About to take a trip down to Gulfport MS (GPT) tomorrow morning.

Ceilings are forecasted to be 300 broken, so I really doubt that I will be
mucking around with full procedure approaches in the clag, but while I was
studying the approaches into GPT, I am kinda figuring on expecting vectors
for the ILS 14 approach based on forecasted winds.

Looking at the approach, the IAF is CAESA. Outside the 10 NM ring, it says
2000 no PT, so, I would take it that no procedure turn is authorized, yet,
I see the procedure turn barbs just inside the 10 NM ring. Am I reading
this correctly that no procedure turns for the ILS is authorized outside
this 10NM ring, and if I was to do a full procedure approach that it must
be inside the the 10 NM ring??? Or what am I missing?

This question is coming up, as when I got my flight briefing, the briefer
said, no procedure turn at CAESA from Victor 552 which in my opinion agrees
with the approach chart, yet I see the procedure turn barbs outbound 268
and inbound 088 to intercept the localizer.

Any assistance in clearing up my question really appreciated.

Allen

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message ...
> About to take a trip down to Gulfport MS (GPT) tomorrow morning.
>
> Ceilings are forecasted to be 300 broken, so I really doubt that I will be
> mucking around with full procedure approaches in the clag, but while I was
> studying the approaches into GPT, I am kinda figuring on expecting vectors
> for the ILS 14 approach based on forecasted winds.
>
> Looking at the approach, the IAF is CAESA. Outside the 10 NM ring, it says
> 2000 no PT, so, I would take it that no procedure turn is authorized, yet,
> I see the procedure turn barbs just inside the 10 NM ring. Am I reading
> this correctly that no procedure turns for the ILS is authorized outside
> this 10NM ring, and if I was to do a full procedure approach that it must
> be inside the the 10 NM ring??? Or what am I missing?

I'm looking at the naco chart at http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0501/00576IL14.PDF

The procedure turn is applicable only if you start the approach at the BAYOU IAF. The "2000 noPT" designation
applies only if you start the approach at the CAESA IAF. The barb being inside or outside the 10nm ring is not
significant itself (though it shows outside the 10nm ring on the naco chart), but the profile view clearly
indicates that you must remain within 15nm on the procedure turn.

>
> This question is coming up, as when I got my flight briefing, the briefer
> said, no procedure turn at CAESA from Victor 552 which in my opinion agrees
> with the approach chart, yet I see the procedure turn barbs outbound 268
> and inbound 088 to intercept the localizer.
>
> Any assistance in clearing up my question really appreciated.
>

I expect that most FSS briefers know very little about approaches :)

Have a great flight!

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

A Lieberman ) wrote:

> Looking at the approach, the IAF is CAESA. Outside the 10 NM ring, it says
> 2000 no PT, so, I would take it that no procedure turn is authorized, yet,
> I see the procedure turn barbs just inside the 10 NM ring. Am I reading
> this correctly that no procedure turns for the ILS is authorized outside
> this 10NM ring, and if I was to do a full procedure approach that it must
> be inside the the 10 NM ring??? Or what am I missing?

I am looking at the chart and seeing that there is another IAF at the
LOM (BAYOU). If you were coming from the southwest/southeast,
presumably you would use this IAF and hence, fly the localizer outbound
and execute the PT.

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/00576IL14.PDF

If you were coming from the north, you would fly to the CAESA IAF,
intercept the localizer at 2000 and fly inbound, not PT needed.

--
Peter






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
> About to take a trip down to Gulfport MS (GPT) tomorrow morning.
>
> Ceilings are forecasted to be 300 broken, so I really doubt that I will be
> mucking around with full procedure approaches in the clag, but while I was
> studying the approaches into GPT, I am kinda figuring on expecting vectors
> for the ILS 14 approach based on forecasted winds.
>
> Looking at the approach, the IAF is CAESA. Outside the 10 NM ring, it
says
> 2000 no PT, so, I would take it that no procedure turn is authorized, yet,
> I see the procedure turn barbs just inside the 10 NM ring. Am I reading
> this correctly that no procedure turns for the ILS is authorized outside
> this 10NM ring, and if I was to do a full procedure approach that it must
> be inside the the 10 NM ring??? Or what am I missing?
>
> This question is coming up, as when I got my flight briefing, the briefer
> said, no procedure turn at CAESA from Victor 552 which in my opinion
agrees
> with the approach chart, yet I see the procedure turn barbs outbound 268
> and inbound 088 to intercept the localizer.
>
> Any assistance in clearing up my question really appreciated.
>
> Allen

