Your quote seems to make sense. What's the reference?As far as differences in UK/EU aviation terminology compared to other countries, I can't speak with authority on that issue, but my understanding is aviation terminology should be consistent among countries. A final approach fix in the UK is the same as a final approach fix in the United States, a final approach point is the same as a final approach point in the US and so on.I guess the question now is: why is there a FAF marked on an ILS? I thought FAF was specific for non-precision approaches, and the ILS is a precision approach?The answer is that a precision approach involves both lateral and vertical guidance. Lateral guidance by means of the localizer, and vertical guidance by means of the glideslope. Non-precision approaches are those that only involve lateral guidance. If the glideslope transmitter is inoperative, the ILS is no longer a precision approach - it's a non-precision approach.The FAF is marked on ILS approaches as a safety backup - if the glideslope is inoperative, then the pilot can still continue to follow lateral guidance provided by the localizer and step down to the MDA after passing the FAF. You'll notice the minimums are different when the glideslope is inoperative versus that when the glideslope is working.

Thank you guys for all of your input. Definitely cleared some things up for me.

>"But technically GS starts at FAF">>That's completely wrong. Not exactly. Jeppesen charts usually start depicting solid GS beam starting at FAF. I am not saying anywhere that GS can't be intercepted much higher than FAF and that its signal can't be picked up (and tracked) at much further distance. Michael J.

FS9 ILS features states that it does not intercept the GS from above like in previous versions.You can only intercept it from below the GS path.If you use FS Nav , select the airport (Zoom out) and put your mouse pointer at the beginning of the landing runway. It will show the altitude at which the GS is intercepted 5 nmiles from treshold.For instance the Simon Bolivar Airport in Caracas Venezuela (SVMI) has and altitude AGL of 270 feet. The GS intercept altitude is 1900 feet 5 miles out (runway 9).Otherwise use your approach plates if not using FS Nav.Ed. Cardenas van Grieken

The reference is:http://www.geocities.com/seanwoodard/CFII/InstOralAs.htmI changed the word "transends" to "intercepts" because I didn't think transends was the right word.All the UK ILS approach charts I've looked at use FAP with a Maltese cross and not FAF. The FAP for Gatwick ILS/DME to RWY 08R is at 3000(2805) D8.6 I-GG DME, with no minimum height shown. The LLZ/DME approach to the same runway has a fix at the same point, Step Down Fixes (SDF) at 1595(1400) atD4.2 I-GG DME and 755(560) at D2 I-GG DME. There seems to be a minimum height identified by M. Presumably M varies with the established operating minima.The Spanish approach doesn't show the Maltese cross but the annotation at the NDB/OM is:(FAP)(IAF)(FAF GP U/S) Here there are two minima: 3180(410) and 3058(283) at this airport.

Ok thanks for ref.

Hmmm. Jepp charts don't usually depict the GS symbol starting at the final approach fix. Take a look at the attachment, this is a typical ILS approach. Here, the glideslope symbol extends well past the final approach fix (marked with the maltese cross). But perhaps you see it differently. For the attached example, would you say that the glideslope starts at the FAF? Maybe that is the source of our difference of opinion.In any case this issue is moot because the FAF has nothing to do with a glideslope. There is no FAF for a precision approach. FAF are only part of non-precision approaches. FAFs are marked on ILS approaches only as a safety backup, for use when the glideslope fails or is inoperative. If the glideslope fails or is inoperative, the approach becomes a non-precision approach (because there is no vertical guidance).Consequently, it doesn't make sense to say that the glideslope starts at a point doesn't exist for a precision approach. Do you agree?

>Consequently, it doesn't make sense to say that the glideslope>starts at a point doesn't exist for a precision approach. Do>you agree?Yep, I agree ;)Michael J.

Mike, thanks for the nice chat it was very challenging for me. Thanks and best regards

Following up the previous discussion, I believe that the differences are between ICAO and those countries that haven't adopted ICAO standards and still use national standards.I can't access the ICAO standards (payment is required) but the Australian CAA has a document listing the difference between the ICAO's Standards and Recommended Practice and the Australian charts which includes:"11.10.4.3 Recommendation.The final approach fix (or final approach point for an ILS approach procedure) should be identified with its geological coordinates in degrees, minutes and seconds."http://www.dotars.gov.au/avnapt/sepb/icao/annex4.aspxThis implies FAP should be used for ILS approaches and FAF for other approaches. The FAA's US glossary defines:FINAL APPROACH FIX- The fix from which the final approach (IFR) to an airport is executed and which identifies the beginning of the final approach segment. It is designated on Government charts by the Maltese Cross symbol for nonprecision approaches and the lightning bolt symbol for precision approaches; or when ATC directs a lower-than- published glideslope/path intercept altitude, it is the resultant actual point of the glideslope/path intercept. FINAL APPROACH POINT- The point, applicable only to a nonprecision approach with no depicted FAF (such as an on airport VOR), where the aircraft is established inbound on the final approach course from the procedure turn and where the final approach descent may be commenced. The FAP serves as the FAF and identifies the beginning of the final approach segment.NONPRECISION APPROACH PROCEDURE- A standard instrument approach procedure in which no electronic glideslope is provided; e.g., VOR, TACAN, NDB, LOC, ASR, LDA, or SDF approaches. http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/PCG/INDEX.HTMThese definitions seem to be the opposite of the ICAO ones which must be confusing.EDIT: I just checked the Atlantic City HI-ILS RWY13 chart from DAFIF which uses the Maltese cross, not the lightening bolt, although the line pointing to the Maltese cross looks like a lightening bolt.https://164.214.2.62/products/digitalaero/t..._ILS_RWY_13.PDF

On the low RWY 13 ILS it shows that the localizer intercept occurs before GS intercept, and the GS intercept occurs before the Maltese cross at the LOM. The vertical path starts at a shallow descent gradient based on DME until the GS intercept.It also looks like (by reading the definition you posted) the FAF is dynamic in nature as assigned on the fly by ATC at times according to the requested intercept altitude. The FAP appears to be fixed on the chart and determined by whatever means available for determinng the vertical path where no GS is present. I'll have to look in the Instrument Handbook (also on-line) which I have in hard copy to see if they conflict.This is almost as good as some legal writing.Thyanks for posting these extracts.

Further definitions from Canada:Final Approach Fix(1) Canada: The fix of a non-precision instrument approach procedure (IAP) where the final approach segment commences. abbreviation: FAF Fr: rep