May I then ask those with experience of different navigation systems as to whether the following would be appropriate guidance to flight crew in an ops manual?
Not in my part of the world as clearances direct-to the final approach fix are very common for all types of approach (especially for ILS).
Not in my part of the world as clearances direct-to the final approach fix are very common for all types of approach (especially for ILS).
Sorry, should have made clear that this would be for RNP APCH (GPS approaches).
Sorry, should have made clear that this would be for RNP APCH (GPS approaches).
OK, understood. But I still don't think that the restriction "The final approach trajectory should be intercepted no later than the FAF in order for the aircraft to be correctly established on the final approach course before starting the descent (to ensure terrain and obstacle clearance)" should be made binding for non PRNAV approaches. In PRNAV procedures vectors to the FAF are not allowed anyway.
We have been doing this for years and years (GPS based RNAV approaches have been around for over ten years in this part of the world) and the equipment is perfectly capable of handling vectors to the FAF or close to it. The approach plate of Saarbrücken posted two pages up shows that there are established approach procedures (in Germany at least) that contain an angle towards the FAF. Wether this angle is part of the procedure of the result of a vector issued by ATC should not matter in my eyes.
@bookworm #90 and #92
For operations within Australia the wording of your briefing would be very appropriate. I would like to add that I, personally, would not recommend acceptance of bypassing FAFs in any vectored approaches, including ILS(es). In my experience, I heard of the offers to bypass final ILS fixes only after the crew declared to be "visual".
I just reconfirmed that if you select direct-to the FAF or fly course direct-to the FAF, the GTN series will display the following message at 2 NM prior to the FAF: "Approach Not Active, Do not continue approach". The same happens on the GNS430W/530W and the versions of the G1000 that I have, although the messages are slightly different. I have the Beechcraft G58 G1000 trainer and the Cirrus 22TN with Perspective trainer. They all work the same. The only way I found to obtain guidance on the extended final approach course and not cause the approach to be aborted is to activate the final approach leg, although it doesn't provide the magenta line extending from the FAF.
Also, here in the US, direct to the FAF, straight in, is not permitted if the conditions are IMC. Straight in may not be issued by ATC if the FAF is also an IAF, in which case the pilot must fly the PT. If it is IMC, vectors to final must provide an intercept on the final approach course no closer than 2 NM outside the gate (the gate is typically 1 NM from the FAF) which normally means 3 NM from the FAF.
