What is an ILS Y 19R approach?

[Afterprop]

Another look?

I know that if it were a VOR A or B it would mean that there were multiple approaches of that type serving that particular airport . . .

Methinks a VOR-A or -B indicates the approach ends in either a circling maneuver to a landing runway, or the descent rate from the final approach fix to the runway exceeds a given rate (400'/nm ? ? ? ) for it to be classified as a straight-in. I don't recall ever seeing a Y or Z designator on a military approach . . . but I might be wrong.
Cheers . . .
'Props

 

[Stewie]

cool. thanks for the info guys

 

[Night_Flight]

Circling Approaches

See following post...

Wow, chill A Squared! My mistake. We all know that things posted here are not 100 percent accurate and obviously I wasn't correct.

No need for an ulcer! Updated my login info for your personal satisfaction (although I really don't care). I was still at UND when I filled that column.

Don't you just love in aviation how some people have to prove they are know-it-all's. It would have been easier to politely call out my mistake instead of making yourself out to be one who, as you later state..."talking out of thier a$$es".

-Night_Flight-

 

[A Squared]

VOR-A..B...Z...whatever, approaches are circle-to-land approaches. This is done because at the VDP/PDP, the aircraft is not in a normal position to land. Normal position means a lot to the FAA, so I'm not sure on the exact criteria may be.

VDP- Visual Desent Point
PDP- Planned Descent Point

Usually, circling approaches are used when the final approach course and the runway heading vary by 30 degrees or greater.

-Night_Flight-

Sighhhhhhh, don't you just love it when a question has been answered correctly then some twit comes along and contradicts everything which has been said, with the *wrong* answer? As has been stated by several people (correctly) already, the use of Z or Y does *not* signify a circliing approach, it signifies that 2 different IAPs use the same navaid. As has been mentioned, it's in the AIM, specifically 5-4-5(a)(3) look it up. edit: Ahhh shoulda known, an RJ FO from UND, probably so convinced he's god's gift to aviation he doesn't *need* to crack open the AIM. So tell me sport, when did "UND" become a rating? Just *had* to let the world know you're from UND, but couldn't find a place for that in your profile, could you?

 

[DC8 Flyer]

A Squared,

You're a smart guy, no need to bash UND over one mistake. There are quite a few guys out there that have no idea what the Y and Z lettering means. Don't be one of those guys that has to "rise" to the challenge just to prove how smart you are and leave the personnel attacks and ego at the login screen.

Cheers! :nuts:

 

[A Squared]

A Squared,

You're a smart guy, no need to bash UND over one mistake. There are quite a few guys out there that have no idea what the Y and Z lettering means. Don't be one of those guys that has to "rise" to the challenge just to prove how smart you are and leave the personnel attacks and ego at the login screen.

Your comments are noted, however, my remarks were not prompted by the mistake, we all make mistakes, myself included. Rather I was commenting on the tendency (all too common) to post erroneous information to a thread when the correct information has already been given. It happens quite often, and it detracts from the usefulness of a forun as a means of exchange of useful information. I dunno about you, but if there is a thread in which several posters have posted information which consistently conflicts with my understanding of something, little bells go off in my head and I say to myself ... "self, maybe there's something here that you don't understand completely", and I look into it before I start running my mouth. Obviously, Night_flight didn't go through this process. I would submit that there would be a lot less misinformations and minunderstandings in aviation if people would do a little research instead of talking out of thier a$$es.

 

[DC8 Flyer]

Your comments are noted, however, my remarks were not prompted by the mistake, we all make mistakes, myself included. Rather I was commenting on the tendency (all too common) to post erroneous information to a thread when the correct information has already been given. It happens quite often, and it detracts from the usefulness of a forun as a means of exchange of useful information. I dunno about you, but if there is a thread in which several posters have posted information which consistently conflicts with my understanding of something, little bells go off in my head and I say to myself ... "self, maybe there's something here that you don't understand completely", and I look into it before I start running my mouth. Obviously, Night_flight didn't go through this process. I would submit that there would be a lot less misinformations and minunderstandings in aviation if people would do a little research instead of talking out of thier a$$es.

Cool, cool. Is it me, or is really late....

 

[trashhauler]

They used to use ILS 2 31L rather than Y or Z, but there could be confusion on the radio with 'ILS to 31L' or was it 'ILS 2 31L'.

There is a usually a different initial approach portion that you might be expected to fly, for example one might be an NDB procedure turn and the other a VOR radial to the FAF. Depending on the equipment available in your aircraft, you might not be able to fly one of the approaches.

 

[38tango]

Your comments are noted, however, my remarks were not prompted by the mistake, we all make mistakes, myself included. Rather I was commenting on the tendency (all too common) to post erroneous information to a thread when the correct information has already been given. It happens quite often, and it detracts from the usefulness of a forun as a means of exchange of useful information. I dunno about you, but if there is a thread in which several posters have posted information which consistently conflicts with my understanding of something, little bells go off in my head and I say to myself ... "self, maybe there's something here that you don't understand completely", and I look into it before I start running my mouth. Obviously, Night_flight didn't go through this process. I would submit that there would be a lot less misinformations and minunderstandings in aviation if people would do a little research instead of talking out of thier a$$es.

A squared...I hope you were never an instructor...if you were then you probably scared at least a few good sticks away from flying with that attitude. All this guy did was ask a question...and isn't a message board about opinions? If he ever needs a demeaning smart @ss answer I guess he knows who to call on now. This is supposed to be LIGHT conversation you @n@l retentive j@ck@ss. Why don't you go into the kitchen and get yourself a nice big steamy cup of shut the hell up.

 

[A Squared]

All this guy did was ask a question...and isn't a message board about opinions? If he ever needs a demeaning smart @ss answer I guess he knows who to call on now.

Right....... you might go back and read the thread, for comprehension this time. He didn't ask a question, that was Stewie who asked the question, and I answered it, politely and correctly, as did several others. The poster in question was posting an incorrect answer to the question after it had been answered correctly (a pet peeve of mine) As for my attitude toward questions, you'll find many examples on this board of me posting fairly detailed answers and explanations to various questions, many of them of a very basic nature. I don't think you'll find many instances of me having been rude to someone for merely for asking a question. I will however admit to having a very low tolerance for someone contradicting others, when they don't know what they're talking about themselves. Night-flight's post is a case in point.