Originally Posted by
peekay4
This fixation with GPS (on a visual approach!) and the level of misinformation in this thread about RVFPs are getting ridiculous.
You are certainly entitled to that opinion. However, since the procedures go to approach mode for the final portion of the database procedure, the standard for accuracy should be the same as that required for an RNAV IAP; i.e., GPS required. This isn't about obstacle clearance containment areas, it is about assured alignment with the runway when that is the design objective. There are no notes about the critical DMEs for D/D/I, unlike on LEETZ SIX RNAV SID at KSLC, as an example.
1. The criteria for RVFPs are developed by the FAA Flight Standards Service.
Are these criteria in a public order? I'm not disagreeing, I just don't know.
2. RVFPs are developed in close coordination with the FAA's procedures team (RAPT), and must be individually approved by FAA's Procedures Review Board.
I participated in the monthly RAPT telecons for AWP and ANM for four years until recently. I don't recall any discussion or vote about RVFPs, but I could have missed it.
3. RVFPs are also designed to meet FAA's RNAV standards to the extent possible for a visual approach. In fact, it is the FAA's RNP and RNAV groups, together with FAA's regional All Weather Operations specialist, that makes the final determination if there's sufficient DME/DME infrastructure for the procedure or if GPS will be required.
Without notes on the chart about critical DMEs they aren't doing a stellar job. And, what are these FAA RNP and RNAV groups? I do know that AIS in OKC (the folks who design SIAPs, etc.) are not in any way involved in the process.
4. And let's not forget since RVFPs are visual approaches they must be flown in VMC. Aircraft can be routed through waypoints in RVFPs in IMC all day long, but before they're actually cleared for the RVFP the pilots must have the airport environment (or preceding aircraft) in sight and be able to remain clear of clouds. Thus the level of safety of RVFPs is no less than a CVFP.
As I've stated previous I have no issue with the IMC phase because it is really a radar route predicated on MVAs at that point. It's the visual portion without GPS that concerns me.
It's not like UAL designed the procedure on the back of a napkin and had Jepp print it up without FAA's involvement, reviews and approval.
I never suggested that the design wasn't carefully done by UAL. I have the TARGETS package. It is all fine for FMS/GPS aircraft. As to the extent of the FAA involvement and approval, you know more about that then I do. What I do know is that there is no small skepticism about the process in certain quarters of the FAA.