Brings back great B727 memories, you really had to keep thinking and that was a good thing.




But 'Dive and drive' belongs in the history books now.




A stabilised rate of descent from the FAF to the runway with is the only way to go and much safer.



With todays LNAV / VNAV technology we are a lot safer, as long as you monitor carefully and really know what's going on.

Even in the 70s on B707s we did CDFA approaches using a computed Height v Time table (discussed in the brief before TOD,) Height checks every 20 secs on the approach. (QFE days).

My company abandoned dive & drive after leaving props for jets.

"Dogs Ears" for the RMI selection brings back memories - very important part of the approach check.

One pilot I flew with used to call them "Suicide switches" - more than one a/c over the course of aviation history has done the whole letdown on the wrong beacon because the Dogs Ears were incorrectly set. I recall there was a CFIT at Palermo decades ago for this reason.

Thanks again Aterpster, Desert185,and all the rest.Quite interesting all this.
Aterpster, since you mentioned in your company is was taught to start rounding out of the descent about 100 ft above the MDA, I've got a follow up question.

Did you actually continue then in level flight at MDA towards the MAP like you would do in a prop?

Because if your approach speed in final config from DICEY inbound would be around 150kts for example, it takes you about 2:07 minutes according to the chart to reach LMM, the missed approach point.With a normal sinkrate of around 750 ft/min you would've reached the MDA of 6060ft for class C/D aircraft already after a little less than 1minute after passing DICEY at 6700ft.
So you would have still 1 minute to go towards LMM.In a prop this is no problem,
but with a jetliner it seems hard to do, since passsing LMM at MDA would leave
you about 1700ft above the airfield at a distance of 0.5NM from the threshold.

Or did you go around immediately if you had no visual contact upon reaching MDA?With go-around I mean starting your climb&gear and flap retraction, the missed approach procedure itself can only be flown laterally once your at the MAP,I know.

Thank you,

John

P.S.:Forgot to ask,what are RMI dog-ears?

They select the RMI display to VOR1 or ADF1, and VOR2 or ADF2.

bizjetdriver142:

Reno is not a very good example because the HAT (TERPs for Height Above Touchdown) is so high. More typically, a U.S. air carrier airport would have an NDB HAT of 500 to 700 feet.

Final approach speed at Vref +10 and flaps 15 would probably be more on the order of 135 to 140 KIAS. When becoming visual we would select Flaps 30. The reason we used Vref + 10 and flaps 15 was to provide for the "Drive" portion of "Dive and Drive." If you had to run the time out chances are you were going to miss the approach even if you got a glimpse of the runway at the last moment. Lots of discipline required. And, with an NDB IAP the runway might be seriously offset. (At Reno that wouldn't be the case if you had two ADF receivers and thus could lock-step them, but only our international 707s had two ADF receivers.)

Also, most U.S. NDB IAPs that were not associated with an ILS runway would have only one NDB. The Reno runway shown on the chart also had an ILS, thus the LMM.

Here is a photo of an RMI. The VOR/ADF selectors are at the lower left and right respectively.

RMI (Radio Magnetic Indicator)

And, as others have said, Dive and Drive went out in later years.

For those interested:

ICAO Doc 8168 or "Procedures for Air navigation services" consists of two volumes.

Volume 1, called "Flight Procedures" is the foundation for all IFR operation. And it is mandatory read for all pilots.

MarkerInbound, volume II is "Construction of Visual and Instrument Flight Procedures"...
...and as can be seen in italic it is not essential read for pilots.

Well, that's the problem at RNO even today unless one is doing the Silver ILS with lower mins, which is not normally published for the general public. A circle is your only option. Back then, circling was an option. Today, many carriers don't allow circling unless the weather is 1000-3 (the NDB mins were 1700-3). I say "were", because an NDB app no longer exists at RNO. Also, most type ratings these days exclude being able to circle. I once flew with a sim instructor who had never seen a circle in a large aircraft (his DC-8 type had the circling exclusion), so he wanted to see one demonstrated in the sim. Some would say not circling is safe, and I would agree, but I would also agree that we are dumbing-down the capabilities of the pilot's. Some poor "pilots", who I generally call "drivers" are very reluctant to do a visual approach, even when that is the only option (like the 25's at PANC). I saw a foreign carrier try it three times and then land at Elmendorf next door. Personally, I miss the IGS13 at Hong Kong's old Kai Tak. Don't get me wrong, automation is a good thing, but so is a capable pilot who can do his job should the automation fail or be deferred.

RNO is a different animal with usually higher ceilings and visibility, with vis going down in snow showers during the winter. The current ILS 16R has Category A-D mins at 2100-7 with no circling. The GS is 3.1 degrees, so the DA on the GS is seven miles from the runway.

The VOR-D has Category D circling mins at 1600-3...VFR.

Don't allow yourself to be a dog watching television. Fly the damn airplane once in awhile. The human still has to interface. What a concept.

As BizJetJock said, this is a TERPS based approached and we have our Instrument Flying Handbook and Instrument Procedures Handbook for guidance.

That doesn't absolve you from having knowledge of international regulations. There are 195 countries in the world besides USA. I suppose your license allows to fly to these countries?

ICAO is the foundation of civil aviation. Each country may have local deviations. You have to know the International regulation and the local regulations applicable to any counties you fly. In other words ICAO Doc 8168 is the master document, and TERPS is a local exemption.

Frankly, I find it quite disturbing that such an essential documents is apparently more or less unknown to American pilots. Maybe this should give cause for consideration when American pilots complain that they have to do JAA exams to fly in Europe.

Anyway, TERPS or PANS-OPS - I am sure that we can agree that we would time our procedure turns.

It is in the same sense as the AIM is.

GF

USA is an ICAO member state, so yes it's regulatory.

Being an ICAO signatory does not mean that ICAO docs are mandatory under that state's laws. Only those provisions which are adopted under the laws of the signatory state in question become mandatory in any legal sense.

Hey, back seat driver here. Probably 10-12 years back into luanda with an MD-11. The drivers had no problem with the NDB and the approach / landing.... More concerned with getting shot at than anything.

cosmos kramer:

Would it be so nice that all ICAO countries that use PANS-OPS were faithfully consistent in its application.

TERPS is used in all three North American countries so the 90%, or so, GA pilots who fly only within or between those three countries are nicely covered without even having knowledge of Doc 8168, of which TERPS is most decidedly not a subset.

Alas, the United Nations does not do much better in aviation matters than in the other matters it mucks around with.

For those 10%, or so, of North American pilots who fly airplanes capable of venturing across the ponds, we have some good international procedures schools for business aviators. And, most of the airlines who fly international do a good job of teaching the pertinent variations from the United Nation "standards" by placing emphasis on whether it is to be Western Europe, or Africa, or the Middle East, or South America, or Asia, or India, et al.

But, the bottom line: any pilot who thinks he can read basic PANS-OPS and be covered is ignoring the reality of actually being qualified to fly into not only a specific country, but being qualified to a specific airport or airports within those countries. That's the "end game" for survival.

Neither PANS-OPS nor TERPS are regulatory, rather they are instrument procedures design and construction criteria. Procedural operations regulations are regulatory by definition, but they have no application outside the state in which they apply. Some operating regulations and procedures are universal; many are not.

aterpster:
Thanks for the further explanation regarding the approach and RMI dogears
Have a nice day,

John