...but it is sort of rocket science, isn't it ?

[miles offtarget]

Hello all.

I may be opening a can of worms here, but hope you can help.

I recently attended a lecture given by a director of ground ops, (former tug and tow-bar driver), in which he explained that he would view it as a simple and wonderful thing if in future the pilots would put their newspapers down, pay some attention, and fly the company aircraft more efficiently.

He had recently conducted a 'survey', and concluded that we could achieve constant descent approaches (and so use less fuel), if we just put our minds to it.

After all, he told us time after time after time, ' it's not rocket science !'.

Those sort of management cliches normally induce me to immediately look out of the nearest window and muse over what the score might be in the Test match, or whether Australia might have picked Mike Hussey over Michael Clarke to replace Ricky Ponting during the last Ashes, but this time it did get me thinking.

... but it is sort of rocket science isn't it ?

I know there is residual thrust and all that, but I mean closing the thrust levers at FL360 and doing that energy compensation thing all the way to touchdown, (which is of course what we try to do already, despite transiting the London TMA four times a day) must be sort of parabolic or hyperbolic or something ?

Anyway, as a simple B737 skipper that's where my schooling runs out, but I'm sure there are people here who might be able to help with some theory.

Thanks in advance,

Miles Off-Target.