I understand your reasoning and mostly agree with you. My only
concern is that a missed approach procedure that is given in a textual
format should be able to stand on it's own and should be stated in
phraseology that is "best practice". It should be flyable even
without relying on charting, if worded properly. A bearing is a
magnetic course and represents a number coerrsponding the the flight
path of the aircraft. Perhaps the specialist did transfer the source
document info accurately as it was written, but it is still defective
as to best practice phraseology, and not as easily understandable as
Jepp's rendition. I don't know what the date of Change 3 is, but the
approach is 3 years old now and needs a rewrite. KISS works for me!
Thanks for your input.





On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:59:17 -0800, wrote:



Bill Zaleski wrote:


You seem to think that either bearing number, 030 or 210 should make
no difference. A textual description of a missed approach must be
complete in itself and need not be suplemented by additional charting
prior to the published hold.

I never said there was no difference. What I said is that the context makes it
obvious what the flight track should be. Over the years there has been lots of
changes about how NDB bearings are stated or portrayed, so context is always
important.



If you look again at both charts, you will see that Jepessen has it
right and NACO has it wrong. It's not rocket science to figure it
out, but one should not have to dance around improper phraseology to
get it right. The bearing you are flying is the same number as your
heading corrected for wind drift, not the reciprocal as NACO has it.

No, NACO has it right and Jeppesen has it wrong in the sense that the source (legal)
document states it exactly as NACO states it. Granted, Jeppesen says it better, but
they did that on their own.

The policy that the procedures specialist followed when this procedure was issued
mandated to use bearings from for NDB bearings, whether to or from the facility..
That policy has been changed in Change 3 to Flight Procedures and Airspace (FAAH
8260.19C), to use course-to and bearing-from for NDB facilities.

What galls me is that Jeppesen would change it without coordinating with the FAA
office responsible for this stuff. If they were perfect, that would be different.
But, they are far from it, and without following (or getting source corrected) they
are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. (i.e., procedural anarchy).