Russ, this question is a combo question including your past as a TERPSTER. I came back from the beach last Friday to KUZA. The winds favored runway 20 by 5 Kts, but it was below circling minimums to use RWY 2, CTL 20. I requested the RNAV 20, knowing it was highly unlikely going to be available due to conflict with KCLT traffic. Charlotte TRACON only offered the approaches from the south as being available, so I chose the RNAV 2 with LPV minimums. The 5 Kt tail wind was still within my comfort range, but it would have been nicer if I could have flown the RNAV 20. I think I have gotten it maybe once in the last 20+ years. I doubt it is of any practical use and wonder why it hasn't been cancelled. My question is if there are any adjustments that could be made to make this procedure usable, for example not aligning either the IF leg or FAC with the runway, even if it results in a higher DA/MDA. If I understand the TERPS correctly, there can be a maximum 3 degree angle for alignment with the runway CTL and a maximum of 15 degree turn angle between the IF leg to the FAC at the PFAF. The flight test question, do you have to make special arrangements to flight test the RNAV 20 procedure?
Easy answer first - I wouldn't anticipate any special arrangements with ATC to flight check it. They know we are coming, we show up on their daily briefing and schedule, and they work us in. Nothing real out of the norm compared to other things we do at a major airport, and they know the quicker they get us in, the quicker we're done and out of their way.
As far as why it still exists, the simple answer I imagine (not having any direct knowledge of this procedure) is that nobody has requested it to be canceled. There is no automated analysis of how many times a procedure is flown that goes into determining which procedures to cancel. I imagine that nobody at ATC is particularly keyed-up to request it be canceled, because if they don't normally want anybody to fly it, they just don't issue it - problem "solved" from a day-to-day basis. In other words, the existence of the RNAV (GPS) RWY 20 has no effect on ATC if they don't issue it.
You are right about the 3 degree offset that's allowed for LPV - with a minimum HAT of 250, but that's already the HAT on this procedure, so no impact there. The 15 degree course change at the PFAF is what was historically allowed, now the 8260.58x has the provision for a "capture fix" which changes this math some. However, I left TERPS before they were implementing that so I haven't ever worked through that math. Also, it is my understanding that the implementation of the capture fix has been problematic in certain scenarios, so it has been delayed. But my understanding on that could be completely wrong or dated, as that's well out of my part of the organization.
Whether such adjustments would be sufficient or not, hard to say without getting ATC involved. I will say KRVS has an almost-identical situation with the RNAV (GPS) RWY 19R and the proximity of KTUL, the problem there was solved with a straight-in final but a 20 deg offset intermediate (the bane of many instrument checkrides I'm sure). Because of that offset it is limited to LP and LNAV minimums only. But that could be an option for UZA.
As with any approach procedure changes, nothing gets going until a proponent makes a request. So either nobody has formally requested such a change at UZA, or they have but for various reasons it was denied. I have no actual information on UZA - maybe the airport manager would be a good point of contact.
