Can GPS be *too* accurate? Do I need some XTE??

wrote in message ...


Blueskies wrote:



At midcourse, add a waypoint offset to one side or the other by a couple of miles. The enroute time would be changed
minimally...

But, that wouldn't be a parallel offset and would result in crossing the two end points precisely on course.

Also, the offset should be much smaller than 2 miles for domestic airspace operations.



But the end points are where you want to be - one is where you started and one is where you are going. If you have a
system that does not have the parallel course function, then this would be a simple solution. If you want perfect, then
plot a course using multiple waypoints...PIC chooses....

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
An even number of hundreds of feet is reserved for IFR flights (5,000 or
6,000). VFR flights must be +500 (5,500 or 6,000). If you see someone
breaking the rules by flying VFR at 6,000 feet you should report them;
it's
your safety that's at stake.

Cruising altitudes need only be observed when above 3000' AGL. There are
plenty of places in the US where 6000' is NOT 3000' AGL, including Denver
(which Peter specifically mentioned).

Feel free to report a VFR pilot flying near Denver at 6000' for violating
the cruising altitude rules, but I doubt you'll find anyone to take you
seriously.

This is not a matter of winning an losing, it's a matter of learning the
rules and assuring everyone's safety.

It sure seems like it's a matter of "winning an [sic] losing" to you. Your
original reply to the original poster made implication that, since the
aircraft at 6000' must be IFR (not even necessarily true, but for the sake
of argument let's grant that), the pilot would be receiving traffic
advisories and so didn't need to worry about aircraft climing through his
cruise altitude of 6000'.

Your implication was patently false, and your continued insistence on trying
to introduce new, unrelated topics to the discussion sure make it seem like
you've dug your heels in and are willing to do pretty much whatever it takes
to avoid admitting that you made a mistake in your original reply.

If it's not a matter of "winning an [sic] losing" to you, why so resistant
to admitting your mistake?

Pete

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
VFR-on-top:
[Description snipped]

I know what VFR-on-top is. It's nice to see you know too. But so what? We
aren't talking about "VFR-on-top" (well, we weren't until YOU brought it
up).

A pilot flying VFR is required to observe "see and avoid". One pilot
observing "see and avoid" and taking appropriate evasive action can avoid
a
collision.

One day, when you've got a few more hours, you'll realize that you had
better not trust the other guy to do your "see and avoid" for you.

If a VFR pilot is climbing/descending, it is his responsibility to avoid
pilots above him or below him.

The IFR pilot cruising at 6000' is ALSO responsible for avoiding pilots
climbing or descending through his altitude.

A pilot flying IFR under VMC who is not observing "see and avoid" is not a
very smart pilot.

I agree. But if you feel that way, what is the point to all of your other
"contribution" to this thread?

For a professional writer, you sure seem to be having a big problem getting
your point across (whatever it happens to be).

Pete

"Icebound" wrote in message
...
[...]
Never having flown a VOR course myself... I still doubt very much that any
two pilots (OR auto-pilots), flying reciprocal headings between two VORs,
would both be able to *simultaneously* hold a course to within 10 feet of
the centre-line for the whole course, considering the receiver errors and
that the VOR radial-signal *itself* probably varies more than that.

I could be wrong.

You are wrong.

For two pilots to *intentionally* stay exactly on course center on a VOR
airway would be challenging, granted. But the airway provides an
"attractor" for airplanes, and inasmuch as the airplanes average toward the
center of the airway, eventually a couple will come along flying the exact
same distance from the actual airway (whether that's 0.0 miles off-center or
3.9 miles off-center).

Like I said before, it's happened to me on several occasions (getting close
enough to other aircraft on an airway to require evasive action, that is).
That's with me handflying. Using an autopilot, VOR navigation can
theoretically be VERY good, especially close to the station (within 10-20
miles).

GPS increases the chances of collision, by reducing the average error. But
the issue did already exist with VOR navigation. Keep in mind that GPS
error is still going to be on the order 10 to 30 meters or so, just from the
position information standpoint, and then on top of that you still have the
problem of the airplane being kept exactly at the intended position (even
with an autopilot, there's going to be some slop, and not all pilots are
using autopilots in conjunction with their GPS navigation).

The total error even in the GPS case can be much larger than the wingspan of
typical GA aircraft, and so the same kinds of factors that protect against
collisions when using VOR navigation also protect against collisions when
using GPS navigation (though to a lesser degree).

Pete

This was my reply to the original poster:

And I don't know if this is a trick question, but if you are at 6000 (no
+500) wouldn't you be on an IFR flight plan, talking to ATC, and receiving
traffic advisories?

See that little squiggly thing with a dot under it at the end of the line?
That's called a "question mark". That means I was asking a question, not
that I "made implication", which is actually "implied", by the way.

Look around on the page today; I've made a couple of mistakes and readily
acknowledged them.

My response to Denver was incorrect, as you pointed out, and I readily
acknowledge it.

But I don't run around trying to pick arguments; I have much better things
to do with my life. Obviously, you don't...



"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
An even number of hundreds of feet is reserved for IFR flights (5,000 or
6,000). VFR flights must be +500 (5,500 or 6,000). If you see someone
breaking the rules by flying VFR at 6,000 feet you should report them;
it's
your safety that's at stake.

