Parallel Track function in GPS?

Bob Noel wrote:



The move to RNP is, in part, driven by the desire for increased
airspace capacity, including airspace with limited radar coverage.


No doubt about its usefulness in areas with limited, or no, radar coverage.
But, I doubt that offset tracks would do much good there. Where the terrain
environment would permit parallel tracks, the publication of parallel tracks
as separate database routes would probably be much safer than issuing
parallel tracks in a non-radar environment.

No doubt about its usefulness in areas with limited, or no, radar coverage.
But, I doubt that offset tracks would do much good there. Where the terrain
environment would permit parallel tracks, the publication of parallel tracks
as separate database routes would probably be much safer than issuing
parallel offset tracks in a non-radar environment.

The push for lateral offsets is greatest for non-radar environments, where
controllers are less likely to catch an operational error that puts two planes
on the same track and altitude. As I stated in an earlier post, one of the
proposed criteria is that the use of lateral offsets be transparent to the
controller. So offsets will probably be implemented as procedural changes
(for example, always fly 1 NM to the right of centerline if able), not as
clearances.

Barry wrote:

No doubt about its usefulness in areas with limited, or no, radar coverage.
But, I doubt that offset tracks would do much good there. Where the terrain
environment would permit parallel tracks, the publication of parallel tracks
as separate database routes would probably be much safer than issuing
parallel offset tracks in a non-radar environment.

I doubt the industry will buy into that. Too many opportunities for errors.
Plus, the parallel track has to have the same obstacle assessment as the "primary"
track, so it would be better to have them published and in the database; i.e.,
Track Bishop Alpha, Track Bishop Bravo, etc.