And we won't mention the problems US pilots have flying runway heading in the UK when instructed to do so by ATC. Or will we?
We won't, because I've never found that to be the case. That is, where such isolated cases may exist, these are pilots failing to follow an established ATC direction, not a language ambiguity. It also has no bearing on the Aspen localizer back course, which is correctly labeled, with clear directions on use and application.
The Cali case wasn't an issue of a mislabled procedure, it was a case of a crew failing to obtain clarification, failing to identify, loss of situational awareness, failure to stow speed brakes, failure to verify terrain, failure to identify, and yes, miscommunication (including limited controller vocabulary). You already know this. That has no relationship to the correctly labled back course at Aspen.
One wonders how it was possible the Titanic ever sank?
An iceberg, bad metalurgy, and a failed design that allowed a single stress riser to separate the hull, but that's not important right now. Neither is the loss of the Titanic relevant to a correctly named navaid and course, procedure, and chart, flying into Aspen, Colorado.
Why on earth was the procedure not constructed on a 'front course' of 120? The g/a then back-tracks this localiser a 'course' set of 120, as in many other procedures. I am assuming, of course, that there is no requirement for a 'front course' of 300 in any procedures there, in which case I think this has all been made with unnecessarily complicated?
Because the KASE procedure, as published, eliminates reverse sensing while flying outbound.
I think there is no provision for back-course approaches in the UK, and I have no experience whatsoever in these types of approaches even flying around Europe in the capacity I do, but the give away for me is the "NB" on the chart.
Surely an explicit acknowledgement by Jepperson that the chance of ambiguity exists?
"NB?" Whether one has experience flying a back course or not, it's one basic type of instrument procedure, and if one has an instrument rating or ATP, one should understand it. The instructions on the chart are quite clear. The procedure has been designed to eliminate ambiguity errors by eliminating reverse sensing issues which might lead to disorientation. In the event one is operating with an HSI, which is nearly universally the case today, the matter is largely a non-event.
Is that claim to "normality" contingent on the fact you've called it a "back-course"?
What does "normal sensing" mean in the context of flying a localizer or back course approach? You don't understand this, or you're trying to cloud the issue? We're not talking normal psychology, here. We're not talking normal child development. We're not talking normal schools. We're talking in context about a back course facility (which the I-PKN facility is) with normal sensing.
If you're familiar at all with the concept of a back course procedure (you've stated you've got at least 4,000 hours of flight experience, and apparently you're instrument-rated, so this shouldn't come as any great shock), you'll understand the difference between normal sensing and reverse sensing. If one is instructed that one can anticipate normal sensing when flying outbound on the back course, one knows that given there are only two options (normal sensing vs. reverse sensing), the matter is made clear. One doesn't need to attempt to apply the word "normal" out of context or consider it's higher philosophical implications. Normal sensing when flying a localizer and back course means that when the little needle goes left, you follow it and go left too. (Reverse sensing, of course, means that when the needle goes left, you go right, hence the term "reverse sensing"). This procedure utilizes the back course to provide normal sensing to the pilot, and explicitly states this on the procedure chart, as well as giving only ONE course value (300 degrees) to avoid confusion. Put in 300 degrees, and all is well, one has normal sensing, and one is free to move on to live a life of religious fulfillment.
It's called a "back course" because it is indeed (get ready for it, drum-roll, please) a back course facility, and one is flying outbound on a back course (which, as every instrument student knows, provides normal sensing, as opposed to flying inbound on a back course, which provides reverse sensing).
What does "normal" mean if this is a "non-normal" approach for you?
Again, if you'll leave the procedural note in context, as it's written in plain-english, you'll understand. The procedural note says nothing about a normal approach, or abnormal approach. It specifically states "
The I-PKN back course outbound is normal sensing." Again, to belabor the point, normal sensing, vs. reverse sensing. One must consider the context, and read. One can't simply see the word "normal," and apply it to any other use of the word "normal" in the English language (it isn't a normal surgery procedure, normal child, normal pet, or normal pizza, but normal sensing, exactly as it's written).
Even then I still find the note ambiguous. Is it normal sensing when you've dialled up "300" or normal sensing when you've dialled up "120"?
Where do you find "120" in the procedure? You don't. It's 300 degrees, which works whether one has a simple fixed-card CDI, or whether one is using an EHSI display. You don't need to figure out sensing, ambiguity (another one of those terms that you're throwing around out of context, here: ambiguity is a proper term when dealing with the procedure and indications thereof). You have normal sensing available, and clearly are flying outbound on a localizer back course.
The semantics is hugely important.
The semantics are important, which is why the procedure is correctly labled, accurate, and spelled out, and which is why the user is specifically given only one course value to insert, along with a clear notation that normal sensing will be available as one is flying the back course outbound. Go figure.