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:

While Constant Descent Final Approach (CDFA) is a safety improvement for air carriers, a MITRE study showed no difference in Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) rates for piston GA aircraft using precision versus non-precision approaches.
Many General Aviation (GA) airports and their non-precision approaches lack the obstacle clearance surveys necessary to safely fly a constant descent angle below the Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA).
For single-pilot GA operations, the "dive-n-drive" technique often provides more time to visually acquire difficult-to-spot runways, especially in low visibility, compared to CDFA's rapid decision-making at MDA.
The article concludes that no single approach technique fits all situations, emphasizing that "dive-n-drive" remains a valid and often more appropriate choice for GA non-precision approaches.

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.