Good Old Dive-n-Drive

Everyone seems to be on the constant descent final approach (CDFA) bandwagon these days, telling us to avoid the trusted and long-used dive-n-drive technique on non-precision approaches. To be clear, I am not arguing against using a CDFA technique. Indeed, CDFA is a valuable tool. Add the availability of an advisory glideslope from modern navigators-although not required for a CDFA-and CDFA becomes as simple as an ILS. So, why use dive-n-drive at all? Im glad you asked.

Editorial Staff

Wednesday, July 30, 2014 at 12:00 AM ET

Verified

Key Takeaways:

Constant Descent Final Approach (CDFA) techniques, while beneficial for air carriers in specific contexts, do not always offer the same safety advantages or applicability for General Aviation (GA) due to different aircraft characteristics and operational environments.
Many GA airports and non-precision approaches lack guaranteed obstacle clearance below the Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) via charted vertical descent angles, making continuous descent to the runway potentially hazardous.
For GA pilots, especially single pilots, the "dive-n-drive" or a hybrid technique often provides crucial additional time at the MDA to visually acquire the runway in challenging environments, making it a viable and sometimes preferred approach method.

See a mistake? Contact us.

Everyone seems to be on the “constant descent final approach” (CDFA) bandwagon these days, telling us to avoid the trusted and long-used dive-n-drive technique on non-precision approaches. To be clear, I am not arguing against using a CDFA technique. Indeed, CDFA is a valuable tool. Add the availability of an advisory glideslope from modern navigators—although not required for a CDFA—and CDFA becomes as simple as an ILS. So, why use dive-n-drive at all? I’m glad you asked.