Incredible!
Only when I left the US, did I realise how far behind a lot of the rest of the world are with their GPS / RNAV development.
(Before anyone jumps, I say this purely as a matter of fact.)
Milt: the approaches are not to a specific point on the runway. They are the same as a VOR/DME, or NDB/DME in that they are approaches to a missed approach point that is determined by both azimuth and distance. There is no real difference because it is GPS. As such, they are promulgated in the same way any other approach waypoint is, on the instrument approach chart.
Just for your information:
The first stage of the transition and 'testing' of GPS in the US was called an 'overlay' approach, where the GPS approach was simply overlayed on an existing Non-precision approach.
The next step in the GPS introduction was to have a GPS approach what was not predicated on any existing Navaid at all. - A standalone GPS approach. (After all it's GPS!). This allowed for the basic-T design (and its modifications) to become standard.
Moving on from the Basic-T the Terminal Arrival Area standards was developed. This is a standard for the area surrounding an RNAV approach. It is so beautifully simple that a controller can give a clearance 30nm out and not speak to the arriving aircraft until the FAF. No need for 'waypoint' instructions either as its all on the plate.
The US is now in the process of implementing the VNAV approaches, with the use of WAAS.
No need for VORs or NDBs or any other land-based navaids everr again!
Maybe one day in the future, technology will be available for helicopter pilots to plug in the coordinates of a car crash / rig / heli-skiing drop site / roof top helipad / construction site etc...etc... and 'hey, presto!' the GPS writes a custom 'Point-In-Space' legally approved approach to that point, with appropriate minima etc..etc..
As for the integrity of the system and the Volpe Report stated earlier...yes, there are some drawbacks.. loss of RAIM and possible targeting by terrorist groups.
However, the article mentioned earlier was based heavily on the Volpe Report, which was published in 2001 (I think). This was before GPS technology was well developed, before the were so many satellites, and most importantly, before there were viable alternatives to the US GPS system (Glonass??, Galileo)
With these in mind, I think the GPS concept is the way forward for aviation and world navigation. You'll eventually have receivers that can 'lock' onto any of the systems as necessary, assuring complete navigation all the time.
From a heli pilot's perspective, yes LORAN is a great backup, but it is also susceptible to its own problems, and at the end of the day is predicated on radio technology, and is thus 'line of sight'. It requires expensive ground based stations. So, as a backup (or alongside) GPS yes, as primary navigation system (as the LORANites would love to see)...nah!
cl12pv2s