Hudson,
Well, it may have been there in the 76 edition but it isn't in the October 31, 2001 version.
So, does that mean that the original advice stands but is no longer written because of civil liability concerns? Or does it mean that the advice has been reviewed?
In 1976, American pilots in general (and those writing for Boeing in particular) would have maintained maximum speed to approach altitude, would have regularly intercepted ILS glideslope at the Outer Marker and would have used a Dive and drive technique for NPAs. While I would not argue about Boeing advice (or that of any other OEM) about how to operate their aeroplane in a general sense, I would have to have some hesitation about believing that the advice came down from Mt Sinai as a universal truth. We are all a product of our environment and there is always a sensible balance in achieving a sensible outcome.
When I read your posts, I concluded that we differ in regard to the latter conclusion.
When I read references in the FCTM about using the flaps or gear as speed brakes or as devices to increase the rate of descent, I read them as references to selecting those aerodynamic devices in and out as one does with the real airbrakes. I do not read them as precluding selection of flap as a function of manoeuvre speeds or the normal deceleration profile. I also read the word "normally" to be the most common of a range of options - a recommendation if you like but not a prohibition.
I read your posts to reflect so much of a belief in level flight flap selection that you were advocating interrupting descent to create a level segment to change configuration. IMHO, that belief would be an unthinking and pedantic application of a personal interpretation - hence my response. The fact that there is some 25 years between our comparative documents would not have helped.
I did not state that you had said "that Boeing do not permit flap extension in other than level flight", rather I intimated that your posts implied that that was the case but without any substantiating evidence. I sensed the assertion of facts or rules where none were intended. If I misunderstood your position, I apologise.
As to your final point, I was alluding to the fact that in 1976 and up until quite recently in some airspaces you could, if you so desired, maintain 300kts to glideslope intercept altitude and conduct a level decel to flap speed. My point was that if you were descending in turbulence (mechanical but often in this country thermal) such a speed profile would be very poor airmanship as opposed to a speed bleed descent. That I failed to make my point clear is my fault, particularly as I presumed that we operated in similar environments and with similar concerns about those who ride with us.
Stay Alive,