"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

The full text, which has been posted previously by others, makes it clear
that the opinion refers to a non-radar environment. Here is the relevant
portion.

"This is a clarification of our response to your letter of
August 23, 1993. In that letter you requested an
interpretation of Section 91.175 of the Federal Aviation
Regulation (FAR) (14 C.F.R. Section 91.175). You address
the necessity of executing a complete Standard Instrument
Approach Procedure (SIAP) in a non-radar environment while
operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). Our response
assumes that each of the specific scenarios you pose speaks
to a flight conducted under IFR in a non-radar environment."


So, Ron, did you delete that portion for brevity, or because including it
weakened your argument?

So how does the 1994 legal opinion supposedly eliminate the 1977 legal
opinion in all cases if the 1994 opinion is expressly limited to non-radar
environments?



No, it seems to me that you've set up a situation which is quite similar
to, and understood by most, to be functionally equivalent to radar vectors
to the final approach course.


I didn't set this situation up, this situation was set up by geography,
runway alignment, navaid placement, and departure procedures for MKE and
ORD. This is not a hypothetical, it's a real world example, it happens
regularly and has been for probably three decades or so.

What do you mean by "functionally equivalent to radar vectors to the final
approach course"? Is AWI123 being vectored or is it on it's own navigation?



It also happens to include a segment prior to the FAF which is part of a
NoPT routing from a different IAF.


So what? AWI123 didn't join the segment to which NoPT applies.



However, you claim this procedure is NOT equivalent to RV to FAC.


Well, given the absence of any radar vector to the final approach course,
I'd be a fool to claim anything else.



So you've effectively ignored the ATC requirement to start an approach at
an IAF. That is a requirement for ATC unless giving radar vectors IAW
7110.65 5-9-1. You may say that DEPRE is an IAF (which it is) but it is
not being used as one in this scenario.


Cite that requirement. Why doesn't DEPRE count as an IAF in this scenario?