There's nothing wrong with Dive and Drive

[3WE]

By the way,

As long as computers are helping us, what we really need is:

-Synthetic vision

-Computer calculated lateral and vertical navigation to anywhere (to hell with what kind of radio signal is used...GPS, VOR/LOC/GS, NDB, WAAS) (I know, we pretty much have this now)

-And an autopilot to work the airplane (including a missed approach) (Pretty much have this too)

-The pilot just watches the heads up of the virtual world with the real world emerging behind it

That's really the way to handle an approach in IMC, and imagine the UPS pilots seeing a virtual hill sticking up in virtual daylight/CAVU on short final...

(And seriously- how long until synthetic vision is standard on an airliner?)

[Evan]

(And seriously- how long until synthetic vision is standard on an airliner?)

I'm surprised it wasn't built into the 787 or A350. The G650 has it.

Just have to keep those databases current...

[Evan]

For the Nth time, yes, it would be safer.

For the Nth time, that should end the argument.

Are you willing to take all steps that could make aviation safer?

All the steps that are not overwhelmingly impractical to take.

How about forbid IMC all together?

That is overwhelmingly impractical.

How about forbid visual approach all together?

Ditto.

Let's keep only ILS or ILS-like approaches, but only in daylight VMC and only as long as the runway has PAPI or VASI.

Ditto again.

So let's look at practicality. Can you give me an example of a commercial airfield approach that cannot be flown as a stabilized constant angle approach from the FAF?

[Gabriel]

So let's look at practicality. Can you give me an example of a commercial airfield approach that cannot be flown as a stabilized constant angle approach from the FAF?

With current hardware and software, you could fly a constant slope approach to the Great Pyramid of Giza. Just enter both ends of the segment as 3D coordinates and let the GPS/INS/FMS do the rest.

What I don't know if all commercial airplanes have that current hardware and software.

[3WE]

With current hardware and software, you could fly a constant slope approach to the Great Pyramid of Giza. Just enter both ends of the segment as 3D coordinates and let the GPS/INS/FMS do the rest.

There's probably a little paperwork that has to be done with a regulatory authority too

[3WE]

...By the way, have we discussed "the backup plan".

I may need correction from the Pro's but I'm thinking if you do an ILS you also brief for the Localizer approach.....

Because if for some reason, your glideslope goes out, you may be able to complete a localizer approach. (I belive this can also be stretched to an NDB from an LOM if the whole ILS goes out) (Wow, three acronyms in one sentence)

Applying this thinking to non-precision approaches...if the magical glide slope calulator widget throws a blue-screen error, would it be ok for pilots to tune the localizer, look at their wrist watch, and check the totally non-electric altimiter and do the step downs on the old approach plate, and safely and succesfully land?

...or do we stay up there hoping the computer will reboot or the weather will improve before we run out of gas?

[3WE]

...D&D...D&D...D&D...D&D...D&D...D&D...D&D...

How about referring to it as step downs, because if you really study one (Snyders "fun one" is a great example!), it's a series of very reasonable descents.

When Snyder says "dive and drive" I hear a cute nickname. When Evan says "dive and drive" and says it seven times, I hear a negative and inaccurate twist that it truly is some sort of danger-ridden dive.

It's not.

[Evan]

How about referring to it as step downs, because if you really study one (Snyders "fun one" is a great example!), it's a series of very reasonable descents.

When Snyder says "dive and drive" I hear a cute nickname. When Evan says "dive and drive" and says it seven times, I hear a negative and inaccurate twist that it truly is some sort of danger-ridden dive.

It's not.

I don't have much to do with what you hear in my posts, but please don't post manipulated, inaccurate quotes. It's bad etiquette. I'm assuming you know what etiquette is.

[Evan]

With current hardware and software, you could fly a constant slope approach to the Great Pyramid of Giza. Just enter both ends of the segment as 3D coordinates and let the GPS/INS/FMS do the rest.

What I don't know if all commercial airplanes have that current hardware and software.

Let's assume they don't. Same question.

[Gabriel]

Let's assume they don't. Same question.

In that case, add another Ditto to this:

How about forbid IMC all together?
That is overwhelmingly impractical.
How about forbid visual approach all together?
Ditto.
Let's keep only ILS or ILS-like approaches, but only in daylight VMC and only as long as the runway has PAPI or VASI.
Ditto again.

Or maybe not. That will depend on what it takes to convert the fleet for a given airline, and what is the definition of "practical". A company can find replacing 100 airliners, upgrading 100 cockpits, or shutting off some routes, quite impractical. Again, or maybe not.

When Aerolíneas Argentinas and it's partner company Austral retired the 737-200, DC-9, 747-200, and MD-80 fleet in the latest years, all the 737, DC-9, 747 and some MD-80 lacked even GPS. Now they have a 737-700/800, EMB-190 and A-340 fleet, and they implemented restrictions like the one you mention. There are several commercial airports in Argentina that lack ILS, and I don't know even one that has ILS for both ends of a runway (but there might be one out there, Ezeiza has 2 ILSs for different runways, although one of them tends to be offline more than online).

By the way, in the 80s an Austral MD-80 crashed on a VOR approach. They were in the fog, intentionally busted the MDA, and intentionally made the "drive" part of the D&D at 100ft AGL. Unfortunately, one tree was almost that tall and that combined with a turn to correct the VOR's needle which made the wingtip meet the tree. I agree, with an ILS you have a much better chance to strike the runway instead of the tree when doing things like that.

[3WE]

please don't post manipulated...quotes.

You used the term D&D seven times.

Don't deny it.

I did not twist what you are saying in any way shape or form. I simiply pointed out each and every time you said it by directly using the quote function- those are your words and it's 100% accurate.

Most of the rest of the time you dropping fancy, approved acronyms every other sentence.

But, for an FAA-approaved approach that you don't like...the rules change and we use nick names.

Perhaps you could try being objective?

[Evan]

You used the term D&D seven times.

With important words in between. Those words are thoughtfully chosen so deleting them is a sort of disrespect and manipulation. If you are going to quote me or anybody else on this forum, simply place quotes around the part you are quoting. You do not have the liberty of editing for effect. Unless you work for Fox News.

Basic journalistic principals I think should apply to intelligent internet forums.

Agree and concur?

[Gabriel]

Basic journalistic principals I think should apply to intelligent internet forums.

Agree and concur?

Oh. You mean not to this one?