I am getting persistent "Airspeed Low" warnings when on final approach in the 737-700 BBJ1, and I do not know why. This is the only variant that exhibits this behaviour in my usual quick circuit flights with the 737. In short, I have two thirds fuel (including all the auxiliary tanks), but no passengers or cargo. As soon as I get down to around 155 knots, and select FLAPS 25, the amber line shoots down from the top, I get an "Airspeed Low" warning, the engines spool up, and speed increases dramatically.

Is having two thirds fuel when on final approach not achievable in the 737-700 BBJ1? It works just fine in the 737-800 BBJ2. Do I need to land with reduced flap settings? The problem here is that the speed will be even higher, which does not make a lot of sense to me.

I am hoping that the resident real world 737 pilots on this forum can explain why this is happening with only this variant?

EDIT: I also noticed something else. When I had 5 FWD and 3 AFT auxiliary tanks active, the values on the gauge were 200 FWD and 400 AFT. However, when I switched to 4 FWD and 4 AFT auxiliary tanks, these values were 100 and 200 respectively. Unless those figures mean something else, that is surely impossible??

Edited July 28Jul 28 by Christopher Low

What was your gross weight?

Can you post a picture of the PFD when this happens?

Do I understand correctly that the "Airspeed Low" warning only triggers once you extend the flaps from 15 to 25? If so, that does seem strange.

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

I am getting persistent "Airspeed Low" warnings when on final approach in the 737-700 BBJ1, and I do not know why. This is the only variant that exhibits this behaviour in my usual quick circuit flights with the 737. In short, I have two thirds fuel (including all the auxiliary tanks), but no passengers or cargo. As soon as I get down to around 155 knots, and select FLAPS 25, the amber line shoots down from the top, I get an "Airspeed Low" warning, the engines spool up, and speed increases dramatically.

Is having two thirds fuel when on final approach not achievable in the 737-700 BBJ1? It works just fine in the 737-800 BBJ2. Do I need to land with reduced flap settings? The problem here is that the speed will be even higher, which does not make a lot of sense to me.

I am hoping that the resident real world 737 pilots on this forum can explain why this is happening with only this variant?

EDIT: I also noticed something else. When I had 5 FWD and 3 AFT auxiliary tanks active, the values on the gauge were 200 FWD and 400 AFT. However, when I switched to 4 FWD and 4 AFT auxiliary tanks, these values were 100 and 200 respectively. Unless those figures mean something else, that is surely impossible??

After this "new" update, they managed to break this beyond any belief. CTDs, freezes, wrong aircraft systems behavior, etc.

That amber bar indicates the maximum maneuvering speed. This airspeed provides 1.3g maneuver capability to high-speed buffet. May be displayed when operating at high altitude at relatively high gross weights. At that speed, with those flaps and weight, you should not get any: AIRSPEED LOW."  They had that issue so many times, and it has resurfaced again. Another one is the fuel logic; again, previously reported, and here we go again. 

I honestly don't understand this approach. It's not just that they haven't fixed the issues—they've actually managed to make things worse.

Many of these bugs have been around for years, yet instead of focusing on delivering the quality that paying customers were promised, the priority seems to have shifted to releasing new versions, including the PlayStation 5 release, while the same long-standing problems continue to carry over.

As customers, we paid for a product that should work properly. Instead, we're expected to buy new releases while many of the old issues remain unresolved. It increasingly feels like the focus is on generating more sales rather than fixing the product that existing customers already paid for.

Edited July 28Jul 28 by LRBS

15 hours ago, LRBS said:

It increasingly feels like the focus is on generating more sales rather than fixing the product that existing customers already paid for.

It's not particularly surprising.

PMDG is a business, and like any business, its primary focus is on growing sales and maintaining profitability. It's therefore reasonable to expect that many of its decisions will be guided by commercial considerations, alongside the needs of its customers.

There is also the aspect, though, that a reputation for good after-sales service helps generate new sales. Reading this, I'm certainly not in a hurry to buy this product.

