Bob I've still got a little bit of your book to go so maybe these are answered, but I can't sleep till I ask
Perdantic questions I know, but hey.

Firstly CAO 40.2.1 para 11.3
So if you haven't flown any of these approaches in the preceding 90 days, you could still plan to fly them at your destination if VMC is forecasted right? Probably pointless in the real world I guess, but say if you have an autopilot that can carry out the GNSS approach, and it's not IMC, would it still be legal to carry out this approach?

Also talking purely in legal terms. I'm guessing your planned runway must satisy all alternate minimum requirements, as well your recency. For example there's no use using the special mimimum for two ILS if you're not current to use them etc. Also if you had something like where all requirements were met on your planned runway, except the runway only had permanent lighting with no standby power, where as the other runway had standby and automatic circuit switching, but exceeded crosswind maximums by a couple knots, technically you need an alternate. In otherwords one runway must meet ALL requirements, regardless.

Thanks

Firstly, if you have done an instrument approach in IMC in the last 90 days [35 days for ILS or LOC], you would have automatically met the recency requirements for that approach. So this discussion assumes you haven't done that and now want to claim recency.

There would be no point in planning an approach at your destination aerodrome if you were counting on VMC conditions to exist when you arrived. The idea of approach recency is to recognise before hand that you may have to fly a particular instrument approach and, if you are not recent, go and fly one of those approaches in VMC or in a synthetic trainer before you commit yourself to the actual planned trip.

Many IFR pilots would take the opportunity to fly an instrument approach in VMC as part of their normal flying routine so that they can claim recency for the next 90 days [or 35 days for ILS or LOC]. Failing that, they can fly an approach in a synthetic trainer and still claim recency. Note that the recency doesn't require you to fly the actual instrument approach for any particular aerodrome - you can fly any NDB approach to claim recency on all NDB approaches. Likewise for any other aid.

Also, flying an ILS approach in VMC or in a synthetic trainer, covers you for all ILS or LOC approaches for the next 35 days and covers you for all VOR approaches for the next 90 days.

When it comes to alternates, you simply must be able to meet all of the AIP requirements at the aerodrome you are planning to land at. If the ERSA says that standby power is available and a responsible person is in attendance for a night flight but the crosswind is above maximum on the only suitable runway, then you need an alternate. In the book I have used the mnemonic 'Alternates Could Very Well Prove Life Savers' as a check. That is AIDS, CLOUD, VISIBILITY, WIND, PROB OR PROVISIONAL, LIGHTING AND STORMS. To be suitable as a destination without an alternate, you must be able to tick every box.

Bob

This is exactly what I find slightly unclear though. The AIP states that the "Aerodrome" must meet all requirements for alternates, however it doesn't say the planned runway must (Not that I can see)

So in other words, if you satisy the Aids requirement by having an NDB approach listed for say RWY 18/36 at a particular aerodrome, and VH-OZY is fitted with two serviceable ADF's, but the wind is 280/30, and there is a runway 09/27 (No instrument approach) at the aerodrome; then the aerodrome itself meets all requirements (Assuming cloud, vis, prov/prob, lighting, storms requirements are all met) Although the crosswind on the runway which provides the NDB approach exceeds maximum demonstrated for VH-OZY

I have found in many of the questions in your text where crosswinds are high, you take into account the crosswind on ALL runways, even though only one runway is supplying the minimum requirements for Aids.

Thanks.

Just found an example actually.
Pg 3.33 Q 3
You use the NDB/VOR for RWY 36/18 to satisfy Aids requirement.
But RWY 25 with no Aids to satisy the crosswind component.
So like you said, so long as the "Aerodrome" itself meeets all requirements.
So you arrive at your destindation in IMC, and forced to land with a 30 Kt crosswind

If you do an instrument straight-in approach that is designed for a particular runway, there is no rule that says you MUST land on that runway. Providing you are visual in the circling area, you can do a circling approach onto any runway that takes your fancy. By night, you would have to remain not below the circling minimum altitude until you intercept the normal approach profile for your aircraft. By day, you simply have to maintain 300 feet above any obstacle you fly over while you manoeuvre to line up with the other runway.

Since the alternate minimum altitude is 500 feet above the circling minimum altitude, this option should always be available.

Ah thanks, sounds like something wthat I will come across in the last section of the book I think. Up until now I just figured if the approach was for one runway you are planning to use only that runway, hence calculating winds for other runways seemed odd.. Thanks for clearing that up.