SKKM, I think you and I may both be right. (or wrong)
There is an anomaly in the AIP.
GEN 1.8-8.5.5.3 AIP, does indeed state that TSO 129 receivers may satisfy the requirements (for 2 approach types and 2 receivers or 1 approach type and 2 same receivers, with the 129 exclusion now gone). (According to BobTait.com.au
http://bobtait.com.au/forum/instrume...s-alt-planning
this was amended at 15 Nov 2012; I even got this question "right" at last renewal with a highly regarded ATO)
However;
GEN 1.8-8.5.5.4 RNAV(GNSS) Column 2 -
Point 3. Unless using a TSO-C145a, C146a or C196 receiver and a valid prediction of approach FDE availability, at both the destination and alternate, if required, provision for an alternate aerodrome may not be based on RNAV (GNSS) (or RNP APCH) approach capability.
Point 4. If a TSO--C129 or a C129a receiver is used, an alternate instrument approach utilising ground based navigation aids must be available. (Which I guess stops you going with two 129 units and no other ground aid)
CAAP 179A-1(1) Page 47 also has a nice flow chart which requires an alternate if using 129 receivers.
I still think the intent is that 129 receivers require an alternate based on no FDE.
Based on the above, ie: I got it wrong, highly respected ATO got it wrong, and everyone else is now confused; Until the AIP is written in an understandable form, I think I will continue to just do my own thing.
From Bob Tait's website, 1 year 1 month ago;
I have again contacted CASA on this issue. My e-mail has been forwarded on to CASA's standards division. The reply I got left me more confused than ever. I feel confident though that, if you got a question on this topic in the CASA IREX exam, you would be correct if you said that a 129 cannot be used to satisfy the alternate requirement. If I get a more satisfactory reply I will certainly let you know.
To date, Bob has not been able to update the topic, I guess this means he is still waiting for a more satisfactory reply.
.