Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message ...


Matt Barrow wrote:

wrote in message
...


Doug wrote:

A pilot can use either technique. Depending on the pilot, the
aircraft,
and the approach, there are positives and negatives to using dive
and
drive vs. stabilized constant descent technique.

The accidents stats don't support any positives for dive-and-drive.

Cite?

How can I cite the negative?

The same way you assert it.

There are many, many NPA crashes over the years.

And how many were attributable to D&D, rather than stabilized descent?

The accidents that were reviewed by the group working constant
descent/constant rate and Baro VNAV issues were all dive-and-drive. So far
as I know, there wasn't much, if any, constant rate/descent angle NPA
operational policies until perhaps the mid-1990s.

Your hostility indicates a closed mind, but that is your problem, not mine.

There was a crash of a commuter Metroliner in Austrailia about a month ago
that was almost certainly a misunderstood stepdown fix, which is a different
(but related) hazard to dive and drive. A Baro VNAV path would have almost
certainly have prevented that tragedy.

I don't know the stats, but misuse of stepdown fixes in the NPA final is a
part of the "dive and drive" problem.

AOPA, and others, made sure you would retain your "God-given right" to dive
and drive. So, keep on 'truckin pal.