No, you didn't, because they apparently had instrument clearance from the tower at the time they crashed into the mountain.

The only correct conclusion here is more investigation is necessary than what has been publicly published.

▲

rdtsc an hour ago | parent [-]

I read this in the preliminary report

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/G...

> The flight crew again reported they “[have] a visual on Ruidoso” at 0008:30 and that they could “go visual.” The ARTCC controller subsequently cleared the flight to SRR, cleared the flight for a visual approach, and informed them they could cancel IFR in the air above 9,000 ft msl or they could cancel their clearance via the flight service station after landing.

So you’re pointing out that they requested VFR, got clearance for it but still were flying under IFR rules? Basically the transition to VFR hadn’t completed fully?

	▲	sokoloff an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		A "visual approach" is an instrument flight rules operation. The flight was still IFR and had requested/been cleared for a visual approach, but had not switched to VFR (which they'd do by cancelling IFR). When they accepted the visual approach, they took responsibility for navigation and terrain/obstacle clearance.
	▲	gpm an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes... though I'd include the subsequent quote "and responded that they would cancel IFR “in just a couple of minutes.”" Also someone is correctly pointing out to me downthread that a visual approach is technically an IFR procedure under IFR not VFR flight rules (the latter basically meaning you aren't using instruments at all). I'm assuming IFR in the summary is referring to the non-visual approach (rnav or ILS) but the preliminary report is I suppose ambiguous as to that.