Then I'll be all:
"Where'd he go? Hollywood said, 'Where'd WHOOOOO GOOOOOO'"
"Taylor! Cut that crap out!"
Vertical path non-precision approach safety?
- Thread starter DE727UPS
- Start date
Then I'll be all:
"Where'd he go? Hollywood said, 'Where'd WHOOOOO GOOOOOO'"
"Taylor! Cut that crap out!"
Autothrust Blue
"Well, on the Brasilia..."
Remember that the plaque for Airbus pilots is in the ladies' room.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Not on ours.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Jimflyfast
lurker first class
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
Autothrust Blue
"Well, on the Brasilia..."
seagull
Well-Known Member
Might "seem like" it, but the accident/incident data prove otherwise. You are right that sometimes you can get in to an airport with dive and drive that otherwise would not be possible, but flying a stable descent path proves to be safer than making a large change in path at 250-350' AGL. It also avoids the risk of someone seeing the lights and descending too soon. NPA's are not surveyed all that precisely, so there is no guarantee that you will not hit something during the "visual" portion, particularly if a VDP is not established. FSF starting pushing CANPA years ago to reduce CFIT, and it has really made a difference. There is a LOT of research on this topic, go to scholar.google.com and do a search.
Boris Badenov
This is no laughing matter.
I'd pretty much decided to let this one sit, since I've never flown anything over 16.3 gross weight, and maybe it's true that the increased inertia of all that weight makes levelling off at the step-downs like sticking your head in a lion's mouth (although one does wonder a bit how all those drunk guys in awesome hats did it in 707s day in and out without crashing). But as a blanket claim for all aircraft, the notion that having to, you know, FLY AN APPROACH makes things more Dangerous is utterly absurd. I know we all like to think of ourselves as Rocket Surgeons, but flying a non-precision approach to minimums is about as difficult as merging on to an expressway, provided you have the proper skillset and appropriate training. This is not curing cancer, FFS. Read the plate. Fly the plate. If the statistics indicate that we're crashing on a lot of non-precision approaches, maybe the problem isn't with the approaches, but with the fact that "we" are eating too many paint chips as children.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Broheim, I've done lots and lots and lots and lots of dive and drive non-precision approaches. I've also done a good number of VNAV non-precision approaches. I'll take the latter in the heartbeat, and yes, you know I've checked the "fly airplanes with the Bowie knife in your mouth" box, too.
Dive and drive isn't unsafe, just less safe.
Bumblebee
Commodore
Boris Badenov
This is no laughing matter.
What is "less safe" about it? I'm of the opinion (and the FAA seems to be of the same opinion, btw, at least if the PTS for an Instrument rating are to be believed) that if you can't fly a non-precision approach to minimums, you shouldn't be flying under IFR at all. I mean, I suppose flying is "less safe" than "not flying", but past that, I do not see the great Danger Cliff presented by, you know, reading the screwing instruments and flying the airplane accordingly. Is flying on a Delta DC-9 "less safe" than flying on a CRJ-900? There are more bells and whistles in the 900! More safe, obviously! This notion that it's "understandable" for a crew to fail to properly execute a simple procedure for which they are certificated in a perfectly functioning aircraft (as their fathers did, and their fathers before them) is bizzare, and doesn't have any grounding in logic that I can see.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
Seriously, it has nothing to do with gross weight. That is a weak-ass cop out, and you know it. I'll bet some of the LSA aircraft have avionics able to allow a constant descent approach. I'll bet you could fly a constant descent approach in the PC-12. I know I've absolutely done it in the 742, which is steam.
Actually, I'm absolutely disappointed with almost everything you said except Read the plate, fly the plate.
The guys in 707s also used to cross the Atlantic by INS, Omega and LORAN. Guys in DC3s used to fly across the US listening for "tone", then were thankful for the NDB.
Your attitude of airline vs. 135 or whatever is weak. More safe is more safe, we all fly non-precision approaches. Some pilots do it every day, and have a very high level of proficiency. Some pilots fly ILS or Vis for 99% of their flying, only doing non-precision in training. Some pilots fly airplanes that are BUILT to fly precision or non-precision approaches the same.
At the end of a long day/flight, is it safer to do stuff the way you do it most often, or is it safer to do it in the rarest of manners?
Would you agree that an ILS is safer than a NDB approach?
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
This.
Here, let me count the number of non-precision approaches I've done in actual since 2007...looks like 1.
Which means that I do non-precision approaches, on average, in the simulator during recurrent and that's it.
Boris Badenov
This is no laughing matter.
No, I wouldn't. But I also wouldn't accept the notion that the analogy is appropriate, which is obviously a separate issue.
If you can't fly an NDB safely, you shouldn't be flying under IFR at all. It's all right there in black and white. I'm mystified that you're all treating "dive and drive" as though it's something only Bob Hoover could do when it was done successfully and regularly for 50+ years. Monkey looks at plate, monkey points nose down, monkey stops when altimeter number same as plate number. Monkey pushes forward go-levers. Monkey gets bannana. I begin to understand why furloughed pilots can't get jobs...
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
I just load the approach and the box draws the glideslope for me. Or, well, I would if I flew IFR approaches. VFR I can punch in any target altitude and descent angle I want (even a set distance before or after a waypoint, in case I want a traffic pattern altitude x miles before the field) and the computer will draw it. Pretty nifty.
Boris Badenov
This is no laughing matter.
Oh, I agree. Wasn't my cop-out.
