I was not advocating "dive and drive", whatever that means. The point I was
trying to make was that why stay above the published heights intentionally.
My comment about "get down as fast as possible" is perhaps overzealous and
was not meant to advocate go down really fast, but rather I meant get down
to the published altitude, and not stay above it purposely.

The protection is the same. If pilots can't stop a descent whether going
1000' per minute of 300' per minute is the real issue. Something else is
wrong if the "safer" rate of descent is going to save you. Correcting the
real problem is the solution, not making up rules for hiding the problem or
adding a safety net.

Busting the stepdown fixes is the problem - not the descent rate.

I will concede that the net effect of slower descent rates would be less
accidents, however I am more concerned that pilots use that as a crutch
rather than ensuring they execute approaches appropriately (not descending
below minimums).


wrote in message
...


Tim J wrote:

So what are you saying? The approach chart is/was wrong or the pilots
made
an error?

The pilots made an error under lots of pressure and adverse weather
conditions.
The list of fatal accident reports where stepdown fixes are busted in G/A
during
IMC is a very long list indeed.

The protection offerred by dive-and-drive is substantially less than with
a
constant angle or even a constant rate descent.

I guess this word hasn't gotten very far in the light aircraft world.