Descending Deceleration 737
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PantLoad has pretty well got it figured out.
Another thing you can try is descending at 350 to 12,500. Reduce to 1000FPM. At 10T you'll be right at 250. Simple. Continue down at 1500FPM. Slow to 200 at 3000AG. Select Flaps 1, 2, 5, 10, 15 as the speed gets to the appropriate spot.
All this at Idle, and assuming ATC is no problem.
As you cross the Marker, throw the gear out and select Flaps 25. Slide down the G/S and at 1000AG go to F30. At 500 AG, F40. If it wasn't for the "stabilized approach" procedure now used by everyone (I think) you could have landed without ever having to have touched the throttles (excuse me.....thrust levers!) from 35,000 feet!
Unfortunately, I guess you'll never get to try this all the way to touchdown these days. But, the -37 is a great little machine. Spent nine years on it in both seats.
BTW, this only works on the -200. The -300 takes a little more fiddling. I'm sure all the later models would be the same as the -300. Only spent a short time on the -300.
Another thing you can try is descending at 350 to 12,500. Reduce to 1000FPM. At 10T you'll be right at 250. Simple. Continue down at 1500FPM. Slow to 200 at 3000AG. Select Flaps 1, 2, 5, 10, 15 as the speed gets to the appropriate spot.
All this at Idle, and assuming ATC is no problem.
As you cross the Marker, throw the gear out and select Flaps 25. Slide down the G/S and at 1000AG go to F30. At 500 AG, F40. If it wasn't for the "stabilized approach" procedure now used by everyone (I think) you could have landed without ever having to have touched the throttles (excuse me.....thrust levers!) from 35,000 feet!
Unfortunately, I guess you'll never get to try this all the way to touchdown these days. But, the -37 is a great little machine. Spent nine years on it in both seats.
BTW, this only works on the -200. The -300 takes a little more fiddling. I'm sure all the later models would be the same as the -300. Only spent a short time on the -300.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another thing you can try is descending at 350 to 12,500.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 121.5
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stating the obvious I know, but why not just do it in VNAV. Works smoothly and efficiently (almost) every time unless of course ATC or other traffic is being unhelpful. Intervening with numerous pitch modes usually just increases workload with no real benefit. Just my 2 cent's worth 
Last edited by Yon Garde; 27th Dec 2008 at 04:29.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by YG
Works smoothly and efficiently (almost) every time
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are differences in our fleet, some OK some not so good. But there better ones are still course and clumsy in this regard.
On the Classic, inputing a descent forecast still results in the ubiquitous DRAG REQUIRED nearly every time. It seems one needs to fake additional tailwind to ensure a smooth VNAV PTH descent.
Agreed. If it isn't working out in VNAV then just extend the rwy centre line, LVL CHG and work it out from there.
Stating the obvious I know, but why not just do it in VNAV. Works smoothly and efficiently (almost) every time
Intervening with numerous pitch modes usually just increases workload
with no real benefit. Just my 2 cent's worth
with no real benefit. Just my 2 cent's worth
one needs to fake additional tailwind to ensure a smooth VNAV PTH descent.
