Is this sufficient?
Yes, thank you very much. Now I can see that the waypoints also have the DME information, makes more sense now for a non-GPS equipped ac.
I also thought that FMS Bridge visual did align with extended runway, but I see this is not the case.
Also, my FAA expert friend contacted his Jeppesen database expert. Jeppesen codes LNAV approach mode (RNP 0.30) at what they consider to be the "FAF."
What does Jepp consider as the FAF on this chart?
When we were testing the RNAV Visuals, on the Bus, we would have the #1 set to RNAV solution using the waypoints (GPS) and the #2 set to ILS as a check. Seems reasonable to do this operationally, not sure why one could not, (I am sure you guys will let me know)
Thanx
Ian, note 'X' on post #448
EDIT: Given what happened, this would seem to raise concern on the remote tower operations. In many ways, listening to radio, you could imagine this senario. Runway appears occupied, no its clear, and no apparent warnings from any ground based system that the ac was landing on a taxiway, occupied or not.
Seems to be a failure of several systems already in place. How would remote tower operations fare?