I don't have a problem with considering punitive action against the Air Canada crew. My problem is that you are basing your "prosecution" on a very brief NTSB preliminary report that doesn't say what you think it says.
I actually did not rely on the NTSB findings, but what I saw and heard. The NTSB data simply confirmed what virtually everyone already saw and knew.
Alas, not any mention of the FMS database visual they were cleared for. (almost hypocritical.)
Properly executed (airplane and/or flight crew) it (the FMS Visual) would have satisfied all the flight guidance requirements of the SAFO.
I believe this SAFO is systemic of our dysfunctional FAA (on a corporate level) trying to get out in front of what I suspect is a very angry NTSB
Exactly on point. This procedure has been flown every few minutes for years.
I also agree that it is a bit of a basket case with allowing sub-standard aircraft to use it. Is there is a problem with allowing non GPS aircraft to use the procedure? the intent of the procedure was to reduce workload, I simply cannot see that with a non-GPS aircraft.
They should all be restricted, or just this crew/airline?
I mean really, how many non-GPS equipped ac are flying international these days?
The bulletin is negligent in its omission about the operating requirements and limitations of RVFPs. This is likely because the FAA doesn't have any criteria or operational guidance for the use of RVFPs. They are wholly a procedure developed by the airlines for the airlines. In this respect, the airlines are regulating themselves.
That's not the way the system is supposed to work.
Opening the procedure designed by UAL to other operators is the issue. Does Air Canada go back to UAL for the issues, or to the FAA which allowed them to do it?