baron at 8,000 going barber pole from PIT to CMH. That resulted in 250 knots below 10,000 without the 30 mile provisio.
The December, 1974 TWA 514 crash near IAD probably caused more changes to ATC procedures and regulations than any other single accident.
GF
PS Did the ark sail in 1967? Ha Ha
PS Did the ark sail in 1967? Ha Ha
aterpster
It was, indeed, Jim--a wonderful gentleman with an absolutely encyclopedic knowledge of the subject.
And thanks for the details on the accidents. I was a new instrument student when it happened and learned a lot from some TWA guys at the time.
GF
It was, indeed, Jim--a wonderful gentleman with an absolutely encyclopedic knowledge of the subject.
And thanks for the details on the accidents. I was a new instrument student when it happened and learned a lot from some TWA guys at the time.
GF
