In article ,
Dave Butler wrote:

karl gruber wrote:
I have never used NACO charts, ever.

From the NACO chart I downloaded, there are four identical asterisks. It is
very easy to read the chart as I did, as one of the asterisk points to
crossing at the lower altitude. Another poster read it that way as well.

The Jeppesen charts show no such ambiguity.

I agree, Karl. With the benefit of all this discussion and sitting
comfortably at my workstation, the chart is unambiguous. If I were
prepping the approach while trying to fly the airplane (which *does*
happen sometimes) I'm not sure I couldn't have been similarly misled. I
think NACO could find a better way to convey the correct information.

As a long-time NACO chart user, I found it unambiguous, but that wasn't
the point I was concentrating on the later parts of this thread, which
was: didn't *anyone* who advocated going below 1120 immediately after
BEVEY notice the obstructions? Doesn't anyone else look at things like
that as well as the bare minimums? Unlike Karl, I'm no ATP, but it's
typically one of the first things I look at with an unfamiliar
approach...

Hamish