A0008/05 (FDC 5/0505) - ILS OR LOC RWY 14, AMDT 14... CHANGE PLANVIEW NOTE:
PROCEDURE NA FOR ARRIVALS AT CAESA VIA V552 WESTBOUND VICE V522 WESTBOUND.
WIE UNTIL UFN

The only reason a briefer would discuss the details of an instrument
approach procedure is if there was a NOTAM pertaining to it. Somewhere in
your discussion with the briefer, the "procedure" vs the "procedure turn"
got mixed up.

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:10:43 -0600, John Clonts wrote:

> I'm looking at the naco chart at http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0501/00576IL14.PDF
>
> The procedure turn is applicable only if you start the approach at the BAYOU IAF. The "2000 noPT" designation
> applies only if you start the approach at the CAESA IAF. The barb being inside or outside the 10nm ring is not
> significant itself (though it shows outside the 10nm ring on the naco chart), but the profile view clearly
> indicates that you must remain within 15nm on the procedure turn.

Hey John,

Thanks for your quick reply. What you say makes perfect sense!!! (I am
using the NACO chart as well) However....

> I expect that most FSS briefers know very little about approaches :)

I should have said that the FSS gave me the following FDC.

FDC 5/0505 GPT FI/T GULFPORT-BILOXI INTL, GULFPORT, MS.
ILS OR LOC RWY 14, AMDT 14...
CHANGE PLANVIEW NOTE: PROCEDURE NA FOR ARRIVALS
AT CAESA VIA V552 WESTBOUND VICE V522 WESTBOUND.

IF and only IF I was wanting to do a full procedure approach coming from
any other direction then westbound, would a procedure turn be authorized
based on the above FDC? If not, what is this FDC about?

> Have a great flight!

Tops are forecasted to be 5000, filed 5000 for starters as I am expecting
higher tailwinds at a lower altitude. Should be real good, but short
(almost too short!) *smile*.

Allen

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:33:29 -0600, A Lieberman wrote:

> FDC 5/0505 GPT FI/T GULFPORT-BILOXI INTL, GULFPORT, MS.
> ILS OR LOC RWY 14, AMDT 14...
> CHANGE PLANVIEW NOTE: PROCEDURE NA FOR ARRIVALS
> AT CAESA VIA V552 WESTBOUND VICE V522 WESTBOUND.
>
> IF and only IF I was wanting to do a full procedure approach coming from
> any other direction then westbound, would a procedure turn be authorized
> based on the above FDC? If not, what is this FDC about?

DUH, Stan Prevost, cleared this question up! I think I was combining
procedure and procedure turn together, rather then two different "terms".

Thanks to all for clearing this up!

Allen

In article >,
A Lieberman > wrote:

> About to take a trip down to Gulfport MS (GPT) tomorrow morning.
>
> Ceilings are forecasted to be 300 broken, so I really doubt that I will be
> mucking around with full procedure approaches in the clag, but while I was
> studying the approaches into GPT, I am kinda figuring on expecting vectors
> for the ILS 14 approach based on forecasted winds.
>
> Looking at the approach, the IAF is CAESA. Outside the 10 NM ring, it says
> 2000 no PT, so, I would take it that no procedure turn is authorized, yet,
> I see the procedure turn barbs just inside the 10 NM ring. Am I reading
> this correctly that no procedure turns for the ILS is authorized outside
> this 10NM ring, and if I was to do a full procedure approach that it must
> be inside the the 10 NM ring??? Or what am I missing?

