"skyliner" wrote
Previously, the paragraph included a sentence "...If it is necessary to
MANEUVER at a speed in excess of the upper limit of the speed range for an
aircraft's category, the minimums for the category for that speed shall be
used." Thus, if landing straight-in, one would use the approach speed based
on VREF or 1.3 VSO to determine which category to use, and only move up to a
higher category if -circling- for landing.

Now, the sentence reads, "...If it is necessary to OPERATE at a speed in
excess of the upper limit of the speed range for an aircraft's category, the
minimums for the category for that speed shall be used." And there is also a
new example, "...a Category A airplane which is operating at 130 knots on a
straight-in approach shall use the approach Category C minimums."

Well, one man's rule change is another man's clarification. In my
opinion, this is a clarification, and using Cat A mins while flying
Cat B speeds never made sense in the first place, though I know it's
done.

For one thing, there is a lot of latitude in what defines a
straight-in approach. You could have a heading change of 15 (or is it
20?) degrees and still have straight-in minima published. Also, there
could be a turn at the FAF - not terribly rare for off-field VOR
approaches. There could be a turn associated with the missed approach
procedure. In all these cases, the protected area may need to be
increased due to the increased turn radius. In general, I would say
that where there is a difference between Cat A and Cat B minimums on a
straight in approach (not often) there is a reason, and that reason is
just as applicable to a Cat A airplane flying Cat B speeds as it is to
a true Cat B airplane.

This is going to change things...now all my students who like to fly
approaches over 90 kts in their Archers will be moving up to Category
B...whether it's circling or straight-in.

IMO they always had to. The big question in my mind is why this even
comes up. If there is a difference between Cat A and Cat B mins, the
pilot ought to be able to fly ANY certified single engine airplane at
less than 90 kts. I've seen an instrument student fly the ILS in a
Bonanza at 75 kts and do a good job of it. I've never flown an Archer
but I can't imagine it's all that different from a Cherokee 180, and I
found that it was quite comfortable at 80 kts on an NDB, even for an
instrument student flying the plane for the first time. If the skill
level to comfortably fly the approach at less than 90 kts in an Archer
isn't there, then I would suggest that the pilot has no business going
to minimums anyway.

I suspect the clarification is a reaction to what I've been seeing a
lot of lately - people flying approaches in spam cans much too fast.
Sure, it's important to be able to fly a fast approach - sometimes you
get asked to keep your speed up. But I've been asked to slow down for
the approach as well - not because I was gaining on the airplane ahead
of me (it was an MU-2) but to assure proper separation on the
approach. And sometimes you need to slow down in order to land on a
short runway with a tailwind when the weather is below circling
minimums.

Michael