Stepdown fixes inside of FAF
 

Some ILS/LOC approach plates with stepdown fixes inside of the FAF are asterisked and labeled LOC only. Some don't have them labeled as LOC only, anyone noticed this? Is there any scenario where complying with stepdown fixes on an ILS approach INSIDE of the FAF is regulatory?

If you're flying an ILS, the vertical path is defined by the glideslope.

I've only seen this when flying a LOC only (GS OTS). Otherwise the GS is the final approach path.

GS intercept altitude is correct. I will say thought, I see almost all pilots not comply with the step-downs outside of the glide slope intercept altitude. Ex: you are issued a clearance to maintain 4000 until established on the localizer cleared for an ILS approach and there is a step down prior to GS intercept altitude, most pilots will maintain 4000 until intercepting the GS. I see this always with our 4 ILS procedures.

Rmratc

True and many were violated doing so on the ILS approaches to the 24s at KLAX. There is a multitude of them.

There was a SAFO or InFO letter out a couple of years ago on proper compliance with stepdown fixes outside the FAF.

GF

Stepdowns should be a point of emphasis during instrument training; right along with not fixating. They are relatively high on the list of busts for Inspectors, DPE's and check airman. Also worthy of note for newbies; make sure you have the means to ID the stepdown(s) before planning on or accepting those types of approaches. Also remember that the stepdowns inside the FAF will also change your minimums and that can also affect, beside the obvious, how you will operate in the vacinity of the runway/traffic pattern (Situation dependant; A lower Min. could allow a simple turn to downwind while a higher Min. without the stepdown could require a crossover, Etc.)

If the full ILS is available, on glideslope, then fixes inside the FAF aren't applicable for step-down limitations (particularly where marked LOC ONLY). Outside the GSIA, however, step-down fixes are mandatory, even when following the glideslope (the long ILS arrivals into LAX are good examples).

Regardless of whether one is on the glidesoope or not, however, one should note the altitudes and check them off while passing those fixes. It's good practice to be as situationally aware as possible, and step-downs with altitudes are useful tools for monitoring the arrival and approach, even when following the electronic glideslope. This is especially true in mountainous terrain.

The LAX stepdowns were a hot issue a few years ago. They were talking about changing the approaches so the GS would clear the stedowns, not sure if it ever happened.

Being lazy, I got in the habit of hand-flying the LAX ILSs a dot high outside the marker, and then getting back on GS and AP after the last step down.

LAX24L ILS is perfect for VNAV all the way in from the first descent 120+ east of the runway. The vertical track alert aural tone sounds about every 3 or 4 minutes. Arm APPR, leveling at the last step fix, easy as pie. I've seen guys try to use the GS 30 miles out--not pretty.

GF

Can you quote which ILS approaches have this "stepdown fixes on an ILS approach INSIDE of the FAF "?

If there are some out there I would like to know, just for my knowledge.

Thx

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.