Comments on: LAX Implements Continuous Descent Approach

By: Don't sweat the small stuff (no really, don’t) | The Hunting Dynasty

Don't sweat the small stuff (no really, don’t) | The Hunting Dynasty — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 19:02:42 +0000

[...] that can be replaced by a gentle glide – allowing the use of minimal throttle. These CDAs (Continuous Descent Approaches) are being trialed at the UPS main hub in Louisville, Kentucky and are reckoned to save 40-70 [...]

By: FAA Test

FAA Test — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:27:34 +0000

Very well written.This is great news.Decreasing emissions/fuel burn and noise in one shot.

@ Sheila what is slam dunk approach?

By: karl kettler

karl kettler — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:39:55 +0000

CDA is re-inventing the wheel. It demonstrates how easily a new generation forgets or has ignored what came before. Airlines always conducted such approaches wherever and whenever they could. Just what does “establishing a CDA mean? It’s up to the pilot to chose what method of approach to use not an airport. All sorts of conditions impact the use of CDA that the pilot has to deal with. If an aiport imposes a CDA and aircraft arrive at a greater rate than what can be sequenced into a CDA it simply means that they burn more fuel orbiting in a holding pattern.until it’s their turn. Nothing is saved.

By: Air New Zealand’s New Fuel-Saving Efforts at Things in the Sky

Air New Zealand’s New Fuel-Saving Efforts at Things in the Sky — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:09:16 +0000

[...] That press release also mentioned that Air New Zealand has been participating in a special progam in San Francisco. Lo and behold, I just completely missed the press release. The airline is testing out a special kind of approach there. Basically, instead of the typical approach that is full of descending and leveling off, the aircraft starts descending at a gradual pace far away from the airport, without ATC directing them too much. I’m not sure if this is the same thing, but it seems quite similar to a program at LAX that Cranky describes [...]

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:05:48 +0000

The LAX CDA is almost worthless due to spacing requirements.. I watch the LA final on my radar at work, and at least 50 percent of them are vectored back-and-forth across the final to increase the spacing necessary to feed in aircraft approaching LA from the north. It’s funny to see the FAA (Gregor) tout the CDA, and watch it screwed up in practice. Nobody is saving fuel or money. Take that to the bank…

By: lax

lax — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:13:31 +0000

The Continuous Descent Arrival has proven to be highly advantageous over conventional dive-and-drive arrival and approach procedures.
From the environmental perspective, there are significant reductions in noise and emissions . From the economic viewpoint, there are significant fuel and flight time savings as well as the potential to meet or exceed current runway throughput without the need to vector aircraft.

By: Megan

Megan — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 06:46:40 +0000

This is great news. Decreasing emissions/fuel burn and noise in one shot.

I also heard that Delta was testing CDAs at ATL.

By: Joe Canoy

Joe Canoy — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:15:29 +0000

CF – Personally for me, CDA type of landing is less preferable than the Stepped Approach (the Drunk Pilots is obviously a joke) because it is a continous thrill and, I think, deprives passengers of the sufficient time to let out bubble in the ears. Gosh, I would miss that portions of the flight (when the flight is on flatten path) when I would hold my nose and blow, or press that area on my ears just below the entrance, then the sound around me start to become audible.

By: CF

CF — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:16:03 +0000

Yep, FAA. I’m sure it’s not easy to get something like this implemented, so I’m just glad to see it happening now.

By: Nicholas Barnard

Nicholas Barnard — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 03:24:45 +0000

Cranky, what organization decides how approaches are designed at airports? (The FAA I assume?) And why are we now just figuring this out in 2008?