Cruising altitudes need only be observed when above 3000' AGL. There are
plenty of places in the US where 6000' is NOT 3000' AGL, including Denver
(which Peter specifically mentioned).

Feel free to report a VFR pilot flying near Denver at 6000' for violating
the cruising altitude rules, but I doubt you'll find anyone to take you
seriously.

This is not a matter of winning an losing, it's a matter of learning the
rules and assuring everyone's safety.

It sure seems like it's a matter of "winning an [sic] losing" to you.
Your
original reply to the original poster made implication that, since the
aircraft at 6000' must be IFR (not even necessarily true, but for the sake
of argument let's grant that), the pilot would be receiving traffic
advisories and so didn't need to worry about aircraft climing through his
cruise altitude of 6000'.

Your implication was patently false, and your continued insistence on
trying
to introduce new, unrelated topics to the discussion sure make it seem
like
you've dug your heels in and are willing to do pretty much whatever it
takes
to avoid admitting that you made a mistake in your original reply.

If it's not a matter of "winning an [sic] losing" to you, why so resistant
to admitting your mistake?

Pete

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
This was my reply to the original poster:

And I don't know if this is a trick question, but if you are at 6000 (no
+500) wouldn't you be on an IFR flight plan, talking to ATC, and receiving
traffic advisories?

See that little squiggly thing with a dot under it at the end of the line?
That's called a "question mark". That means I was asking a question, not
that I "made implication"

The question implies that if you WERE "on an IFR flight plan, talking to
ATC, and receiving traffic advisories" that there's not an issue with
avoiding other airplanes.

Perhaps you'd like to start from the beginning and explain what the point of
that post was, if not to question whether an airplane in the originally
described scenario would need to worry about traffic avoidance?

In absence of any implication on your part, your reply appears to be
completely irrelevant and tangential, which confuses the reader (who expects
there to be some intended meaning).

Pete

Someone named "Peter R." gave an interpretation of a section of the AIM;
4-4-10. IFR SEPARATION STANDARDS

I posted the text of that section; if you want to call that bringing
something up, be my guest. You're only looking for an argument anyway.

I said I was a professional writer; I in no way implied that you were a
competent reader.



"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
VFR-on-top:
[Description snipped]

I know what VFR-on-top is. It's nice to see you know too. But so what?
We
aren't talking about "VFR-on-top" (well, we weren't until YOU brought it
up).

A pilot flying VFR is required to observe "see and avoid". One pilot
observing "see and avoid" and taking appropriate evasive action can
avoid
a
collision.

One day, when you've got a few more hours, you'll realize that you had
better not trust the other guy to do your "see and avoid" for you.

If a VFR pilot is climbing/descending, it is his responsibility to avoid
pilots above him or below him.

The IFR pilot cruising at 6000' is ALSO responsible for avoiding pilots
climbing or descending through his altitude.

A pilot flying IFR under VMC who is not observing "see and avoid" is not
a
very smart pilot.

I agree. But if you feel that way, what is the point to all of your other
"contribution" to this thread?

For a professional writer, you sure seem to be having a big problem
getting
your point across (whatever it happens to be).

Pete

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
news
Someone named "Peter R." gave an interpretation of a section of the AIM;
4-4-10. IFR SEPARATION STANDARDS

I posted the text of that section; if you want to call that bringing
something up, be my guest.

That section has nothing to do with "VFR-on-top".

You're only looking for an argument anyway.

Ad hominem.

I said I was a professional writer; I in no way implied that you were a
competent reader.

Ad hominem.

The question mark "implied" nothing; it directly indicated that I was asking
a question.

And if the conditions in my question were "true", you would not need to fly
an offset on a GPS course, despite GPS improved accuracy, any more than you
would need to fly an offset on a VOR course; traffic avoidance would be
handled by ATC.




"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
This was my reply to the original poster:

And I don't know if this is a trick question, but if you are at 6000 (no
+500) wouldn't you be on an IFR flight plan, talking to ATC, and
receiving
traffic advisories?

See that little squiggly thing with a dot under it at the end of the
line?
That's called a "question mark". That means I was asking a question, not
that I "made implication"

The question implies that if you WERE "on an IFR flight plan, talking to
ATC, and receiving traffic advisories" that there's not an issue with
avoiding other airplanes.

Perhaps you'd like to start from the beginning and explain what the point
of
that post was, if not to question whether an airplane in the originally
described scenario would need to worry about traffic avoidance?

In absence of any implication on your part, your reply appears to be
completely irrelevant and tangential, which confuses the reader (who
expects
there to be some intended meaning).

Pete

b. Separation will be provided (by ATC - my note) between all aircraft
operating on IFR flight plans except during that part of the flight (outside
of Class B airspace or a TRSA) being conducted on a VFR-on-top/VFR
conditions clearance. Under these conditions, ATC may issue traffic
advisories, but it is the sole responsibility of the pilot to be vigilant so
as to see and avoid other aircraft.

That's the section I posted. The third line down references VFR-on-top.

Reading is fundamental...



"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
news
Someone named "Peter R." gave an interpretation of a section of the AIM;
4-4-10. IFR SEPARATION STANDARDS

I posted the text of that section; if you want to call that bringing
something up, be my guest.

That section has nothing to do with "VFR-on-top".

You're only looking for an argument anyway.

Ad hominem.

I said I was a professional writer; I in no way implied that you were a
competent reader.

Ad hominem.