NDPILOT: For interview purpose I would guess they are looking for the first answer.
Obviously both techniques are doing the same thing(pdp/Canpa)
Although I would say PDP is better explained as I tried before( perhaps in a few less words) It is the same as a VDP although many charts dont have a vdp so we make up our own=pdp.
The jepp definition of vdp is normal descent from the MDA(not the FAF altitude) may be commenced.
First off I dont know too many major US airlines who do many non-prec approaches( most no longer have NDB in their op specs)
Second it has been my observation that when it comes to airlines the FAA is very slow to approve of some of the new technology often used by many of the corporate pilots.
The idea of canpa is doing the very same thing utilizing a constant descent angle and with fms the computer can constantly monitor ground speed and adjust the the recommended descent to give a glide path similar to and ILs
I personally do not know of many operators(airlines )who are approved to conduct approaches using this- Not saying there arent any!
They are both adjusting the descent point until the airplane is on the proper glide path---same idea -- all I am saying is most airlines still motor down to mda and level off momentarily.
I recently did my md-11 type rating at Delta and in that airplane they use profile all the way down(the FMS will basically build it own glide path) Again the problem I have noticed is a NON prec is not as accurate as an ILS. If the ceiling is low and you go to mda and see the ry you will a little time to line up, however if using the campa method you may not be below the cloud deck till short final and it is difficult and unstabalizing to make large correction in close to ry.
Obviously both techniques are doing the same thing(pdp/Canpa)
Although I would say PDP is better explained as I tried before( perhaps in a few less words) It is the same as a VDP although many charts dont have a vdp so we make up our own=pdp.
The jepp definition of vdp is normal descent from the MDA(not the FAF altitude) may be commenced.
First off I dont know too many major US airlines who do many non-prec approaches( most no longer have NDB in their op specs)
Second it has been my observation that when it comes to airlines the FAA is very slow to approve of some of the new technology often used by many of the corporate pilots.
The idea of canpa is doing the very same thing utilizing a constant descent angle and with fms the computer can constantly monitor ground speed and adjust the the recommended descent to give a glide path similar to and ILs
I personally do not know of many operators(airlines )who are approved to conduct approaches using this- Not saying there arent any!
They are both adjusting the descent point until the airplane is on the proper glide path---same idea -- all I am saying is most airlines still motor down to mda and level off momentarily.
I recently did my md-11 type rating at Delta and in that airplane they use profile all the way down(the FMS will basically build it own glide path) Again the problem I have noticed is a NON prec is not as accurate as an ILS. If the ceiling is low and you go to mda and see the ry you will a little time to line up, however if using the campa method you may not be below the cloud deck till short final and it is difficult and unstabalizing to make large correction in close to ry.
