In the interest of furthering my career, which you seem to think is limited, can you show me where my calculation for the example we are using is incorrect? 2170' to lose, 6 miles to do it. Starting at 2500' AMSL. landing at 330' AMSL. 6x320 = 1920. 250' high. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I can successfully fly a visual approach. I grasp what you are saying in say pure glideslope on an approach. To get an indicated height for a correct glideslope you would add. But since we already have the height indicated as a given, adding and subtracting in this example is irrelevant. All you need is height to lose versus distance to run. From that you have + or - glideslope, don't you? In hindsight, I think we are talking about the same thing, the context is different and I used a different methodology to you in this case.
Last edited by porch monkey; 14th Jul 2015 at 01:50.