I'm looking at the NOS plate

(http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0501/00576IL14.PDF)

The "2000 NoPT" is marking the straight-in segment from CASEA, but the
way it's drawn, it's really hard to see that. I don't have an en-route
for that area, but I would assume there are multiple airways that go to
CASEA. It boils down to this:

1) If you're arriving CASEA on V522 westbound, the whole procedure is
NA. Not just the procedure turn, but the whole procedure.

2) If you're arriving at CASEA on any other airway, then the procedure
TURN is NA, i.e. you go straight-in.

3) If you're arriving at CASEA from BAYOU (perhaps via MUDDA, MINDO, or
GPT VOR).

The cartography here is horrible. I would have drawn the PT barb much
closer in; this would have made it clearer that the NoPT note pertained
to the segment inbound from CASEA.

Does anybody have a Jepp plate handy? Does Jepp draw it any better?


The other problem is the "Procedure NA" terminology is confusing.
Everybody is used to talking about "procedure turn", and the brain just
naturally reads "procedure NA" as "procedure turn NA". I've seen that
mistake made several times (and made it myself). A better note would be
"Approach not authorized for arrivals from V522 westbound". That would
be less likely to be mis-read. I'm sure getting that change into TERPS
would only require about 10 years of debate and paperwork.

It would be simpler if it said IAP not available. That would be clearer
"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> A Lieberman > wrote:
>
>> About to take a trip down to Gulfport MS (GPT) tomorrow morning.
>>
>> Ceilings are forecasted to be 300 broken, so I really doubt that I will
>> be
>> mucking around with full procedure approaches in the clag, but while I
>> was
>> studying the approaches into GPT, I am kinda figuring on expecting
>> vectors
>> for the ILS 14 approach based on forecasted winds.
>>
>> Looking at the approach, the IAF is CAESA. Outside the 10 NM ring, it
>> says
>> 2000 no PT, so, I would take it that no procedure turn is authorized,
>> yet,
>> I see the procedure turn barbs just inside the 10 NM ring. Am I reading
>> this correctly that no procedure turns for the ILS is authorized outside
>> this 10NM ring, and if I was to do a full procedure approach that it must
>> be inside the the 10 NM ring??? Or what am I missing?
>
> I'm looking at the NOS plate
>
> (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0501/00576IL14.PDF)
>
> The "2000 NoPT" is marking the straight-in segment from CASEA, but the
> way it's drawn, it's really hard to see that. I don't have an en-route
> for that area, but I would assume there are multiple airways that go to
> CASEA. It boils down to this:
>
> 1) If you're arriving CASEA on V522 westbound, the whole procedure is
> NA. Not just the procedure turn, but the whole procedure.
>
> 2) If you're arriving at CASEA on any other airway, then the procedure
> TURN is NA, i.e. you go straight-in.
>
> 3) If you're arriving at CASEA from BAYOU (perhaps via MUDDA, MINDO, or
> GPT VOR).
>
> The cartography here is horrible. I would have drawn the PT barb much
> closer in; this would have made it clearer that the NoPT note pertained
> to the segment inbound from CASEA.
>
> Does anybody have a Jepp plate handy? Does Jepp draw it any better?
>
>
> The other problem is the "Procedure NA" terminology is confusing.
> Everybody is used to talking about "procedure turn", and the brain just
> naturally reads "procedure NA" as "procedure turn NA". I've seen that
> mistake made several times (and made it myself). A better note would be
> "Approach not authorized for arrivals from V522 westbound". That would
> be less likely to be mis-read. I'm sure getting that change into TERPS
> would only require about 10 years of debate and paperwork.

Sorry for not seeing the original posting, but this is all I had. Your display
of the NOTAM says to change V522 to V552. Since the enroute chart shows no
V522, only V552, is it possible that they simply made a typo on the original
and were trying to change the approach chart to say not to make the PT on V552
instead of V522. Just a thought.

Charles

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:06:22 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:


>Does anybody have a Jepp plate handy? Does Jepp draw it any better?

