AIP GEN 1.5 Para 8.5.5.3 clearly states that a TSO 129 GNSS may be used to satisfy the planning requirements set out in AIP ENR 1.1 Para 58.3 (RPT CHTR -2 Nav aids / PVT AWK - 1 Nav aid) But then I believe your interpretation of the following table seems to contradict it with note 3 in the centre column. I read it a little differently in that if it is NOT TSO 145/6 etc at both the destination AND at the alternate IF it is required, then the SUITABILITY of the alternate may not be based on GNSS approach capability. Note 4 and the note in para 8.5.5.3 appear to support this;

Note; if a TSO C129 or TSO C129a receiver is used, and IF an alternate is required to be nominated, an instrument approach utilising ground based navigation aids must be available at the alternate.

Thoughts?

Hey Dekka,
Im looking at this too and finding it confusing, to me 8.5.5.3 is saying that if you were flying with a TSO 129 you would not need to plan for an alternate as it meets the requirements however the table summary says otherwise, take a look at the CAAP 179A Navigation using GNSS, the table on page 47 pretty much says if using a TSO 129 or C129A an alternate is required unless you can do a visual approach.
I wouldn't mind knowing Bob's thoughts on this ?

Yer on further investigation this topic has been raised in another thread in these forums to which bob has replied and requested clarification from CASA. The reply he received was apparently unsatisfactory. The summary I believe is that new AIP text is contradicting old texts and CAAPS as you mentioned so the conservative approach is when considering your destination a TSO 129 does not qualify as one of the nav aids required. I too would like to hear if bob has had any further clarification from CASA.

Oh good which thread are you referring too so I can have a read, I have looked through the threads however I couldn't find it.

Thanks

www.bobtait.com.au/forum/instrument-rati...6a-gnss-alt-planning