Equivalent Cat A' is not a definition per se but a language construct
JimL,
Great points, and well articulated as always. I guess I've always taken the view that if a term is used in the regs, it's more than a "language construct"!
But I wonder if the the term truly only applies only to the older Part 27 twins? The 355NP is the perfect example -- it is the latest variant of the 355, and apparently meets some/most/not all, of Appendix C. (Then again, I suppose one could argue that it is "older aircraft," as I assume it carries the legacy cert basis
)
As to Paragraph 3: how does an operator come by the additional scheduled performance for PC 1 or 2? Is it left to each operator to develop and have approved? Or is he required to get data from the OEM? Confusing stuff!
In pointing out that the term isn't used in Parts 91 and 135, I was trying to highlight the fact that these parts don't even have performance requirements for FULL Cat-A, which is really too bad!
Thanks for you insight...