They designate it with a note in the plan view near CAESA (it's a
Jepp note, inverse-video 1 next to CAESA, the text could appear
anywhere but happens to be right under CAESA for this procedure)
reading "Procedure not authorized for arrivals at CAESA via V522
westbound". Same effect if one isn't paying close attention to the
meaning of the text.

Sorry, but I missed the original posting. I believe that at GPT there is no
V522, only V552. Maybe they charted something wrong and the NOTAM was to
change the error, V522, to the correct airway, V552.

DC 5/0505 GPT FI/T GULFPORT-BILOXI INTL, GULFPORT, MS.
ILS OR LOC RWY 14, AMDT 14...
CHANGE PLANVIEW NOTE: PROCEDURE NA FOR ARRIVALS
AT CAESA VIA V552 WESTBOUND VICE V522 WESTBOUND.

IF and only IF I was wanting to do a full procedure approach coming from
any other direction then westbound, would a procedure turn be authorized
based on the above FDC? If not, what is this FDC about?

(CKonikoff) wrote in
:

> Sorry, but I missed the original posting. I believe that at GPT there
> is no V522, only V552. Maybe they charted something wrong and the
> NOTAM was to change the error, V522, to the correct airway, V552.

Yes, that's what the NOTAM means. The 522 is a typo, and the NOTAM
corrects this typo.

> DC 5/0505 GPT FI/T GULFPORT-BILOXI INTL, GULFPORT, MS.
> ILS OR LOC RWY 14, AMDT 14...
> CHANGE PLANVIEW NOTE: PROCEDURE NA FOR ARRIVALS
> AT CAESA VIA V552 WESTBOUND VICE V522 WESTBOUND.
>
> IF and only IF I was wanting to do a full procedure approach coming
> from any other direction then westbound, would a procedure turn be
> authorized based on the above FDC? If not, what is this FDC about?

NO, the FDC only corrects V522 to V552. If you're on V552 westbound,
then you cannot fly the approach procedure. In any other case, you do
whatever the approach plate depicts.

--
Regards,

Stan

CKonikoff wrote:

> Sorry, but I missed the original posting. I believe that at GPT there is no
> V522, only V552. Maybe they charted something wrong and the NOTAM was to
> change the error, V522, to the correct airway, V552.
>
> DC 5/0505 GPT FI/T GULFPORT-BILOXI INTL, GULFPORT, MS.
> ILS OR LOC RWY 14, AMDT 14...
> CHANGE PLANVIEW NOTE: PROCEDURE NA FOR ARRIVALS
> AT CAESA VIA V552 WESTBOUND VICE V522 WESTBOUND.
>
> IF and only IF I was wanting to do a full procedure approach coming from
> any other direction then westbound, would a procedure turn be authorized
> based on the above FDC? If not, what is this FDC about?

They made a mistake on the airway number. What the NOTAM clarifies is that you
cannot do the procedure at all arriving on V552 from the east, because it
exceeds the 120-degree course change limitation of TERPs Paragraph 220. CAESA is
on V552, so it is not possible to do the procedure turn arriving on that route.
Arriving on V-552 from the west results in less than a 120-degree course change
at CAESA, and because "NoPT" is authorized after CAESA, it's straight-in from
that direction on V-552.

It's only been in the past three years or so that they have started adding these
course change limitation notes to IAPs, although the requirement has always
existed in TERPS (subparagraph "b" below):

220. FEEDER ROUTES. When the IAF is part of the enroute structure there may be
no need to designate additional routes for aircraft to proceed to the IAF. In
some cases, however, it is necessary to designate feeder routes from the enroute
structure to the IAF. Only those feeder routes which provide an operational
advantage shall be established and published. These should coincide with the
local air traffic flow. The length of the feeder route shall not exceed the
operational service volume of the facilities which provide navigational guidance
unless additional frequency protection is provided. Enroute airway obstacle
clearance criteria shall apply to feeder routes. The minimum altitude
established on feeder routes shall not be less than the altitude established at
the IAF.
a. Construction of a feeder route connecting to a course reversal segment. The
area considered for obstacle evaluation is oriented along the feeder route at a
width appropriate to the type of route (VOR or NDB). The area terminates at the
course reversal fix, and is defined by a line perpendicular to the feeder course
through the course reversal fix.
b. The angle of intersection between the feeder route course and the next
straight segment (feeder/initial) course shall not exceed 120°.
c. Descent Gradient. The OPTIMUM descent gradient in the feeder route is 250
feet per mile. Where a higher descent gradient is necessary, the MAXIMUM
permissible gradient is 500 feet per mile. The OPTIMUM descent gradient for high
altitude penetrations is 800 feet per mile. Where a higher descent gradient is
necessary, the MAXIMUM permissible is 1,000 feet per mile.

