You can holler all you like about the merits of the procedure and how it is TERPS this and TERPS that, but I, as a pilot prohibited by my airline from shooting back-course procedures like Denti (Why is that?), living in a country where there is no provision for them (Why is that?), and having not done one in at least the last 4000 approaches (not flight hours - go figure the difference) found it, initially, could be interpreted, by myself, as ambiguous.
I can't really figure the difference, whereas you've given no indication of your typical leg length or frequency of approaches/landings. Given that you appear to be indicating that your experience is confined to Europe, the legs must be very short, so perhaps there's some rough correlation between the number of approaches and the number of hours. I don't really care, nor is it germane to the conversation; I point this out because you brought it up.
You've been insistent on proper terminology. You don't like the name of the approach, you don't like the naming convention, either. Never the less, whereas ambiguity is an important, precise term with regard to flying VHF navigation, you're happy to confuse ambiguity and ambiguous.
Perhaps you mean nebulous, or perhaps you mean confusing. Who knows?
I don't know why your employer prohibits you from flying back course approaches. Perhaps your employer insists on a lower standard of training. Perhaps there aren't any to be hand, and you visit such a small area that it's not a problem for you. Perhaps you're operating to a very limited number of runways, all served by nice, comfy ILS's. Who knows? You asked, but given the lack of information, the only proper response is "who knows?"
I'm betting you do, and perhaps you'll even share the reason. It may change the speed at which the world rotates, so don't delay.
However, I would suggest that the ambiguity of the plate is contingent on far more than your ability to mount a vociferous defence in its favour.
I would suggest you determine the meaning of ambiguity in the context of VHF navigation. It has nothing to do with my defense (that's defense, with an "s). Vociferous is a big, aggressive sounding word, so like a strange do, we'll leave it aside.
Given that you think you mean that the approach chart is
ambiguous (as opposed to the proper term ambiguity, when considering VHF navigation...your choice to harp on the correctness of the terminology here, remember), what exactly do you find ambiguous about the plain-english rendering of "
The I-PKN back course outbound is normal sensing?"
We've already determined, early in the thread, that flying toward the nav facility is inbound, and flying away from it is outbound. Therefore, given that you're told it's a back course, you're told it's the outbound course, you're given the oubound course value (300) only (with no other numbers to confuse you), and you're told that it's normal sensing (as opposed to the standard expectation when flying a back course: reverse sensing), then it's really, really hard to see the information on the chart as ambiguous, unclear, improper, inaccurate, or wrong.
To this end try and understand my analogy(s) a little less literally.
A little less literally, you say, but you also told us that semantics are important. Let's be precise, you say. Okay; that's the point of this tangent the thread has taken, anyway. People are upset that the procedure doesn't appear proper, doesn't appear to be accurate, so let's be precise. You tell us semantics are important, yet you tell us not to follow along so literally. You must decide (but don't do it with ambiguity...)
The semantics is hugely important.
Indeed.