As can be seen from DFC's post there are views that rule 33 of the IFRs has by implication a set of other rules applicable to the exceptions, which means the words can not be interpreted literally and on a stand alone basis. There is some sense in this as the ANO does use some tortured logic like
"Is not permitted in circumstances requiring ... " to mean "Is never permitted"
I have seen dozens of pages of debate on the law with regard to this point (relatively fewer on the sensibility of different actions) and don't think I have seen anyone change their view or an authoritative resolution of the question.