"Typical bureaucrat". That's Steve, driving a desk all day responding to
multitudes of newsgroups all on government time.

oneatcer

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll"
said:
wrote in message
Because the original post described a situation which required an
instrument letdown, namely landing under IFR.
He's got it backward. It was I that addressed an instrument letdown
being
necessary and Paul that addressed a visual letdown.

No, I was *asking* a question, not stating something was possible.

Makes you wonder if someone really read the question or if, instead, they
shot off their mouth to show how smart they are.

You
see, I didn't know if when you can see the runway and everything between
you and it, you can use a contact approach and/or cancel and land VFR
regardless of whether the tower is reporting IFR visibilities.

And that question was pretty plainly stated/asked.

But while
I got an answer about the contact approach thing, I never got an answer
about cancelling. Instead of an answer, all I get is people quoting
rules
without explaining how they are relevant to the question. Which is par
for the course around here, it seems.

Seems many people can't comprehend the meaning of "context" or "changing
context", McNicholls being a primary offender. His knowledge of the rules
is
superior, and he's normally be an outstanding resource, but he's lost when
the context changes and he can't read from a script. Typical bureaucrat.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO