That has been my experience with NACO. Very responsive and prompt to
emailed issues. Sometimes it has been followed up with email correspondence
with the procedure designer.

Stan

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , wrote:

Here are the NOTAMS they issued today:

FDC 4/3343 - FI/T CARROLL COUNTY REGIONAL/JACK B. POAGE FIELD,
WESTMINSTER,
MD RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, ORIG... UNYTS WP: CHANGE FIX DESCRIPTION FROM
(IAF) TO
(IF). RADAR REQUIRED. WIE UNTIL UFN


FDC 4/3344 - FI/T CARROLL COUNTY REGIONAL/JACK B. POAGE FIELD,
WESTMINSTER,
MD RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, ORIG... FOUST WP: CHANGE FIX DESCRIPTION FROM
(IAF) TO
(IF). WIE UNTIL UFN

Cool! I sent them mail on Saturday. Either this is a coincidence, or
they're really on the ball about dealing with customer feedback. Of
course, now I need to go hit the AIM to figure out how an IF differs
from an IAF :-)

FWIW, we flew the GPS-34 yesterday. It was a little weird. About 20
miles out we started getting vectors for the approach. We set up the
GPS in "VTF" mode, and then, closer in, we got "direct FOUST, cleared
approach", so we got to do a little frantic button-pushing to get the
right procedure back in the box, which was fine considering this was a
training mission in VMC.