Just been reading the last US AOPA magazine.
There is an article on a recent Chief Counsel ruling on this. The problem is that the “violation” occurs by the mere fact of filing an IFR FP and not having an alternate specified on it.
Of course “everybody” will have an alternate in mind 
but one might forget to put it on the FP.
Is the 1-2-3 rule no longer valid? No alternate is required if +/-1 hour from ETA there is a 2000 foot ceiling and 3 SM visibility.
The 1-2-3 rule is still in place and confirmed by the chief counsel’s opinion which was about do you need to file an IFR alternate if the destination does not have an instrument approach. The answer is yes.
Is the 1-2-3 rule no longer valid? No alternate is required if +/-1 hour from ETA there is a 2000 foot ceiling and 3 SM visibility
Yes it is valid. Sorry – I forgot to add into my original post that this applies to destinations which don’t have an instrument approach. I have edited the thread title.
It would be interesting to know what was going through Mr Collins’s mind when he wrote the question to which the opinion responds. Assuming that was the one you refer to, Peter.
The question asked was not the one answered. When there is no approach at an airport, it is clear that one needs to always file an alternate. Less clear is the case where there is an approach at the destination, but the aircraft is not equipped to fly it. An example would be the airport only has an RNAV (GPS) approach, but the aircraft is not equipped with a GPS. Can one select the airport as a destination and treat it as if it were an airport without an approach if one files an alternate airport that the aircraft is equipped to fly. If the airport had no approaches, it would be legal to file it as long as there was an alternate airport filed. To land at the destination, it would have to be VFR at the MIA.
Some have argued that if the airport has instrument approaches, but that the aircraft is not equipped to fly them, the airport can be treated the same as an airport that had no approaches for that aircraft and in that case the flight could be conducted as long as an alternate was filed that the aircraft was equipped to fly. This opinion from the FAA Chief Counsel says no, this is not permitted. The flight could be conducted if the destination had no approaches, but not if it had approach(s) none of which the aircraft was equipped to fly.
Thanks. I now understand the question, and why it’s an interesting one. I remain, probably just as you are, puzzled by the answer! Is there a follow up?
It is a perverse response. How can the fact that it has approaches make it “worse” than one without approaches?
