And of course unless there is a SPECIFIC expanded service volume for that particular glideslope - it only works out to 10 nm and the validity of the signal can not be guaranteed in the least! :eek:

The only approaches that have stepdown fixes inside the FAF are non-precision approaches. Anything showing stepdown fixes after GS intercept on an ILS/precision approach is refering to a LOC only approach.

USMCFLYR

Indeed, the Global went down the glide slope like a horse crossing a fast river-nose up, nose down, nose up. I watched the altitudes at the crossing fixes, finally I had enough and asked the Captain, if VNAV might be a good idea.

The procedure starts at 37 DME, it was the subject of the SAFO (InFO?) letter and specifically says G/S intercept of 2200' unless 4000' authorized by ATC.

GF

KTUS rwy11 and KFMN rwy25 are two ILS's without the stepdown fixes inside of the FAF labeled as LOC only.

There is a remark on those two plates about using DME for localizer only so I am guessing that's why they aren't labeling the fixes inside the FAF as LOC only.

Copy 4,000'
Here are the two ESVs for HQB:
GS069/-/D10/40/80GS069/-/D25/40/80
Read that as the 069R at 10 & 25 DME between 4000-8000

I can see someone messing that up and thinking they could ride the GS down for afar if they *think* they are receiving it.

Along the same subject...here is some info on stepdown fixes outside the FAF and how you can't blindly follow the G/S all the time.

FAA Releases Updated Guidance on Instrument Landing System Intercepts | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association

This is a great article. The stepdown fixes at my airport are a perfect example. 2 parallel runways 3500 feet apart, so we use 1.5 NM stagger between aircraft. Problem is when one aircraft stays high and doesn't descend until GS intercept, it leaves the other aircraft we are vectoring on the parallel way above the GS to keep separation.

Regardless of how they are labelled, a step down inside the FAF does not apply to an ILS.