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 beneficial for air carriers, it's not universally suitable for General Aviation (GA) due to differences in aircraft, operational demands, and airport infrastructure.
Many non-precision approaches at typical GA airports lack obstacle protection below the Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA), making a constant descent below this altitude potentially hazardous.
The "dive-n-drive" technique often provides GA pilots, especially single pilots, with more critical time at the MDA to locate and identify runways, which are frequently more challenging to spot at GA airports.
Pilots should choose the appropriate non-precision approach technique based on the specific aircraft, airport, approach characteristics, and weather conditions, as no single method fits all situations for GA.

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.