Jepp chart is posted at alt.binaries.pictures. aviation

I think a lot of folks may not know what "VICE" really means!

CKonikoff wrote:
> Sorry, but I missed the original posting. I believe that at GPT there is no
> V522, only V552. Maybe they charted something wrong and the NOTAM was to
> change the error, V522, to the correct airway, V552.
>
> DC 5/0505 GPT FI/T GULFPORT-BILOXI INTL, GULFPORT, MS.
> ILS OR LOC RWY 14, AMDT 14...
> CHANGE PLANVIEW NOTE: PROCEDURE NA FOR ARRIVALS
> AT CAESA VIA V552 WESTBOUND VICE V522 WESTBOUND.
>
> IF and only IF I was wanting to do a full procedure approach coming from
> any other direction then westbound, would a procedure turn be authorized
> based on the above FDC? If not, what is this FDC about?

Bill J wrote:

> I think a lot of folks may not know what "VICE" really means!

True. The FAA is supposed to promote good human factors. "Instead of" would be
much clearer, but it's 9 characters instead of 5, and their NOTAM system is old
and clunky.

>

If anyone wants to see the Jepp chart it is at:

http://www.members.cox.net/aterpster

I tried uploading to the aviation binary group but apparently my ISP is now blocking
binary uploads to Usenet groups...which I understand is becoming more common.

In article >, wrote:

> >
>
> If anyone wants to see the Jepp chart it is at:
>
> http://www.members.cox.net/aterpster
>
> I tried uploading to the aviation binary group but apparently my ISP is now
> blocking
> binary uploads to Usenet groups...which I understand is becoming more common.

They probably thought it was porn...

Breathlessly, I accepted my controller's vector. I was completely under
her control, adjusting heading and even altitude to meet her every whim.
Although I could not see, I could sense her guiding me closer and closer.
Approaching the outer marker, however, I started to slow down on my own. I
had never flown this approach before and wanted to savor those precious
moments between when the approach lights first showed themselves and when
my main gear finally touched the landing zone.

Then, it happened. My controller told me she didn't want to talk to me any
more and started giving me instructions on how to contact my next
controller. I had done this before, but there was still the mystery and
excitement of anticipating the unknown. I didn't know what to expect, but
followed her instructions anyway. What else could I do? My gear was
extended and there was no turning back now...

That's a nice variation on the Mile High Club. ;-)

Roy Smith wrote:

> In article >, wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> > If anyone wants to see the Jepp chart it is at:
> >
> > http://www.members.cox.net/aterpster
> >
> > I tried uploading to the aviation binary group but apparently my ISP is now
> > blocking
> > binary uploads to Usenet groups...which I understand is becoming more common.
>
> They probably thought it was porn...
>
> Breathlessly, I accepted my controller's vector. I was completely under
> her control, adjusting heading and even altitude to meet her every whim.
> Although I could not see, I could sense her guiding me closer and closer.
> Approaching the outer marker, however, I started to slow down on my own. I
> had never flown this approach before and wanted to savor those precious
> moments between when the approach lights first showed themselves and when
> my main gear finally touched the landing zone.
>
> Then, it happened. My controller told me she didn't want to talk to me any
> more and started giving me instructions on how to contact my next
> controller. I had done this before, but there was still the mystery and
> excitement of anticipating the unknown. I didn't know what to expect, but
> followed her instructions anyway. What else could I do? My gear was
> extended and there was no turning back now...