[index] [month] [prev] [next] [thead-prev] [thread-next]

That's interesting,

Look at http://38.200.9.133/iap/20010517/ak1of1/scc_ils_dme_rwy_4.pdf

Throughout the past week, coming from the northwest, we have been
cleared "direct CIMAS, descend and maintain 1600 feet until established
on a published portion of the approach, cleared the ILS DME RWY 4
approach, Deadhorse, etc., etc. Of course, this means that we intercept
the course and glidelsope, and continue inbound to a landing. In the
plan view, CIMAS is identified as an IAF, but via the profile view, it
is also identified as the FAF. In other words, we have been cleared
direct to the FAF, no? Just curious...

Happy Flying
Scott Skylane
N92054

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "Dan Luke" <danluke@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:KyRP6.46091$t12.3549438@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > No. If you're cleared direct to the FAF, you can make it the active
> > waypoint and skip any IAF. The GPS navigator will still sequence
> > the remainder of the approach beginning at the FAF.
> >
>
> You shouldn't be cleared direct to the FAF.

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: Another ATC reprimand, SeeAndAvoid
Next message: Re: Most difficult tasks in IFR-checkride, Rich Hare
Next message in thread: Re: REQUEST: Funny approach plates, Dan Luke
Previous message in thread: Re: REQUEST: Funny approach plates, Zack