Underfire, the chart you posted isn't the same as the earlier one you posted. It has the FAF at 6.6 DME FJR (as Jepp says) and no profile check at the OM. :confused:

Can't quite work out what most of this has got to do with the original post?

Bloggs,

You are correct. The second one I posted is the correct chart...sorry about that

Jepp has the FAF in the same location, the issue is the level segment past the FAF and different GPA.

That's OK, UF. Really odd Jepp using 3.13°. The chart clearly shows 3° misses the FG step by 20ft.

no worries...

What is ALT AD of 17? I note all of the altitudes have 17 added to them...
600 (583), 2000 (1983), etc..

Must be a French thing. Means Aerodrome Altitude 17ft. Threshold altitude is 6ft. The bracketed values are the "AAL" heights.

interesting, and yet the MDA (H) uses 20 feet

Its funny, they have all of this useless data on the chart, yet leave out TCH. :}

For non-precision approaches the Tan 3° formula is OK for nominal altitudes.
However for Precision approaches the Earth curvature should be taken into account which will raise the nominal glide path altitudes depending on the distance away from the touch down point.