Am fairly open-minded on this topic, but would like to make a few observations.
Fistly, the perennial tendency to attempt to reinvent the wheel is apparent.Cf. the recent discussion on crab versus wingdown crosswind technique on this forum.I sense a number of the contributions are from relatively newly qualified pilots merely evangelising the doctrines freshly instilled by their training captains.I question the validity of many of the objections raised against the traditional technique.
(1) Many contributors state,(in a mildly dismissive vein) that the non-precision approach plates were promulgated to be flown by light twins such as Aztecs and Apaches.However this is surely not so.Many are drawn specifying different tracks for CAT A,B,C,D aircraft. These approaches were flown by Super Constellations, 707s and DC8s, significantly more demanding to handle than the 767 and A320 that I fly.
(2)Regarding unsafe rates of descent.The expression "dive and drive" is pilot vernacular.Excessive rates of descent are not advised,just as in X wind landings it is not suggested that one literally " KICKS off drift" .
(3)Regarding FPA approaches using the map display.These work very well nearly all the time because radio updating maintains a high degree of map accuracy.However this accuracy is diminished when updating is not available reducing the efficacy of this method to a corresponding degree.In everyday circumstances this may not prove disadvantageous,BUT, in the extreme situations referred to in the preceding posts,eg. engine failure with low fuel following diversion ,your absolute priority will be to attain sufficient visual reference to land off the approach.Another missed approach is not desirable in this scenario - and by the way take note of the accident statistics for go-arounds, even with all engines operating!
(4) Regarding the dangers of non-precision approaches "per se". Certainly they are more hazardous than precision approaches, but please show me convincing evidence that accidents resulted from the use of "dive and drive" instead of FPA. I am familiar with the circumstances of a number of NPA disasters, and the common factor was failing to adhere to the profile of the procedure as drawn on the approach plate not the technique used to manage the descent.Poor depiction on the plate , esp. on Jeppersens, has often been cited as having invited such errors.
[ 18 December 2001: Message edited by: partagas ]