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