Your ability to track down the various iterations of the regs is impressive.
Thanks, my role as acting on behalf of Transport Canada to issue STC approval for modification requires me to be up on these small details. Some modification approval projects can be horribly cost burdened by having to show compliance to a more recent amendment of the design requirement or not. The determination process (for every STC project), known as Changed Product Rule decision, focuses on exactly which amendment of a particular design requirement will be applied. It can be item by item, as it was when I participated in the re-engine of the DA-42 to Lycoming. This is the "certification basis" for the STC. It's usually the same as that for the original type certificate, but not always. There are times where either the Engineers at TC, or I will propose to show compliance to a more recent amendment of a design requirement during certification, when doing so will result in noticeably improved safety.
I've done a fair amount of position error correction flying. I have a program coming up in a week or so on a AS350 helicopter with a previously approved external assembly, which is suspected of inducing a PEC error (static port partly obscured by the mod). My work to approve a new pitot tube and static port arrangement on the DC-3T's in Germany has been put off until next year. That will involve a lot of flying, and some fiddling with static ports to get within the required limits of error (it has too much right now to be approved, so the original system is still in use).
Interestingly, while I was test flying an older Cessna 210 last week, following a massive repair I had to approve, I noticed that the operation of the landing gear momentarily affected the static ports, and induced a bounce in the altimeter and VSI. After landing I had a look and noticed that Cessna had placed the static ports up and behind the main gear doors. Obviously, with the main gear doors open, there is a static disturbance. But, the doors close again after the gear extends, so it's not really a problem, as long as you're aware.
If the manual tells you to approach at 1.4Vs, for example, then OK. But if the manuals recommends 1.3 and your airclub 1.6, what then ?
Simple, you fly the aeroplane in accordance with the POH/AFM. No one including flying/schools/clubs or any other "operator" have the right to demand anything different.
Agreed. If the flying club/school.operator would like to have the airplane operated noticeably differently to what the flight manual/POH says, they should apply for an STC, with which they will get an approved Flight Manual Supplement for the operation they desire - if it's worthy of approval. A needlessly fast approach, if ever to be approved, would be accompanied with changed procedures, and performance data. Fly it the way the original flight manual/POH and any supplements describe.