Welcome Guest. Sign in or Signup

5 Answers

Approach Chart Comparison

Asked by: 3501 views Airspace, FAA Regulations

Reference KMGM RWY 28 ILS Z (requires GPS) and RWY 28 ILS Y

 

1. The Y version and Z version have the same minimums. Question:

Why are there two different ILS approaches to runway 28 yet both have the same mins.?

2. The Y version offers three options:  S-ILS, S-LOC, and circling. The Z version only allows one option which is the S-ILS.

Question:  Why is the Z version only restricted to one option?

3. The Z version PT has a 7 mile restriction on the outbound leg.

Question: Must you fly the entire 7 miles or can you turn inbound less than 7 miles (example----perhaps only the outbound leg for 4 miles)?

4. Overall,  what advantage does GPS provide for the Z version?

Thank you for the feedback.

5 Answers



  1. John D Collins on Nov 17, 2014

    1. The final approach course is identical for both. The Y uses ground based Navaids to transition from the airway system to the approach. It has an MSA based on the location of MGM. The Z use a GPS and TAA for transitioning to the approach. A TAA and an MSA may not be charted on the same procedure.

    2. Not sure why the Z doesn’t provide a localizer option, but it doesn’t specify the step down fix and doesn’t have a timing table. Without a localizer option, circling to land is not permitted and the approach may not be used for the purpose of filing for an alternate.

    3. The 7 NM is a maximum and the entire distance need not be flown unless the controller specifically clears you to fly to the 7 NM hold. So if you are cleared for the approach from within the 4500 airport side TAA segment “cleared direct ICOTE, cleared ILS Z RWY 28 approach”, you fly the hold with any distance outbound not to exceed 7 NM. If instead the clearance was “cleared direct ICOTE, fly 7 NM outbound leg, cleared ILS Z RWY 28 approach” then you would fly the full 7 NM length.

    4. If you have a GPS, using it to join the approach is simpler than using the ground based Navaids, also the missed approach is simpler.

    +2 Votes Thumb up 2 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  2. Dan Chitty on Nov 18, 2014

    Thank you John for the feedback.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  3. John D Collins on Nov 18, 2014

    Dan,

    You are seeing more and more ILS procedures being broken into pairs with a Y and a Z. One using conventional navaids to join the approach and the other with a TAA and requiring a GPS. Over time, the number of VOR’s will be reduced and GPS will be the only way to join these procedures. It will get real inconvenient in the future for a /A or /U aircraft as airways and VORs disappear. The FAA is sending a not so subtle message to aircraft that are not equipped with a GPS.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  4. Dan Chitty on Nov 18, 2014

    John,

    Great point.

    I guess it is no longer more economical for the FAA to no longer maintain VOR stations and marker beacons and more cost effictive to utilize GPS for ILS procedures. I wonder how long it will be when ILS gound equipment is longer supported by the FAA and all that is available are GPS/RVAN approaches.

    Thanks again.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  5. John D Collins on Nov 18, 2014

    ILS approaches are not in jeopardy. The FAA plans to keep them.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes


The following terms have been auto-detected the question above and any answers or discussion provided. Click on a term to see its definition from the Dauntless Aviation JargonBuster Glossary.

Answer Question

Our sincere thanks to all who contribute constructively to this forum in answering flight training questions. If you are a flight instructor or represent a flight school / FBO offering flight instruction, you are welcome to include links to your site and related contact information as it pertains to offering local flight instruction in a specific geographic area. Additionally, direct links to FAA and related official government sources of information are welcome. However we thank you for your understanding that links to other sites or text that may be construed as explicit or implicit advertising of other business, sites, or goods/services are not permitted even if such links nominally are relevant to the question asked.