2 hours ago, Sparkrite said:

PMDG is a business, and like any business, its primary focus is on growing sales and maintaining profitability. It's therefore reasonable to expect that many of its decisions will be guided by commercial considerations, alongside the needs of its customers.

I disagree with that characterization, at least in PMDG's current state.

A business certainly needs to be profitable, but profitability should never become an excuse to repeatedly deliver products with unresolved defects or to fail to adequately support customers after the sale. Customers paid for a product that was marketed as a premium, high-fidelity simulation. It is therefore reasonable for them to expect that significant bugs and long-standing issues will be addressed in a timely manner.

PMDG built its reputation over many years by producing high-quality products while remaining profitable. That balance appears to have shifted. Since the MSFS 2020/2024 era, many customers have expressed frustration that quality, reliability, and post-release support no longer seem to receive the same level of attention or at all. Instead, there is a perception that commercial priorities have taken precedence over delivering the level of polish that customers paid for.

The issue is not that PMDG is trying to make money—every company should. The issue is that profitability should not be used to justify releasing products with persistent problems or allowing known issues to remain unresolved while development moves on to new products or platforms. If other developers can maintain profitability while fixing bugs, providing ongoing updates, and improving the customer experience, then it demonstrates that the two goals are not mutually exclusive.

Ultimately, customer satisfaction is what creates long-term profitability. When customers begin to feel that they are paying premium prices for products that require months or years of waiting for fixes, confidence in the company inevitably declines. In my opinion, that is not a sustainable business strategy, and it falls short of the standard that originally made PMDG one of the most respected developers in flight simulation.

Edited July 29Jul 29 by LRBS

It is interesting to note that I could just about get away with landing the BBJ1 at this weight and these speeds prior to the latest update, but now it is absolutely impossible. I am going to test the configuration of the BBJ1 with no auxiliary fuel tonight to see what happens. It certainly should be more than capable of doing that simple task.

Well, now I know that something is wrong. I reduced the number of auxiliary fuel tanks to just one (at the front), which results in a weight not much different from the normal configuration. I tested exactly the same scenario as normal. The speeds were obviously lower, but the end result was almost exactly the same. When I lowered flaps to 25 at 150 knots, that amber bar shot down from the top, and the engines spooled up. I did not get the "Airspeed Low" warning message, but the aircraft was clearly doing something that I have never seen the PMDG 737 do in the fourteen years that I have been flying it.

I will now test one of the other variants. Alarm bells will seriously start ringing if I have a problem here.....

EDIT: The 600 performed flawlessly (as usual).

Edited July 29Jul 29 by Christopher Low

59 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I will now test one of the other variants.

This is what you should see on PFD if you are within operational limits

Unfortunately, that's not the only issue following their recent update. It's clear they no longer have the capability to compete effectively. Such a shame. This also highlights the ongoing problems with quality control and testing prior to releases. Additionally, there are unusual behaviors observed in A/P. 

49 minutes ago, LRBS said:

This is what you should see on PFD if you are within operational limits

It looks like a screenshot from PSX!

And this might help

1 minute ago, Simicro said:

It looks like a screenshot from PSX!

Not really; it's from the Boeing 748 CBT, similar to the 737 PFDs.

If anyone is inclined to test this themselves, set up the BBJ1 with no passengers or cargo, set the fuel to two thirds, and activate all nine auxiliary tanks (5 forward and 4 aft). Do a quick circuit, and see what happens on final approach as you come down through the FLAP settings. I would be curious to know if anyone else experiences the same issue. The same test with the 737-800 BBJ2 (as a comparison) is no problem at all, although you do get a high final approach speed of 154 knots!

I am on holiday in Scotland from tomorrow, so I will not be flying for at least ten days. However, I will be checking the forum on a semi regular basis 🙂

Edited July 29Jul 29 by Christopher Low

....and the end result of a short discussion with a beta tester on the PMDG forum?

"You don't have a problem"

🤔