aterpster:
I didn't "miss that," so I may go back and have another look.
When I was reading through that sequence of posts a few days ago, most of the pictures didn't come up on my PC -- all I got was nice blank yellow background. *shrugs* Not sure why.
EDIT:
I have a question for you, please bear with me.
There is circling, then there is circling. OPRN, being a PANS-OPS airport has a realistic circle-to-land maneuvering area. I have no quarrel with circling at such an airport provided the pilot has proficiency and currency in CTL procedures in a heavy jet transport. In that case circling at OPRN can be quite safe.
TERPs is a different matter. The protected airspace less than 50% of that provided by PANS-OPS. Is ICAO wasting airspace or is the FAA deadly wrong? It's the latter.
I agree with having 5nm to work with allows the pilot of a heavy room to work, but I think you see what I am going to say next: instrument approaches and the procedures that go with them are intended to work under IMC, which is typicallly < 1000/3. If you can't see the 5nm, of course it doesn't do you much good to have that much room to work with.
Losing sight of the RWY environment puts an end to the CTL.
Granted, there are some days when it's pretty clear vis below an OVC or BKN layer, but I don't think you can design an approach based on that assumption.
On the other hand, time and distance for a heavy, particularly with wind, makes the 2.3nm circle hard work in bad weather relatively low to the ground.
In your comparison of either/or, and I think you have a detailed understanding of this, why won't the FAA budge on the 2.3 nm? Why not 3sm or 3nm? There is probably a reason, but I don't know what it is.
Mention was made earlier of the procedure having been designed for the Convair being applied to faster jets, and I note disagreement on why CAT C or D should, or should not, accept the CTL.