Top of 2.5° Descent

Eddie sez:

We long ago figured out that 3 times your altitude (in thousands) gives a nice 3° descent from en route altitude. When the 60-to-1 gurus came out, they were convinced this was an offshoot of the flight levels to lose technique. In my Hawaii squadron our airplanes couldn't handle a 3° descent at some altitudes without losing pressurization or resorting to speed brakes. So we came up with 4 times your altitude (in thousands) gives a nice 2.5° descent. Are either of these due to the 60-to-1 relationship? No, but they do work. Here's why.

We'll define the rule, provide an example of its application, and then we'll provide a mathematical proof of the rule.

Last revision:


Top of 2.5° Descent



Start descent at four times your altitude to lose in thousands of feet to achieve a 2.5 degree gradient.



Figure: 2.5° Top of Descent, from Eddie's notes.

Let's say you are cruising at FL410 and are planning a descent into an airport that is just over 1,000 feet MSL elevation. So you have 40 thousand feet to lose. If you want a gentle 2.5 descent, when should you start your descent?

Top of Descent = (Thousands of Feet) 4 = (40) 4 = 160 nm


If you multiply your altitude in thousands of feet by four, you will arrive at the ideal distance to start your descent and end up with about a 2.5 degree descent gradient. The 60-to-1 mavens will have you believe this is an offshoot of the earlier flight levels to lose technique:

Gradient = Flight Levels Nautical Miles

If you do the math, that would mean:

Top of Descent = Flight Levels 2.5


Figure: Top Descent trigonometry, from Eddie's notes.

That works, but that isn't the "school solution." We can verify the technique using trigonometry. We will use K to represent the altitude in thousands of feet and D for the distance in nautical miles. Of course that means the formulas will require two conversion factors:

Top of Descent (D) = ( K tan θ ) ( 1 nm 6076 feet ) ( 1000 feet 1 K )

For a 2.5° angle, tan(θ) = 0.0437 and the math works out to:

Top of Descent (D) = ( K ) ( 3.77 )

That is an error of less than 6% from our time-tested rule of thumb.

Bottom Line

So what about the claims this rule of thumb is based on 60-to-1? My conclusion: It has more to do with trigonometry.

Rule of Thumb 60-to-1? Trigonometry π
Top of Descent (3°)    

60-to-1 — Rule of thumb is based on the mathematical relationship of a 360° circle and/or 6076' to 1 nm.

Trigonometry — Rule of thumb is based on the relationship to a right angle and the derived trigonometric functions.

π — Rule of thumb is based on the relationship of a 360° circle, the number π, and/or 6076' to 1 nm.

See Also:

Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing software like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum.