1. The criteria for RVFPs are developed by the FAA Flight Standards Service.
Incorrect. The procedures are simply designed to emulate existing visual procedures. There is no other guidance or criteria on how this is accomplished. You can use TF/TF or even TF/RF/TF legs. There is no criteria which is why it is considered a tailored approach.
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.
Incorrect. RAPT is only involved in a cursory manner. Only if there are conflicts with the design is the procedure even routed to RAPT for review. When a procedure is designed, it can be a good idea to route it through RAPT, especially if one wants to delay approval.
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.
Incorrect. These groups are only involved if the procedure requires. If you have RNP to visual, the RNP group is involved, if you have RNAV GPS required, the RNAV group is involved. If if is DME/DME/IRU, only the AWO is involved. The operator submitting the procedure, uses RNAV-Pro to evaluate the DME coverage. That program decides if it is sufficient, not the AWO. The operator supplies the results to the AWO with the findings. There is no decision, it is simply the results of the program analysis. The procedure approval path is then determined, and routed accordingly to the different groups by the AWO for review/approval.
The AWO is not a decision maker, but simply the focal point in the process as a manager, assisting in routing the documents to the respective groups.
This thread has been made unbareable by someone who isn't even qualified to fly a visual approach let alone anything more complicated. Waste of time even checking it now days.
I certainly hope you are not foolish enough to be talking about me in this case. You would be completely wrong. As a tech pilot, I would be willing to bet I am typed on far more aircraft than you are.