"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Tim J" wrote in message
. net...
Perhaps I am wrong (as so many of you are pointing out)
but if I make a descent rate to arrive at a step down higher than
published,
it seems as though my descent rate has a good chance to not get me to
the
MDA when the time is up (or distance) and I have to go missed. So
eventually I would have to do the dreaded "dive and drive" later anyway.


As long as you are at the LAST stepdown fix at the minimium altitude and
correct airspeed then what difference does it make what altitudes you
crossed the other stepdowns?

Well, that was a given in the theoretical scenario. The smooth descent is
calculated to arrive at the last stepdown altitude well before its fix (a
couple of miles at least), not to hit it exactly. I'm not trying to avoid
that last level-off.

Someone did mention unplanned winds, and that has made me rethink the setup
a little. Given time to plan in advance, a constant-rate descent, so long as
it clears all the minimums, seems to me to be better, and nicer to your
passengers. However, factoring in actual wind seems to break the
no-math-in-the-cockpit rule. There are now multiple constraints on your
chosen descent rate, while "dive and level off" leaves more margin for
wind-induced error.

-- David Brooks