You and I both know why Jepperson do not include the note "If you fly around randomly below MSA IMC, you'll bump into something" on their ASPEN plate.
You and I both know why Jepperson include the note "I-PKN backcourse is normal sensing outbound" on their plates.
I don't presume to know why Jeppesen may include a warning on their chart, but your example is ridiculous. The warning, however tongue-in-cheek you intend to be, is nonsensical, as flying below MSA doesn't guarantee that one will hit something nor does doing so while in instrument meteorological conditions. Accordingly, such a warning would be stupid. Furthermore, as MSA is provided for every chart and is standardized, and the significance thereof fully understood, a nonsensical incorrect note regarding it's application would be superfluous.
NACO publishes the Aspen charts (as does Jeppesen) with a notation on the localizer course because it serves to clarify the procedure and show very plainly what is to be done and what is to be expected. Proper terminology is used, specifying normal sensing vs. reverse sensing. Procedural notes are used on approach, arrival, and departure charts where necessary to clarify the procedure, and that's exactly what is done with the statement "
I-PKN backcourse is normal sensing outbound."
Perhaps you know something more about this that you're not telling us? You stated that you and I have a collective knowledge about that statement, and I very much doubt that's true, so if you have additional insight to offer, spit it out. I'm all ears.
With this in mind, the VOR procedure at the same field makes a mockery of this type of justification!
Presumably it is rarely flown in comparison to the LOC?
I've flown the VOR procedure many times at KASE. How, exactly, does it make a mockery of Aterpster's comments?
The localizer approach to the runway at ASE takes place through a different canyon than the departure while following the back course. Furthermore, the canyon and terrain widens and opens up as one departs away from Aspen on the back course, toward Lindz. Aterpster's comments are accurate and correct.
Most operators who fly into Aspen won't fly the approaches if the weather is below Red Table VOR, and won't go in there at night. Night restrictions and circling restrictions took place a few years ago following a well-publicized crash. I've circled there many times in the past, as well as arrived and departed at night, before these changes took place. My personal preference is arriving in the day when I can see the runway from the start of the procedure, and this is how most operators go there, too.
Insofar as your assessment of Aterpster's comments regarding the necessity for the accurate back-course guidance on the missed approach, there's no inconsistency. The VOR and Localizer approaches have different ground tracks, different obstacles on the approach, and different initial altitudes. Whereas the VOR approach begins at the highest terrain, it provides the most accurate guidance closest to that terrain. The localizer approach provides accurate guidance throughout, but most accurate closer to the runway. Both execute their missed approaches at about the same place, using the same procedure, and both utilize the back course for accurate course guidance terrain avoidance during the missed.
In turn, the localizer back course is most accurate near the transmitter, which is where it's closest to the terrain and the most critical. As one climbs out toward LINDZ, one gains terrain clearance vertically and laterally, and the canyons open up. The localizer back course is well placed to provide the most accurate course guidance where it's most needed, and there is no "mockery" of anything. It's actually a well-reasoned approach, particularly given the terrain. If you've never flown there, you might not fully understand why. What you would understand, however, is what's required of you as a pilot, because it's clearly shown on the approach charts and departure procedures.