I tried to search for the FAA charts of the approach procedure involved with no luck. Same result when looking into our providers' world-wide database.

There seem to be a nubmer of RNAV approaches published recently with an effective date of 20 JUL.

Any chance the FMS BRIDGE VIS is no longer a published procedure?

Nonetheless these FMS RVFPs are designed and "flight inspected" by the lead carrier. Airlines don't have the extremely sophisticated equipment that an FAA flight inspection airplane contains.

Seems to me there should be DME screening, such as the FAA does with RNAV-1 SIDs that permit D/D/IRU in lieu of GPS:

It's still published. Unless your provider is a commercial operator that operates into KSFO, it won't be in the charts or the database.

FAA link... any search guru around?

To allow non-GPS use, DME/DME analysis is a required part of RVFP development, via RNAV-Pro plus flight testing.

Yes, I learned that since my earlier posting. But, there doesn't seem to be any requirement to require use of GPS is the critical DME(s) is (are) off the air.

Concur, why have the FMS Bridge Visual with waypoints in the FMS, and then basket case it to DME? If you dont have GPS, use the Quiet Bridge Visual.

According to the plate it is DME et al OR GPS, so if DME is down you have to use GPS.

If the DME is down, and you dont have GPS, I guess it is the 28R ILS or the 28R visual approach.

Well, yes and no, it is for approved operators only (and approved crews) It will be in your FMS if your airline is approved. As a Special Instrument Approach, it is not 'published' in the public domain. (and now not AC!)

RNAV-Pro...and not even a thank you...jeez

The big reason is to provide an (automated) vertical path / guidance that the FMS can follow, even with older DME/DME based equipment.

At SFO especially -- with other aircraft flying "wingtip to wingtip" to you on a close parallel approach -- it's too easy for pilots busy maintaining visual with other traffic to either fly too low and bust minimums, or conversely stay too high and require high descent rates to get back on path.

With RVFP, the FMS can alleviate much of this workload and improve flight safety.

By the way, technically an RVFP is not considered a special instrument approach (visual approaches are not instrument approaches).

FMS Bridge visual is basically an overlay of Quiet Bridge Visual. It was supposed to provide reduced workload to the controller, as the waypoints and stepdowns altitudes are coded into the FMS.

FMS Bridge visual is considered a special procedure, (and it is an instrument approach) which the airline and pilots are required to be approved to use. This has been discussed at length in this thread.

FAA 8260.55 explains why RVFPs exist and why they are NOT considered (special) instrument approach procedures.

Or you can just re-read my post above. :E

The big reason is to provide an (automated) vertical path / guidance that the FMS can follow, even with older DME/DME based equipment.

Not an AirBus guy, so some info please. The statement above would suggest an FMS guided approach. Does that need autopilot in CMD or can it feed into the FD? Is this FMS approach used to give guidance until you intercept a visual centre-line & visual glide path?

What we have not yet heard, and perhaps only the crew will know, is if they were in manual control or autopilot during the initial approach, and at what point they went manual. It is suggested that the FMS gives vertical guidance, but we are shown bright shiny PAPI's and it is a visual approach, certainly from 4nm or so. That would suggest PF would be scanning out of the window and inside to PFD in varying ratios descending below 1500'. I would have thought that from 1200' or so the PAPI would have been the primary vertical guidance aid, and I would have expected PF to be in manual control from that time, at least. Thus I am curious how the PAPI did not alert them to the active runway. The taxiway is a couple of hundred metres laterally displaced from them; and between the only PAPI visible and the taxiway is an equally bright & shiny only 1 set of approach lights. If they were following the PAPI in vertical how come they were following a flight path that would have landed them well into the taxiway, and not, seemingly, abeam the TDZ of the runway? I can't believe AirBus guys use the FMS FD guidance for vertical path below 500'.
So what might they have been using for vertical guidance below 1000' if not the PAPI?

RAT_5 you may be thinking about final approach guidance, but this type of procedure isn't designed for that. Indeed the FMS Bridge procedure is meant to bring you to about <4nm from the runway threshold at 1,200ft.

But the procedure starts at ARCHI which is 25nm out at 8000ft and has many "stair-step" altitude restrictions to remain within the SFO Class B. Due to high workload during parallel approaches, pilots have been known to bust these restrictions (or conversely "dive and drive" often with high descent rates). So this is where RNAV automation can help out.

The entire procedure is still designed to be visual and you have to be clear of clouds throughout. Which means that at night the pilots should have picked up the correct runway environment from a longs ways out.

Absolutely correct. They are not designed in accordance with TERPs, much less any semblance of any nstrument flight procedure (IFP) criteria. Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) that design and publish FAA public SIAPs, SIDs, STARS, and Obstacle Departure Procedures have absolutely no involvement in the development and issuance of FMS database RNAV VISUAL Flight Procedures.

They are "lead carrier" developed. In some cases they provide 3D guidance to the runway at LNAV approach sensitivity (RNP 0.30). In other cases, such as Runway 29 at KEWR, they do not.

My sources tell me that the FAA's Flight Standards Service "tolerates" RVFPs, but they don't like them. They are the product of the major Part 121 carriers and Air Traffic Services.

Seems like a crew needs a Philadelphia lawyer on the jump seat to interpret/apply the "or" part of the required visibility. And, by which waypoint does the crew have to be VMC?

AIM
FAA-H-8083
They're an IFR instrument procedure but not technically IAP's.

I think the point RAT5 is making is AC didn't fixate on the wrong runway at 25nm but somewhere in the vicinity of the FAF at 4nm. Yes, the approach is not straight in. But I feel the thread has fixated on the approach where, all else considered, a near straight-in visual from the SE would put them in the exact same spot. Not saying I don't appreciate the discussion between the different visuals. But back to RAT5's point, from 4nm what were they using for vertical guidance to not fly red-over-red. What did they make of the PAPI and the lack of one adjacent to the pavement they almost set down on? Idea for a simple solution: turn off the runway lights (see SQ) leave the PAPI on?

By the time the accept the approach, which may be well before any waypoint. Typically ATC will confirm that the pilot has the airport (or preceding aircraft) in sight before offering a visual approach.

https://flightaware.com/resources/ai...SFO/procedures has parsed KSFO charts, FMS Bridge VIS not there.

The charting provider I have access to delivers to several large US airlines operating there, but no trace of FMS BRIDGE. So is it perhaps a Jeppesen only proc?

So is it perhaps a Jeppesen only thing?

Can that be? A few decades ago, when first starting out in airlines, I'd alway thought Jeppesen had some input into the charts data. I was told they were just publishers of AIP and airfield provided data in their own particular style. All the numbers etc were given to them.
If that is the case it follows that any publisher could have access to FMS Bridge approach with all the numbers. I don't see how it could be a 'Jeppe thing'.

Please correct me if I'm in error.

Jepp and others do provide made-to-order tailored plates if requested. Some, I believe Jepp is one of them have the expertise to even devise the underlying procedure. http://www.asap.sk/about-us/projects...arab-emirates/

. No trace of the procedure from FAA sources.
. No trace of the procedure from the world-wide database of Jepp's competitor.
. PPRuNe claims that the procedure exists and have Jepps pictures of it.
Where is the tie to these loose ends? Most likely I did miss something.

The FMS DB coding is provided on the same principle, it is a mere representation of data laid-out elsewhere, not a source by itself.