I believe not.

Australia uses PANS-OPS and our AIP says:
Note 3. The circling area is determined by drawing an arc centred on the threshold of each usable runway and joining these arcs by tangents.
The radii are1.68NM for Category A, 2.66NM for Category B, 4.20NM for Category C, 5.28NM for Category D and 6.94NM for Category E.

Even moving TERPS Cat C out to 2.7nm is still stretching the friendship for the reasons Tescoapp describes; 1.7nm in a jet was just ludicrous and it is a wonder it lasted so long.

Found this which I have printed out for my reference pack in my flight bag.

https://www.avsourcemanuals.com/medi...20Pans-Ops.pdf

4..2NM is doable but I still reckon your into cowboy territory if you are doing it in the min VIZ.

Anyway not something I have to worry about these days thankfully. If a circling approach anywhere near mins was the only option my CP would have zero issues with diverting. Must admit its years since I have to know this stuff on a daily operational, so I apologise not being up to date with the current limits

Another point I have wondered about is what the EGPWS is going to be saying while your doing one at mins.

I have found that a lot of times the required visibility for a circling approach is much less than the maximum circling radius. Never made sense to me.

The battle to get new CTL criteria was almost lost; it was certainly delayed by the reactionaries. Some biz jet operators elect CAT D if they are going to do a significant circuit around the airport.

This is the table for 1,000 feet:

thanks for the table.

I was just thinking when was the last time I did one, it was my last type rating 3 years ago.

Gentlemen, back to my original question:
I believe the FAA requires you to use higher minima on a circling approach if you exceed the max speed of your aircraft category.
I have no knowledge of any rule in EASAs world that requires you to use higher minima when exceeding e.g. category C approach speed limits.
It´s a pure technical question. Any CIRC at minimums might be very challenging or undoable - agreed. Question is which minima do I have to use (legally) on a CIRC approach with e.g. a category C aircraft when I exceed C speed limits?

Gentlemen,
back to my original question:
As far as I know the FAA requires me to observe the higher minima once I have to use higher approach speeds.
Is there a requirement to do so under EASA rules? Or might I use category C CIRC minima flying a category C aircraft even if I exceed the max speed?
Pure technical question. I am aware that I might bust the circling area by doing so.

If you look at the at the table above it gives two requirements cat of aircraft and speed. So if you increase your speed above the aircraft cat the most restrictive wins.

Folks,
How about a "common sense" analysis, if you are flying a Cat. C MDA, at Cat. D speeds/radiius, you are greatly increasing the probability that you will fly smack into something ---- is this smart.
The Doc. 8136 current edition calculations (aka PANS/OPS) do not really have much fat in them, the TERPs even less.
A very good friend of mine sits on the ICAO Obstacle Clearance Panel, she is tempted to give up flying (as a pax) when she sees discussions like this among alleged pilots.
Tootle pip!!

PANS-OPS and TERPS are not for pilots. The AIM covers the issue:

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmf...e5930f297e.jpg

PANS-OPS volume 2 is not for pilots, but volume 1 is for everyone:
To return to the original question, I too can't find anything in vol. 1 that matches the FAA directive to use a higher category, nor can I find it in EASA documents. In fact, in the absence of that kind of instruction a strict reading could lead you to conclude it is prohibited, because 1) EASA Air OPS says to remain in your circling area , 2) the circling area is determined by the aircraft approach category, 3) that category is assigned by the manufacturer or operator based on the approach speed Vat, and 4) the category definitions have minimum speeds so if your Vat is 138 knots you cannot choose to be CAT D.
Not that I would worry, the likelihood of breaking a PANS-OPS speed limit is considerably less than a TERPS one. As everyone here probably knows, TERPS assumes that the same 1.3 Vso threshold speed used to categorise the aircraft is also the manoeuvring airspeed, but PANS-OPS allows for a considerably higher speed while circling. So, a nominally CAT C aircraft that needs to circle above 140 knots during a TERPS approach must choose a higher category, but PANS-OPS CAT C is good to go up to 180 knots.

Folks,
A bit of common sense and basic maths leads to the same conclusion as the FAA AIM statement ---- it ain't that hard.
As I have already said, the idea is to not fly smack into something, and flying an aeroplane should always be treated as a very practical proposition, not some arcane discussion about words and punctuation.

RULE (1): Fly the aeroplane.
RULE (2): Censored in the age of equality, inclusion and diversity.
RULE (3): There ain't no RULE (3), see RULE (1).

Every instrument rated pilot should have a basic understanding of how instrument procedures are constructed (otherwise, why would Jep. bother putting it in the WW Text) so you understand just how vital it is to stick to the procedures and tolerances, non-conformance can ruin your whole day. The tolerances are minimal and based on you flying as accurately as you can!!!

Even with Australia's generally benign weather, we are not short of examples of pilots who have done otherwise, and we have had to pick up the pieces, including of the bodies of the passengers.
Tootle pip!!

Indeed, Sled, that is good and sensible advice and may be codified by authorities that adopt PANS-OPS. Australia for example, whose AIP refers more than once to the circling area for the category of aircraft or a higher category where the limitations of the higher category are complied with. However, inasmuch as JPAirbus was not asking for advice but was asking what EASA documents had to say on this topic, I have to conclude they did not also make this eminently reasonable clarification.

m39462,
Agreed, but more than one here suggested that it was OK to fly the higher speed at the lower cat. minima, UNLESS the RULES mandated otherwise.
Aeroplanes, and cumulus granatis don't know about "rules", EASA or otherwise, and in this day and age of the "Children of the Magenta Line", far too many believe that all the answers can be found in a book of legislation.
Indeed, the modern Australian regulatory practice is to try and identify in the greatest and minutest detail every action a pilot should take, frame a rules around it, and making it a criminal offense to make a mistake, or encounter a situation not covered by "the rools". The result is a rule book for bureaucratic micro-management so big that nobody knows everything that is there, and all to often there are contradictions that are never even sorted out in the all to prevalent legal proceedings.
And the resulting air safety outcomes are rather ordinary.
Tootle pip!!

Flying a higher speed than the protected areas cater for means getting out of them, right? Do we really need a law / regulation to say so? Either you fly slow enough and stay protected inside, or go ride a high-speed excavator outside the manoeuvring areas.

Maybe the FAA needed to go vocal in order to keep the alertness high because TERPS radii leave absolutely no margin for error on the larger planes.

True enough with "old" TERPS CTL criteria. Not true, especially for CAT C and D, with "new" TERPS CTL criteria.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmf...60d045dd1c.jpg

Or, stay inside by exceeding the assumed bank angle?

The original question being about regulations, when circling fast do the rules permit staying inside by, say, banking at 24 degrees instead of 20?
I would say by FAA rules no, if above category airspeed you must use higher category minima.
But by EASA rules yes, you are required only to maintain visual contact, at or above MDA, and stay in the protected area. How you do it is your business, within the bounds of responsible airmanship.

Of course I expect some readers to have strong opinions how far this kind of action could be taken and remain "responsible" ...