Try doing an all-flaps up approach and landing in a 737 with ARM mode actuated and manual flying. Nearing the threshold at VREF +5 which is around 190 knots in that configuration, and especially at the flare, the throttles come alive and unless you hold them hard back they will apply thrust and you will float to buggery. Sticking to the recommended Boeing procedure covers your back side and is perfectly safe and keeps the lawyers at bay.:ok:

Just to add to the discussion.

When I did my Type Rating/Endorsement about 6 years ago with Boeing, the instructors left us in no doubt that deselecting speed on final was not an approved Boeing procedure and as such they would not be teaching it. The stated Boeing philosophy was, Autopilot off, A/T off.

I'm with adasystem on that. A Tcas RA is not something that is met with panic in any airline I have flown for.

There was a case, some years ago, where an RA "Desc Now" was given at high FL.; IMC possibly. The subsequent push bounced the stewardess & trolley off the cabin roof and fell onto a pax breaking their arm. The stewardess was not in too good a shape either. No doubt many G & T's followed suit. I believe it was a LHS PF moment. I've no idea how many RA's are issued every year; might be interesting to hear. However, considering the vast dilution of front seat experience & exposure (discussed at length on PPr) & in light of AF447, it might not be too unexpected, with a CRZ F/O as PF and an SFO cockpit napping, in IMC at high level to find said newbie over reacting to a night time/IMC RA.
The sim is one thing; thinking you are going to die is another. To say it never will is IMHO one hope too far.

Centaurus: not joining the camp one way or the other, why would you keep AT in ARM all the way to flare. Would it not be sensible to click it out at DA. Surely the speed will be stable then: should be!

What Centaurus said....:ok:

Capt Chambo: yes indeed, but the question has been asked: NOT using ARM is the recommended Boeing procedure, so how can Boeing and various XAA's sanction its use as an SOP in some airlines? The lawyers would have a field day with that one. One airline has an SOP for its use. Another airline has no comment so an individual pilot chooses to use it. Something happens; etc. etc. It's a grey area. Another airline has an absolute policy of "thou shall not". OK then, the individual is now in breach of SOP's.
Bugger's muddle.

(amazing how the topic morphed from GA to approach & flare)

Possibly because Boeing has an NTO in this case.

For clarity for those who are unaware of what this is, an NTO is an approved change to manufacturer standards as there is no technical objection by amending the manufacturer's standard into an airline SOP.

'No technical objection' <does not equal> 'no objection'.

An NTO is not "an approved change". It means that they do not object to the technical application to the operators procedure. It is legal speak for the aircraft can do it but be it on your head.