wrote:
thus once cleared for the approach you are operating below the
minimum segment altitude while on a published IAP segment. You don't
do that on the thousands of other IAPs.

In the example cited, the clearance didn't start until DOCAP. Prior to
that, he was on a "direct clearance". If you hold that that is
invalid, then it seems that the same logic applies to any direct
clearance that happens to either cross or coincide with an airway or
feeder route.

1) If I cross an airway at MVA that is lower than MEA on a direct
clearance, then am I in violation of 91.177?

2) If I am tracking a radial that happens to coincide with a feeder
route, then am I in violation of 91.177 when I'm below the published
altitude, even though I've never been cleared for the feeder route?

The issue isn't 91.177, rather it is the minimum altitude set forth
under Part 97.

Before the advent of the direct-to-the-IF procedure, I would not have
accepted 2,100 at this location because of the TAA's minimum altitude.

Your example #1 is irrelevant because the airway is not part of your
clearance.

Your example #2 is difficult to envision happening.