In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:41:36 -0800, Ron Garret
wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:

My source is 121.651.

Why would you use an airline regulation for a general aviation
discussion on a general aviation newsgroup?

Because I was confused. Make that 91.175.

"... when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each
person operating an aircraft ... shall use a standard instrument
approach procedure ..."

I suppose this is somewhat open to interpretation, but personally, I
wouldn't want to be standing in front of the NTSB board trying to make
the case that chopping power at 3000 feet over the airport and landing
is "using a standard instrument approach procedure."

rg


Probably true.

But the issue was with the other wording, i. e., "when an instrument
letdown...is necessary".

I think some folks were saying that if the airport was in sight, an
"instrument letdown" is not necessary, even if ATC cannot approve a
visual or contact approach.

Hm, sounds pretty dubious to me. The very fact that you need an IFR
clearance to land seems to me to be de facto evidence that an instrument
letdown is "necessary". But be that as it may, 91.173 says:


"No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR
unless that person has --

(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and

(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance."


and 91.123 says:

"When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may
deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an
emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and
collision avoidance system resolution advisory."


So if the tower clears you for the VOR-A approach you'd better fly the
VOR-A approach even if you can see the runway throughout the whole
procedure turn.

rg