meritflyer
Well-Known Member
What does the "Z" mean in this title -
RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 17
RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 17
Jepp Question
- Thread starter meritflyer
- Start date
It just denotes a different RNAV procedure (or ILS, or other straight-in) to the same runway. Since databases can't have duplicate file names (ie- two RNAV Rwy 17's), if you have multiple different straight-in IAPs to the same runway, they'll be denoted as Z, Y etc......or otherwise, end of the alaphabet working backwards. Not to be confused by multiple same-title circling approach procedures which start at the beginning of the alphabet and work forward, for example VOR-A, VOR-B.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
btw, probably clear by now but just in case, it's not a "Jepp Question."
Air Pirate
Well-Known Member
...also, as the designators move backward, the minimums raise. ie- Z will have lower min's than Y
PeterPilot
New Member
:clap:
Folks, I just want to add that the knowledge-base at this site is truly awesome and the willingness to share that knowledge is commendable.
Folks, I just want to add that the knowledge-base at this site is truly awesome and the willingness to share that knowledge is commendable.
400A
New Member
Unless you have a newer GPS/FMS (and I don't think even some of the recent ones will do it either), check that procedure you load up, the one in your unit may not be the plate you are looking at. The providers (Collins, Universal, Garmin, etc) typically only put the more precise approach in, so the LPV only RNAV may be the procedure in the database and you may be only able to shoot the LNAV only version of the approach. Double check those waypoints.
The standard that the GPS unit providers has to go by only allows for one procedure per type (ie RNAV, ILS, NDB) to loaded for each runway, IIRC. Thus the X Y and Z labels as A B and C are typically for circling approaches.
The standard that the GPS unit providers has to go by only allows for one procedure per type (ie RNAV, ILS, NDB) to loaded for each runway, IIRC. Thus the X Y and Z labels as A B and C are typically for circling approaches.
For the RNAVs, yes. But not necessarily true for others, just to alleviate any confusion. For other IAP types, they mainly denote different procedures of the same approach type to the same runway.
For example at my last base, KHMN, we had multiple approaches that began from different areas, but to the same runway. Take for instance, the HI-ILS 22. There are three different ones, Z, Y, X. They all have the same minima, their differences being the IAFs and the routing of the Penetration Tracks (for full procedure). The Z is a straight in for arriving from the NE, the Y was for jets arriving from the north from the ABQ area, and the X was for aircraft arriving from the S or SE.
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0909/00007HIZ22.PDF
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0909/00007HIY22.PDF
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0909/00007HIX22.PDF
Some of us can't even do that.
"N123, can you accept the GPS 18?"
"Sure."
*a few minutes later*
"Hey Center, N123"
"N123 Center go ahead"
"Yeah not gonna be able to do that GPS 18...how about the NDB-C Circle 18?"
"Uh.....are you sure?"
"Unfortunately"
-mini
Not so for some:
Attachments
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
Our late 80's technology boxes with the Commodore 64 processor have the different transitions in the database.
Sounds like more of a database deal than a GPS deal.
400A
New Member
I'm not quite sure what you two are trying to say.
From Jeppesen
From what I can gather about the ARINC-424 standard is there cannot be multiple procedures of the same nav type to the same runway. BUUUT, this is coming from a Jeppesen rep as I don't have access to the document (they want 250 bucks for it).
Our Collins 850 only has 1 RNAV approach to those runways that have more than one, the Garmin 530 in our King Air (as of a year ago, the airplane is now at another base) only had single approaches per navaid type, the UNS-1 A, B, D and M (I might have added a letter) only had one.
Sooo, I am not sure what you two are trying to say. My statement is simply that the standard seems to be evolving or not being adhered to and that you could very well find yourself with a database that has an approach you cannot do, even though you have the plate, nothing more than a heads up, take an extra second and verify you are shooting the approach you think you are.
From Jeppesen
From what I can gather about the ARINC-424 standard is there cannot be multiple procedures of the same nav type to the same runway. BUUUT, this is coming from a Jeppesen rep as I don't have access to the document (they want 250 bucks for it).
Our Collins 850 only has 1 RNAV approach to those runways that have more than one, the Garmin 530 in our King Air (as of a year ago, the airplane is now at another base) only had single approaches per navaid type, the UNS-1 A, B, D and M (I might have added a letter) only had one.
Sooo, I am not sure what you two are trying to say. My statement is simply that the standard seems to be evolving or not being adhered to and that you could very well find yourself with a database that has an approach you cannot do, even though you have the plate, nothing more than a heads up, take an extra second and verify you are shooting the approach you think you are.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
I am simply trying to say that there are database "workarounds". In our computer that is only slightly ahead of punch-card technology, they labeled the approaches in accordance to the standards that are used in our database.
Instead of a ILSZ15, it might have a different designation. Thus a certain piece of equipment could support the various approaches depending on the database.
That's all I'm saying.
Then again, we're allowed to build our own approaches too.
But I am fully, 100%, plus, plus in agreement of verifying the approach after it's loaded.
We may act like engineers and academics on here, but when you're out in the crap, it's not the time to be inventing S<tuff>.
:beer:
How do you build an RNAV IAP and get approach mode to activate?
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
Just for the sake of safety and clarity, I'll spell this disclaimer out: We are authorized via our Op Specs and trained in the following procedures. Please, if you aren't trained or authorized, don't jeopardize your safety inventing stuff.....
Good questions guys. I'll answer the best I can, as I'm still new to all of this too....
To start out with, we only fly 2 types of approaches, "ILS" and "Non-ILS".
So, if we aren't using and ILS, our options are LOC with VNAV or LNAV/VNAV.
We use two methods.
The first is termed the "Overlay Method". This method is commonly used for NDB approaches, as there are none contained in our database (thus the issue you brought up, 400A).
So, we are allowed to select an approach with a similar plan view then build what we need to in order to make the approach.
There is a good chance that we will need to modify/add/delete waypoints to the approach and missed. However, we are not allowed to insert waypoints past the FAF.
The other method is the "Manual Waypoint Entry".
In this scenario, we add waypoints and altitude constraints and missed approach waypoints to the route to construct an approach.
Of course, both methods have us rely on monitoring the ground-based nav data as well.
aterpster, the way our FMS works seems to be different than the cycling of most new-style GA GPS units. However, I have only read how they work, and never flown one. I went from a KLN-90 (vfr) straight to Honeywell FMS's.
The aircraft won't cycle to "on-approach" logic, which allows us to control the speed manually, while the aircraft respects the VNAV path. In that instance we will use alternate methods of approach (Constant speed descent) to comply with the vertical path.
I hope that answers your queries. If not, and I added to the confusion or gave an incomplete answer, let me know, and I'll try to clarify.
