Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

There's nothing wrong with Dive and Drive

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • There's nothing wrong with Dive and Drive

    In this thread, 3WE will explain to us how, in spite of the higher workloads and increased opportunities for pilot error, this age-old technique of dive and drive, the cause of many misfortunes, is still a safe SOP.

    I will be interested to see if our resident pilots agree and concur or if they think it is time that all commercial operators insist on a stabilized approach.

    Take it away 3WE...

  • #2
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    In this thread, 3WE will explain to us how, in spite of the higher workloads and increased opportunities for pilot error, this age-old technique of dive and drive, the cause of many misfortunes, is still a safe SOP.

    I will be interested to see if our resident pilots agree and concur or if they think it is time that all commercial operators insist on a stabilized approach.

    Take it away 3WE...
    Go to WWW.Internet.com

    Check for numerous published approach plates laying out this procedure.

    Deemed safe by the Federal Aviation Administration of the United States.

    Practiced by lots of folks, with many succesful approaches and landings.

    Meeting stabilized approach criteria too.

    Now, can someone explain to me how to get Evan to break from black and white thinking and understand this, because flying through the air in aircraft operated by human beings does have some inherent dangers and results in the occasional crash.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #3
      By the way- what's more dangerous?

      Flying 200 feet above the ground while on instruments or flying 700 feet above the ground on instruments?
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #4
        And please keep in mind that I am talking about commercial aviation here, particularly large passenger aircraft, not GA.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          By the way- what's more dangerous?

          Flying 200 feet above the ground while on instruments or flying 700 feet above the ground on instruments?
          In an airliner ? ...... neither is MORE dangerous !

          Flying INTO the ground while on instruments however ???

          Now thats another story entirely !
          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

          Comment


          • #7
            Originally posted by Evan View Post
            And please keep in mind that I am talking about commercial aviation here, particularly large passenger aircraft, not GA.
            So, it's more dangerous to shoot an ILS to 200 feet in a large passenger aircraft than a light aircraft due to it's size, inertia and maneuverability?

            Shall we forbid that procedure?

            Would it be better if we had them level off at 700 feet?
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #8
              Originally posted by Evan View Post
              I will be interested to see if our resident pilots agree and concur or if they think it is time that all commercial operators insist on a stabilized approach.

              Take it away 3WE...
              So you are proposing mandating either a retirement or an AD for all the airplanes that lack this capability? Or forbidding those airplanes to be released to airports that lack ILS?

              FMS-generated glide slopes is a relatively new feature.

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • #9
                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                So you are proposing mandating either a retirement or an AD for all the airplanes that lack this capability? Or forbidding those airplanes to be released to airports that lack ILS?

                FMS-generated glide slopes is a relatively new feature.
                In the developed world, yes , I would advocate that restriction. No aircraft lacking the ability to execute a stable approach shall operate revenue flights, and forbid dive and drive approaches. And just out of curiosity, what aircraft currently serving more than 50 pax, operating in the developed world and lacking this capability are we talking about here?

                Comment


                • #10
                  Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                  So, it's more dangerous to shoot an ILS to 200 feet in a large passenger aircraft than a light aircraft due to it's size, inertia and maneuverability?

                  Shall we forbid that procedure?

                  Would it be better if we had them level off at 700 feet?
                  Yes.

                  Yes.

                  No.

                  Height, assuming it is at or above existng MDA and high enough to clear any other hazards, is not the issue. The degree of variation is.

                  It would be helpful if you could respond to my list of reasons why dive and drive is potentially hazardous. Remember, it's swiss cheese between you, the passenger, and eternity. Dive and drive has a higher workload and a greater number of opportunities for pilot error (in sink rate, in trim, etc) and a tendency to disorient at the VDP (particularly to pilots accustomed to ILS, and let's face it, most are.). It often requires more time at MSA where an altitude loss error can be fatal. It can be greatly complicated by late runway changes. It can result in delayed configuration. Simple errors can result in excessive airspeed and excessive decent rates.

                  What about all that?

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    Put Boeing Bobby and Synder up front after a good nights sleep, they breif for the approach, one flies, one monitors and calls out and I'm gonna kick, scream and yell that a non-precision approach flown with step downs is a safe SOP- every bit as safe as if HAL calculates a straight glide path and they do it that way.

                    They are competent pilots to not dip below any minimum altitude, and there are safety margins built into the approach including higher minimums than a precision approach.

                    Boeing Bobby and Syder up front at 5:00 AM when their work schedule has been bad and they didn't sleep well on their commute to work and they have to shoot an ILS to 200 and 1/2...

                    I really respect those guys, but I'm feeling more at risk.
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • #12
                      Originally posted by 3WE
                      So, it's more dangerous to shoot an ILS to 200 feet in a large passenger aircraft than a light aircraft due to it's size, inertia and maneuverability?

                      Shall we forbid that procedure?
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      Yes.

                      Yes.
                      Ok, tell it to the FAA, I have no authority to change those rules, or to require FMS-generated glidepaths.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        Boeing Bobby and Syder up front at 5:00 AM when their work schedule has been bad and they didn't sleep well on their commute to work and they have to shoot an ILS to 200 and 1/2...

                        A night like that in dog s**t weather, look for land 3 or land 2 and watch the magic happen!

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          ...swiss cheese...What about all that?
                          Two things:

                          For a single, inexperienced pilot hand flying an unsophisticated aircraft in hard weather...a step-down descent does make for a lot more work and can increase the chances of mistakes.

                          But, for the two-pilot crew and autopilot and moving maps and DME and GPS and R-Nav, "all of that" basically comes down to this:

                          The minimums (in other words, the safety margins) are 2 to 4X higher than with the average precision approach. That higher safety margin pretty much mitigates all the botched level-offs and the 'tendency to get disoriented' that concerns you- while the two pilot crew briefs, flies and monitors the approach while staying very accurately on course and above the descent altitudes while staying very much ahead of the plane and the approach.

                          Can you still botch a step down approach and crash? Yeah, just like you can botch an FMS-generated glidepath like UPS did, or botch an ILS just like............................................................
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            Can you still botch a step down approach and crash? Yeah, just like you can botch an FMS-generated glidepath like UPS did, or botch an ILS just like............................................................
                            No, not "just like". There are more and different opportunities to botch dive and drive. Certainly you can crash anything, anywhere at anytime but which is safer? A complex series of stepped descents and level offs or a steady stabilized glidepath? Go with dive and drive, throw in a confusing approach plate (and a timid ATC controller) and it look how it all goes to hell:

                            Originally posted by Leftseat86

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X