VOR approach SMO

In article ,
Hamish Reid wrote:
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...

I too am a long time NACO chart user and didn't see any ambiguity in
reading the SMO VOR approach. It's very clear from the cross-section view
that you are not to descend below 2600' until crossing BEVEY, and are not
to descent below 1120' until crossing CULVE. Furthermore, you can only
descend below 1120' if you have DME to identify CULVE or are under
postivie radar contol from ATC.

I also don't see the ambiguity that the previous poster had mentioned
regarding the three asterisks - they all pertain to the same piece of
information. Namely, that when the tower is closed, DME is required
to descend below 1120 for the circle to land (or that you are under
postivie radar contol when the tower is open).

All of that said, this is still definitely a slam-dunk kind of approach.

I guess it's a matter of perference with respect to NACO vs. Jepp.
Sorta like Apple vs. Microsoft, or vi vs. emacs.
(Oh, and I'm a NACO/Apple/vi kind of guy...)

-- Dane