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.