The 737 is very rarely Landing Climb Limited, in 99.9% it is Approach Climb which is the limiting factor for landing.
Most two engine transports are limited in the same way.
Four engine ones are normally limited by Landing Climb.
Blip correctly defines the parameters valid for Approach Climb, but incorrectly calls it Landing Climb.
Landing Climb is with ALL engines running, gear down and landing flaps.
You can "scientifically" decide by using the Performance Dispatch chapter, Volume 1 for the NG versions. Remember to apply restrictions for operations in icing conditions, and you will see the need to configure for bleeds off approach on all but the most powerful versions if you have anything above standard approach climb gradients , or are operating close to MLW.
On WAT charts the same info should be available.
You can use bleeds off approach with or without an operable APU. Minor differences in the procedure, but performance wise the improved climb gradient will be the same.
The classics are even worse off, since most operators do not opt for (read pay) the option of having Performance Dispatch added to Vol. 1.
Then you as pilots are left to dig into the Flight Planning Performance Manual, or even worse, the AFM.
Yeah, and one day pigs will fly..
If you do not have WAT charts, I suspect most of you operating 300 with 20k, 400 with 22k and 500 with 18.5k engines have been way above approach climb limit weights more than once..
Especially if you are CAT II/III operators..
The most accurate, easy, dependable and pilot friendly option is to buy a BLT.
No, not the edible one, but the Boeing Laptop Tool. Or a similar approved product which utilizes AFMDPI data (NG) or AFM perf. charts in a software program which gives you instant numbers, correct for the location and condition, and presented on a laptop.
But they cost money, and that is the primary reason why most companies do prefer to give pilots the mushroom treatment when it comes to performance.
