I fear I have to reply (not as a young first officer but a 20K+ hours ex Check Airman on two types of wide bodies) to 411A's dated opinions on Dive & Drive.
It was considered many moons ago to be a potentially dangerous manoeuvre by Aviation Authorities around the world for a number of reasons including the fact that it encouraged dirty dives towards the threshold and deep landings.
Most MAP's are very close to the runway threshold. If you do a Dive and Drive approach you dive to around 500ft agl (typical NPA MDA) and then drive towards the MAP peering out of the window for a sight of the runway. You see it and and dive towards the runway, with a potentially dangerous rate of descent, risk landing deep and running out of runway.
Modern thinking is for a stabilised approach from 1000 ft agl. There is no way an approach is stabilised when one makes a power on. approach flap, level flight at 500 ft agl, sees the runway, then makes a sudden power rduction to get the dive started, select landing flap, and dive for the runway and then have to apply power to stabilise the approach, before actually going into the flare, power reduction and land.
The CDA, aided by timing and /or distances brings one down to MDA from where, if the runway is in sight, the constant (safe) rate of descent can be continued down to a landing in correct area of the runway.
The CDA either in modern aircraft with VNAV help automaticaly or manually, or older aircraft with basic instruments is the safer way to fly NPAs and that has also been recgnised by the FAA.
BD