Cute SID. Glad I don't have to fly around there.
I am with BOAC on this one: the "back course" is misnamed.
A *course* is directional, both in common speech and in (European) aviation. Both a front course and a back course are flown *towards* the antenna, in the normal meaning of the terms. The non-directional concept can be denoted by the term "course line".
According to those meanings, the SARDD ONE SID requires that one fly the *reciprocal of a back course*.
But maybe for the FAA a "course" sometimes a course line, without direction. Who are we to argue (although we may smirk)? That means the two available courses (in the above meaning) would be called "back course outbound" and "back course inbound". Indeed, here is the quote from the AIM (at
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi...1/aim0101.html):
Originally Posted by AIM 1-1-9 (b)
2. The approach course of the localizer is called the front course and is used with other functional parts, e.g., glide slope, marker beacons, etc. The localizer signal is transmitted at the far end of the runway. It is adjusted for a course width of (full scale fly-left to a full scale fly-right) of 700 feet at the runway threshold.
3. The course line along the extended centerline of a runway, in the opposite direction to the front course is called the back course.
So a "front course" is a course, but a "back course" is a course line, not a course. So be it.
This kind of mild confusion doesn't often matter for regular local airspace users, but such things do get one into grave difficulties sometimes. I just wrote a paper on critical verbal communication in major accidents (rail and air) for the Handbook of Technical Communication (ed. Gibbon and Mehler, Mouton-de Gruyter, Berlin, forthcoming 2011). The air accidents I consider are Cali and Überlingen.
PBL