On Fri, 02 May 2008 07:35:13 -0700, Airbus wrote:

The gripe seems to be that the profile view in the NACO chart does not show a
stepdown, as the Jepp does, neatly intercepting the glideslope from below. In
purely graphical terms, they have a point. An architect would agree it's
misleading, and the continuous, sloping line on the NACO chart suggests a fixed
descent rate from the IF would have you magically intercept the glideslope at
the right place and altitude and even on the correct slope, which of course is
not true, and is not the way it's flown.

It always seemed pretty obvious to me based on the crossing altitudes,
but again, I don't have much experience with Jepp charts.

When one section of the continuously sloping line descends 200-400
feet, and the other (after the lightning bolt) goes from say, 2200 to
400 AGL, it's obviously not to scale.

Kind of like the 10 MN ring...