aterpster,
My comment was merely drawing an analogy between the fact that, if one accepts that you want your precision guidance close to the nastiest terrain, then one presumably also accepts one wants it closest to the runway. But tracking
away from the DBL
towards the runway obviously isn't giving you that.
Then I thought about it, and, I guess there isn't much point sticking a VOR at the bottom of a valley, and bearing in mind you locals who know the terrain say there is room for manoeuvre in the vicinity of the MAP, the benefits of locating the beacon out there outweigh the contravention of the general principle in the aforementioned paragraph.
In addition
Guppy makes the good point about the benefit on the VOR approach:
Whereas the VOR approach begins at the highest terrain, it provides the most accurate guidance closest to that terrain
However,
Guppy also says:
I don't presume to know why Jeppesen may include a warning on their chart...
then says
NACO publishes the Aspen charts (as does Jeppesen) with a notation on the localizer course because it serves to clarify...
so really, unless he is playing on the distinction between NACO and Jepp, he knows what the note is there for like I said.
But, purely in the interests of curiousity:
1) Why is that note not on the FAA VOR plate? Is it on the Jepp VOR plate?
2) Why does the FAA plate suggest dual nav receivers are needed for the VOR and not the LOC? What do the Jepp plate(s) say?
