FBM and B-X,
Apart from your own self gratification, self aggrandization or a personal vendetta, what is the point of mocking Peter's posts?
Forgive my ignorance, but I would like to have thought that those who frequent this site and contribute to these forums, especially those who perhaps have the experience, skills, knowledge and qualifications to be instructors and examiners, would be only too pleased to help the lesser qualified amongst us by passing on help, guidance and encouragement rather than sarcasm and ridicule.
Regarding selection of alternates, I think the availability of train services from one airport to another should be quite low on the list of desirable qualities. True, it might be seen as a plus point to get home as soon and as cheaply as possible, but the term, "pressonitis" seems to be a factor in a significant number of accident and incident reports.
IMHO - When poor weather might be a factor, one should select an alternate airfield where the forecast is significantly better than the forecast at the planned destination. Generally this means an alternate that lies in a different airmass, or is sufficiently far from the planned destination that the weather affecting the destination is not forecast to arrive at the alternate by the ETA plus a few hours, or has already passed through. Obviously one should also consider things like LDA Vs LDR, wind direction and strength, the availability of approach aids, approach minima Vs weather, operating hours, handling, maintenance, fuel etc.
For those who fly commercially I assume this is all prescribed in EU-OPS and company operations manuals. For the private pilot there seems to be less guidance and oversight; much of it is left to the pilot's discretion.
When poor weather is not a factor, a suitable airfield relatively close to the planned destination or indeed the airfield of departure (if one isn't particularly fussed about arriving at the destination) is usually a suitable alternate.
For an instrument rating flight test, I guess the simulated test conditions are for poor weather at departure and destination rather than fair. So for an IFR flight from Shoreham to Bournemouth and back, it could be argued that Southampton and Lydd would most likely be affected by the same prevailing weather on the South Coast of the UK and would therefore be unsuitable as "cast iron" IFR alternates. If however the problem was cross winds at Bournemouth (R/W 08/26) rather than cloud base/visibility, Southampton (R/W 02/20) might be a good choice after all.
But then I suspect that Peter knows all this already and is fishing.
Surely a brief discussion with any 170/IR examiner about the actual weather and actual alternates on the day Vs the assumed conditions for test and the consideration of alternates based on the assumed conditions, would demonstrate sound knowledge and understanding of IFR flight planning and procedures and be recognised by the examiner as such?
BJ