Date: 201401
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RNO.TRACON, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E RNO
ATC / advisory: TRACON RNO
Aircraft component: Altitude Alert
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Manuals
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Approach to Reno Silver ILS 16R; uneventful approach but request change be made to approach for safety; read below. This was a night arrival; no moonI was given a visual on downwind and cleared to land Silver ILS 16R. On the Airbus Nav Display when the constraint tile is pushed; the FAF (DICEY) is shown with a crossing altitude of 6;401 feet. If a crosswind descent is started on downwind and the pilot puts in 6;401 feet in the FCP [Flight Control Panel] altitude window as his GS intercept altitude; he will most likely level off 2-3 miles prior to glide slope intercept at 6;401 feet missing the mountain (6;219 feet MSL) by 182 feet.This has already happened to someone once; and it's easy to do at night and tired. Many pilots reference the FAF altitude when they put in an FCP altitude to start their visual approach; at this airport you can get lulled in to a false sense of security; the mountain has no lights.As a fix that would help all airlines I recommend moving the FAF further up the glideslope to 7;100 feet. This at a minimum would make most pilots on a visual put 7;100 feet in the FCP altitude window and cause a higher and safer GS intercept and clearance over the mountain at 6;219 feet. Clearance would now be about 1;000 feet. This would involve a chart change. Reference the other ILS to 16; the FAF fix DICEY has been taken out; TAKLE is the FAF.

Callback: The reporter stated the difference between the Maltese Cross FAF associated with non-precision approaches and the glideslope (GS) Intercept altitude which constitutes the precision approach equivalent of the Maltese Cross for an ILS. In part because the RNO 'Silver' ILS 16R contains both types of final approach designators the reporter was using the terminology imprecisely which caused some confusion. The reporter expressed concerns for the RNO 'Silver' ILS and; possibly; in the case of other approaches in mountainous terrain in which the precision and non-precision final approach designators are not co-located.[While reviewing the following it is important to remember that there is a mountain at 6;219 feet MSL on the extended centerline of the runway approximately two miles outside of DICEY; which is the FAF for a GS out non-precision approach. DICEY is to be crossed at 6;700 feet MSL on a non precision 'GS out' approach but; when established on the GS for a full; 'precision' ILS will be crossed at 6;401 feet MSL...as the reporter stated; just 182 feet higher than the mountain peak two miles behind the aircraft at that point. The GS intercept altitude for the ILS is pretty much 'over' the peak itself and occurs at 7;100 feet MSL; some 900 feet above the peak.The reporter's comments indicate the flight crew's use of the altitude 'constraint' button/tile as a tool to establish an altitude below which they are not allowed to descend unless established on an approach. This button is 'not' a functional part of vertical navigation; i.e.; is not what programs crossing restrictions in the autoflight system. It is a source of information for the pilots to determine how low they can go to comply with the next constraint. Per the reporter; in this case the altitude provided was that at the Maltese Cross WHEN CROSSING ON THE GS; 6;401 MSL; only 182 feet above terrain a little over two miles behind them on the GS. In this case; however; they had been cleared for a visual approach and were using the 'Constraint tile' altitude to determine the point at which they had to be established on the approach in order to continue and were descending unconstrained to that altitude; in some cases electing to get there a few miles early to slow down and configure for the approach. A tactical move that would place them in close proximity to the peak.The reporter stated that a preferable constraint would have been the ILS GS intercept altitude of 7;100 feet MSL or; at the very worst; the 6;700 feet MSL charted crossing altitude for the GS out approach. In the case of the reporter's air carrier SOP it would have to be the former because they are technically required to be established on the approach 'at' the GS intercept altitude before descending lower.This type of situation is likely very rare in that it requires that the Final Approach segment start at different distances from the end of the runway for a precision versus non-precision approach and that terrain/obstacle clearance be a factor. The vast majority of approaches used by major carriers are precision types with a fall back should glide path functions not be available. The FAFs for either type remaining co-located.



Synopsis: An Airbus pilot reported the potential exists for flight crews to descend to unsafe altitudes with respect to mountainous terrain between the GS intercept altitude for a precision ILS approach to Runway 16R and the FAF for the non-precision GS out approach to the same runway at RNO.