You missed the point of my question. You seem to be missing the point of most things and not thinking critically about what is before you.
I certainly am thinking critically. I can see your argument clearly. I would happily change my interpretation of the legalities (not my practice), but you are not addressing my points.
I'm glad you raised this because it shows you are at last starting to think about things, rather than just reading words from a page.
You say that as if I have been regurgitating GEN57.1.3; which I have not. I have given my best efforts to addressing your questions – which didn’t turn out to be questions at all.
That is NOT a list of aerodromes for which a TAF will be available.
That is a list of aerodromes for which a TAF MAY be available. For some aerodromes, the TAF coverage is not "full time" (i.e. the TAF covers daylight hours only).
If the aerodrome has a TAF during the day only, then, during the night hours, the TAF is ... wait for it ...
NOT AVAILABLE
Aerodromes and Categories for which a TAF will be Available is the actual name of the list, which is why I pasted a copy and put that section of the name in quotation marks.
Should I have said 51 NM instead of 50 NM? Ok, try this:
Under your assertion (that "NO TAF = ALTERNATE"), a VFR flight, in perfect daytime weather, to a small farm 51 NM away must provide for an alternate (because the place has no TAF (and no navaids)).
Only if his cruise speed is less than 100kt.
Please refer to the point I made in post 41 regarding ARFORs and meteorological alternate minima (specifically wind). How could you meet all of the requirements of ENR 57.2 without a TAF? If an ARFOR cannot be used to meet ALL of the requirements of ENR 57.2
this is all academic and you simply need a TAF – which would certainly agree with 57.1.3 at face value.