CDFA vs constant angle descent
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In a house
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CDFA vs constant angle descent
I'm trying to get my head around the difference between the Continuous Descent Final Approach and constant angle descent profile.
According to Doc. 8168 you have two options when reaching the MDA/H either descent below MDA when you have the visual requirements or initiate a missed approach. No level flight to the MAPt is allowed.
The constant angle descent however allows you to descent to the MDA and continue to the MAPt where you have to decide whether to go missed or continue below for landing. Level flight at the MDA is allowed.
Let's say we have a FAF at 6000' and 8 DME at a NPA. The approach is made up of several step down procedures.
The way that I understand it is that the constant angle descent profile starts at the FAF i.e. 6000' and 8 DME (and ONLY there) whereas the CDFA can be initiated further out (for instance at 12000' and 16 DME).
Am I completely off track here?
According to Doc. 8168 you have two options when reaching the MDA/H either descent below MDA when you have the visual requirements or initiate a missed approach. No level flight to the MAPt is allowed.
The constant angle descent however allows you to descent to the MDA and continue to the MAPt where you have to decide whether to go missed or continue below for landing. Level flight at the MDA is allowed.
Let's say we have a FAF at 6000' and 8 DME at a NPA. The approach is made up of several step down procedures.
The way that I understand it is that the constant angle descent profile starts at the FAF i.e. 6000' and 8 DME (and ONLY there) whereas the CDFA can be initiated further out (for instance at 12000' and 16 DME).
Am I completely off track here?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic, but what the heck was wrong with 'dive and drive' anyway?
When I started, yes- in public transport ops- this is how it was done, and I don't remember it ever causing anybody a problem.
IMHO, the CDFA is just another step in the dumbing down of flying.
This process permits ever poorer quality pilots to fly, and yet is touted as a 'good thing'.
One other advantage of dive and drive was that the GA was initiated from level flight.
The CDFA works well enough, especially on a/c with an FPA type flight director, but I liked D&D too.
When I started, yes- in public transport ops- this is how it was done, and I don't remember it ever causing anybody a problem.
IMHO, the CDFA is just another step in the dumbing down of flying.
This process permits ever poorer quality pilots to fly, and yet is touted as a 'good thing'.
One other advantage of dive and drive was that the GA was initiated from level flight.
The CDFA works well enough, especially on a/c with an FPA type flight director, but I liked D&D too.
especially on a/c with an FPA type flight director,
Automation dependency includes flight director dependency and has been a factor in numerous IMC approach accidents as well as failure to recover from an unusual attitude. Blind faith in the following of FD needles is a serious issue that needs to be addressed in simulator training. When you have big operators such as those in in the Middle East castigating pilots for a few minutes of manual flying raw data on a sunny day, you have seen FD dependency at its worst. Big brother QAR read-outs gets you every time.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In a house
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies.
And yes, it's a fairly steep approach if the airport was located at sea level. My imaginary airport is located 4000' above MSL 😄.
I'm still a bit confused though.
The "old" method of dive and drive is straight forward. But I still can't seem to get my head around the difference in constant descent angle and CDFA.
Is a CDFA profile loaded in the FMS and displayed on the PFD as command bars where the constant descent angle is old fashion altitude vs distance and controlled primarily via VS and the DME read out?
And yes, it's a fairly steep approach if the airport was located at sea level. My imaginary airport is located 4000' above MSL 😄.
I'm still a bit confused though.
The "old" method of dive and drive is straight forward. But I still can't seem to get my head around the difference in constant descent angle and CDFA.
Is a CDFA profile loaded in the FMS and displayed on the PFD as command bars where the constant descent angle is old fashion altitude vs distance and controlled primarily via VS and the DME read out?
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: On SBY next to my phone
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic, but what the heck was wrong with 'dive and drive' anyway?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So?
Usually you saw the runway quite a bit before the MAP.
If you saw it, but not in a position to land, you didn't.
It wasn't really all that hard......
It was a lot less hassle than today's attempts to turn what is really a cloud break procedure, into a sort of home made ILS.
You came down to MDA, you flew along to the MAP, then you went around- unless you caught sight of the runway. Worked rather well, I thought.
Truth is "modern pilots" can't be trusted to fly straight and level, while looking out the window!
Usually you saw the runway quite a bit before the MAP.
If you saw it, but not in a position to land, you didn't.
It wasn't really all that hard......
It was a lot less hassle than today's attempts to turn what is really a cloud break procedure, into a sort of home made ILS.
You came down to MDA, you flew along to the MAP, then you went around- unless you caught sight of the runway. Worked rather well, I thought.
Truth is "modern pilots" can't be trusted to fly straight and level, while looking out the window!
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AtomKraft, the question is about the difference between CDFA and constant angle descent, not how much better flying was in the "good old days" and how terrible pilots are these days who don't know their arse from their elbow. Take your axe to grind and do it somewhere else. Lord knows this forums has enough of those threads already.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and I don't remember it ever causing anybody a problem.
Apart from questions of stable approaches in principle, flying along at MDA meant that getting visual too soon and descending below the ideal approach angle to stay visual or just because you have seen the runway is almost as risky as getting visual before the MAPt but well after the ideal approach path and ending up high and fast.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW
Although 411A is not here to post his thoughts, I have little doubt that he would have posted some very straightforward, common sense stuff.
At least the guy could fly, unlike the weak types we see on here all the time.
I can't see the likes of 411A, whatever you think about his CRM skills, presiding over AF447 or The Colgan thing.
Still, what TF do I know.
Although 411A is not here to post his thoughts, I have little doubt that he would have posted some very straightforward, common sense stuff.
