What we really need is someone who operates on mmm345's interpretation to have 'one of those days' and for the courts to sort out what the actual interpretation should be...! (only kidding of course - I wouldn't wish that on anyone). At the end of the day, staying safe is the name of the game. Anyone who has dug through the old threads will see that I'm not a fan of the no TAF, no ALT interpretation. I have seen this one argued to death both ways...
Right at the beginning of ENR 1.10 1.1 it states (my bolding): "...all IFR flights, must make a careful study of: a. current weather reports and forecasts for the route to be flown and the aerodromes to be used."
A bit later, 1.2.1 says: "Forecast information must include: a. an AERODROME forecast for the: (i) DESTINATION; AND (ii) when required, ALTERNATE aerodrome and..."
Remember Jepps had all those amendments not so long ago to make the very important wording change from 'aerodrome' to 'airport'? That's beside the point, but the point CAN be made that: your IFR flight needs a suitable and valid forecast for the destination airport. If there isn't one, you need one for the suitable alternate that you subsequently plan for... Simples!
I still think I would struggle testifying in court that it's all fine that my passengers sustained some injuries in the precautionary search and landing, or botched out-of-limits crosswind landing that ensued from my lack of due diligence to ensure the safe completion of the flight (remember CAR PIC responsibilities?)...
I also disagree that GPWT charts can be used to determine actual surface wind conditions at a proposed destination. The alternate weather conditions considerations in ENR 1.1 11.7.2.1 d. make a specific note that 'wind gusts must be considered' in determining suitable crosswind/tailwind conditions. Could you tell me how wind gusts are annotated on a GPWT chart please as I have never seen that before...
Well done on the somewhat civil debate so far folks - it's a pleasure to see some decency has returned to PPRuNe...!