Deciphering the AIM's convolutions... Can someone verify that I have this right, or help me correct it. The write their stuff as sort of a long-form analog to a series of double negatives. I work with a lot of attorneys that do the same thing, so I should be more tolerant, but... Here's my understanding: For the purposes of flight planning, any required alternate airport, must have an available instrument procedure (read: available to the specific aircraft and crew vis a vis training and equipment) that does NOT require the use of GP. However: This restriction does not apply to RNAV systems using TSO145/146 (i.e. WAAS). (So, we CAN file an alternate that does not have a non-GPS approach…right?) For non-WAAS users (TSO 129/196), whose systems have FDE capability and they run a RAIM prediction at the destination airport (or both), may file a GPS IAP at either the destination or alternate, but not at both, PROVIDED, that the alternate also has a non-GPS approach available… Do I have it right?