At least the guy could fly, unlike the weak types we see on here all the time.
I can't see the likes of 411A, whatever you think about his CRM skills, presiding over AF447 or The Colgan thing.
Still, what TF do I know.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You came down to MDA, you flew along to the MAP, then you went around- unless you caught sight of the runway. Worked rather well, I thought.
Let's say one wants to touch down exactly at the markers and the CDFA is 3.5°. What added bonus would the "dive and drive" give you if you extended the level flight beyond intersection of CDFA and MDA? Landing at the middle of runway, approach with 4°, 5°, 6° angle?
I would love to be educated on the benefits of doing "dive and drive" in a medium/heavy jet, which is your average aircraft for CAT.
Originally Posted by Flying Stone
I haven't done it in a jet so far, but my guess is not that much...
What added bonus would the "dive and drive" give you if you extended the level flight beyond intersection of CDFA and MDA?
In the days of no VNAV, Dive and Drive had merit (not that we ever did it that way here; we used a 300ft/nm constant descent - sounds familiar...). It had the potential to be confusing: misreading the steps. But if you got that right, getting down to the MDA early certainly made some sense. Fly into the PAPI and Bob's your uncle, especially with cloudbase AT the MDA with good vis; you'd never get in on a 3° CDA to an MDA unless you were a bit low on the profile.
But now with the advent of VNAV, better to let the FMS take you down the 3° slope and hit the button at the MDA+50 if not Visual.
As for flying level at the MDA in a Cat C jet, my FCOM still says that's the procedure for an NPA. More importantly, it's no big deal!
Although 411A is not here to post his thoughts, I have little doubt that he would have posted some very straightforward, common sense stuff.
Pelican's Perch #24:<br>Sloppy, Sorry VNAV - AVweb Features Article
I love those classic Avweb articles! I read many of them when they were first published and enjoyed reading this one again. Too bad Belvoir eliminated the great articles, columns and message boards in favor of news snippets. Allot of learning and discussion used to take place over there. Deakin, Durden, Brown and all the rest. Miss ya guys. Thanks for posting it megan!
As for constant descent profile approaches, they're great...until current wx is approaching mins and the location of the MAP with respect to the rwy makes getting to MDA before the MAP the better plan. NPAs with only circling mins (no straight-in mins published) when a straight-in landing is required or expected comes to mind. Especially problematic is using a CDA when the MAP is located beyond the rwy threshold! Yeah, you could always just land somewhere else but why do that when you can get in safely simply by getting to MDA a little sooner?
As for constant descent profile approaches, they're great...until current wx is approaching mins and the location of the MAP with respect to the rwy makes getting to MDA before the MAP the better plan. NPAs with only circling mins (no straight-in mins published) when a straight-in landing is required or expected comes to mind. Especially problematic is using a CDA when the MAP is located beyond the rwy threshold! Yeah, you could always just land somewhere else but why do that when you can get in safely simply by getting to MDA a little sooner?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hands up if you think the question has still not been answered here?
Yep me.
Ludolf,
I think Jeppesen are responsible for introducing the term "Constant Angle Descent profile" and therefore causing this confusion. It is exactly the same as a CDFA in real terms. It is, as you describe, an aggregated descent angle that gets you from the FAF altitude/position to the MDA at the MAPt without having to level off in between or risk levelling off too early.
The other descent that starts well before reaching the FAF has all sorts of names including Continuous Descent Profile (CDP) and Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) and is a descent regime we should all try to stick to in order to save fuel and reduce noise over the ground. Most modern commercial jets have a FMS that calculates this for us (all the way from TOD) without much thinking on our part. Some terminal procedures explicitly call for it to be used whenever possible though in practice we remain governed by ATC descent clearances that "spoil it".
Yep me.
Difference between Continuous Descent Final Approach and constant angle descent profile.
I think Jeppesen are responsible for introducing the term "Constant Angle Descent profile" and therefore causing this confusion. It is exactly the same as a CDFA in real terms. It is, as you describe, an aggregated descent angle that gets you from the FAF altitude/position to the MDA at the MAPt without having to level off in between or risk levelling off too early.
The other descent that starts well before reaching the FAF has all sorts of names including Continuous Descent Profile (CDP) and Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) and is a descent regime we should all try to stick to in order to save fuel and reduce noise over the ground. Most modern commercial jets have a FMS that calculates this for us (all the way from TOD) without much thinking on our part. Some terminal procedures explicitly call for it to be used whenever possible though in practice we remain governed by ATC descent clearances that "spoil it".
What a night this is! Not looked at pPrune for months, then six posts in a row. I'm sure I'll regret it in the morning.
Both CDFA and constant angle descent avoid Step Down Fixes (resulting in more stable approach) BUT CDFA treats MDA as DA rather than proceeding to MAPt.
So, using CDFA, you fly a stable descent to MDA, then land or go around. The constant angle descent gives you a stable approach to MDA, (which may not coincide with MAPt) but then a level sector to MAPt. It suits helicopters, who are still allowed to do it.
Both CDFA and constant angle descent avoid Step Down Fixes (resulting in more stable approach) BUT CDFA treats MDA as DA rather than proceeding to MAPt.
So, using CDFA, you fly a stable descent to MDA, then land or go around. The constant angle descent gives you a stable approach to MDA, (which may not coincide with MAPt) but then a level sector to MAPt. It suits helicopters, who are still allowed to do it.
Originally Posted by Westhawk
Especially problematic is using a CDA when the MAP is located beyond the rwy threshold! Yeah, you could always just land somewhere else but why do that when you can get in safely simply by getting to MDA a little sooner?