FAA, NTSB Remain At Odds On ‘Dive And Drive’ Instrument Approaches

[Gabriel]

I would argue that it's not a matter of corruption.

It's a matter of someone judging himself.
Do you see the FAA saying "lack of oversight by the FAA" or such things?

Or why judges can't judge friends and family?

[Evan]

I would argue that it's not a matter of corruption.

It's a matter of someone judging himself.
Do you see the FAA saying "lack of oversight by the FAA" or such things?

Or why judges can't judge friends and family?

The word, as I posted above, is 'disinterested'. Judges and regulators must be disinterested parties in their realm of jurisdiction, an 'interest' meaning having a financial, political or other reward at stake. High ranking members of the FAA have been accused— by insiders—of having 'interests' that may conflict with the safety of passengers, especially when it comes to oversight and compliance enforcement. This stems from having a cozy relationship with the industry they regulate.

The NTSB, on the other hand, is an investigative body. They collect evidence, test and interpret that evidence and release a report on their findings which includes recommendations that are clearly based on the evidence and the findings. Of course corruption can find its way into any process, but, unlike the FAA, we have never seen anything to warrant our suspicion. To the contrary, the NTSB has exposed countless industry liabilities.

The main thing here is that, when the FAA and NTSB are 'at odds', there is a major problem. And in this case we have a procedure that is antiquated and effectively banned within the industry by operators who deem it a degradation of safety. Why the hell does the FAA have a problem with that? The NTSB wants it banned, the operators have banned it and the FAA is at odds with that?

[Evan]

Ok, enough is enough with this dodging clouds stuff.

The industry has recognised that doing dive and drive to avoid clouds is not the safest way to conduct the approach, and that is the very reason we have continuous descent. It is acknowledged that there are occasions that CDA will mean that you don't land off an approach when you may have been able to do so with a 'dive and drive', but that this benefit does NOT outweigh the risks that you introduce by doing this approach.

This has been recognised by all of the major safety organisations and airlines, which is why 'dive and drive' is so rare these days. There is no need to create new ways of doing the approaches... CDA is fine.

The only reasons you should be doing a non CDA is for the reasons I outlined before - where CDA is not a practical solution to a very specific approach. And that doesn't include avoiding clouds.