Air Rabbit
The length of your posts says it all. It seems to take you an awful lot of effort to explain it to us, therefore I draw my own conclusion from that. I've not flown in an airline which would advocate your method. They have all based their training around the FCTM description. Why? Because it is straightforward, simple, easy to visualise and it works. That is what the newbie needs until they get a feel for the aircraft. Not some idea that varies so much and that each new pilot needs to find their own 'way' of doing it. They WANT to be told/ shown a simple method to aim at.
Be careful about claiming people are insulting you. There has been no such insult thrown from me. If you believe you haven't been waffling then that is up to you, I sir think you have, so it is a statement, not an insult.
You ask
I’m puzzled at how you would fly a non-precision instrument approach.
In the same way. I would start a descent at the descent point and use V/S to control my rate of descent over distance. I would aim (as per my company SOPs) to fly a constant descent to 50ft above MDA at which point I would either see the visual reference and continue FULLY STABILISED, or go around. As I came over the threshold I would use exactly the same technique as described by the FCTM to flare and land the aircraft. Again, simple as the same method works again. Why would you think there must be a different technique for a non-precision approach? You imply the Boeing method would not work if it wasn't off an ILS.
...it is apparent, to me at least, that you believe you have the definitive knowledge in this area.
No, I believe Boeing do. That's what I follow every time as it works and what I am reciting here. That is what my training department would have me teach and what every other airline that I have worked in (four Boeing airlines) have advocated. I'm not the one going against the grain here Air Rabbit.
I wish you well, but will continue to disagree that your method has merits in a 737.
PP