Forgetting the excellent capabilities of VNAV for a moment and reverting to simpler days, is there a rule of thumb to further refine the FL x 3 rule for Top of Descent calculation, when there are excessive head or tailwinds? Like so many miles to be added/subtracted to the distance for every x number of headwind or tailwind knots?

This is assuming you want to stay on your standard descent speed profile and not alter it.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In my experience, prior to VNAV the 3/1 rule of thumb was just a general baseline for the TOD (top of descent) point. We always adjusted the actual descent point based on an educated guess based on the tail/head wind as estimated from our existing ground speed. Of course the wind velocity often would change substantially during the descent making a more accurate rule of thumb difficult. Since adjusting our descent rate to meet any ATC restrictions was fairly simple, the 3/1 profile (adjusted for grnd speed) worked reasonably well. VNAV changed everything and saves lots of fuel. $\endgroup$
    – 757toga
    Jun 21 '21 at 0:25

Yes, there were refinements to it. In the 737-200, 3:1 was a 250 knot descent, while 280 knots was 2.5:1, and 320 knots was 2:1. The book also said add/subtract 1NM per 10 knots of tail/head wind, although that's a pretty rough wag.

The newer 737's are cleaner, so 3:1 is a better bet at the typical 280 kt descent, and slowing to 250 will flatten things out from there.

The old rule of thumb that 1NM = 10 knots slowed at idle & level flight still seems to hold well for the newer jets.


pre-VNAV/early VNAV days we used FL x 3 plus/minus 10% of avg wind component and added 15nm for decel if the vector/STAR/approach and landing was more or less 'straight in', or 10nm for a vector to base turn or 5nm for vectors equivalent to a downwind.


FL divided by 3. +/- avg wind comp and add 5 nm for a straight in.

Keep recalculating and looking out for significant wind changes - worked pretty well.

For the latest generation jets I would add another 5 to 10 nm without hesitation, though the issue has become meaningless most of the time due STAR and traffic constraints. current day usage would be confined to figuring altitude loss over a distance to meet such constraints or because of such constraints.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.