Why and how would I land straight-in from a circle-to-land approach? I'm currently studying for an IR (US). One of the exam practice questions concerns an IAP having only circling minimums, and references 5-4-20(c) of the AIM, which reads:

Straight-in Minimums are shown on the IAP when the final approach course is within 30 degrees of the runway alignment (15 degrees for GPS IAPs) and a normal descent can be made from the IFR altitude shown on the IAP to the runway surface. When either the normal rate of descent or the runway alignment factor of 30 degrees (15 degrees for GPS IAPs) is exceeded, a straight-in minimum is not published and a circling minimum applies. The fact that a straight-in minimum is not published does not preclude pilots from landing straight-in if they have the active runway in sight and have sufficient time to make a normal approach for landing. Under such conditions and when ATC has cleared them for landing on that runway, pilots are not expected to circle even though only circling minimums are published. If they desire to circle, they should advise ATC.

I'm having trouble understanding the bolded sentence. What does it mean to land straight-in from an approach that is more than 30 degrees from runway alignment?
I've been understanding a circling approach as something like a pattern landing where you start the maneuver once you have passed the FAF and have - and can keep - the runway environment in sight. But this seems to imply something different. What am I missing? What does &quot;a normal approach to landing&quot; mean here?
The sentence before the one you bolded, with my bolding applied, says:


  When either the normal rate of descent or the runway alignment factor of 30 degrees (15 degrees for GPS IAPs) is exceeded, a straight-in minimum is not published and a circling minimum applies.


So you can have a "circling approach" that is lined up straight in to a runway, but with only circling mins, not straight-in minimums, published.  This could be driven by the need for a high FAF altitude, high enough that you can't get from that FAF at that altitude down to the runway, with a descent rate that's within the TERPS criteria.  So they build an approach that assumes you maneuver to lose the excess altitude, and give you circling mins so that you can.

However -- and this is what the exception that you bolded in the question is about -- if you're in, let's say a STOL airplane, you may very well be able to lose the excess altitude and be established on a normal visual glidepath to the runway with ample time to make a "normal approach and landing" without any S-turns or other maneuvering required.  And in that case you're absolutely allowed to fly the approach straight in.  The guy behind you in a Lear Jet may not be able to do the same thing that you did, and the TERPS descent profiles criteria are written to guarantee that if he has straight-in mins, he CAN get from the FAF at its crossing altitude to the runway without having to use what would be, for him, a dangerously high descent rate (angle).  But in the STOL aircraft, a steep descent is perfectly normal, so you can go ahead.  The Lear shouldn't try to mimic the Maule's descent profile, but that doesn't mean that the Maule has to mimic the Lear's descent profile.