CCC,
Thanks for that reference.
As much as I just love studies....
Good reference for ARA, and good ref for GPS, but certainly a disconnect.
If you were using GPS for nav, you would not likely code in an ARA approach, but a PinS or a SOAP. SOAP directly overlays an ARA but with only one offset, so yes, the study is correct that there are no coded ARA's at that point in time, but there were many coded SOAP's and PinS's.
It is a criteria foundation, that an operator cannot enter an instrument procedure, which is why the Rig Approach system will not likely get approval.
There is no reason that the same procedure cannot be pre-loaded, and this would be approved for use.
The procedure design can account for uncompensated baro-vnav, rad-alt or better both, which both is the current standard for MOS charts. (although with baro, the coldest temperature of the location is used, which is why one sees such a difference in MDA between rad-alt and baro)
I am starting to see the point that many of you have made about incidents attributed directly to ARA, especially differences between the regulators and operators. Incidents appear more focused on the operational errors, using FITWO as a catch-all...and given assumptions that there havent been choices, the definitions have not been addressed between approach types in the incident reports.