Parallel Track function in GPS?

"Roy Smith" wrote in message =
...
=20
Oddly enough, the CNX-80 only allows you integral mile offsets. =
AFAICT,=20
there's no way to do a 1/2 mile offset.
=20

Do you HAVE to keep the needle centered?
---JRC---

Tarver Engineering wrote:



The big boys with their INS have it, why shouldn't you?

And, it was never used, either.

"John R. Copeland" wrote in
:

Do you HAVE to keep the needle centered?

To fly an offset Offshore Standard Approach Procedure, yes.

--
Regards,

Stan

"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message =
...
"John R. Copeland" wrote in
:=20
=20
Do you HAVE to keep the needle centered?
=20
To fly an offset Offshore Standard Approach Procedure, yes.
=20
--=20
Regards,
=20
Stan
=20

Naturally, you are right about approach procedures, Stan.
(And that's exactly what you posted earlier about, too.)
I only had enroute legs in mind for using pointer offsets.
---JRC---

In article , Roy Smith
wrote:

Yesterday I played with the parallel track function in the CNX-80 for
the first time. I was introducing the CNX-80 to a student and I had
planned a VFR flight via airways. My student (rightfully) questioned
the wisdom of an over-water segment, so we decided to fly that segment
on a 5-mile offset parallel track (it got us over land and was a good
excuse to explore a software function I'd never used before).

But, here's my question. Why is it in the box to begin with? Other
than the gee-wiz marketing value, is there any real practical reason for
it existing?

from a co-worker involved in this kind of stuff:

Offset tracks allow aircraft to pass en route, avoid bad weather, and
increase airspace capacity by avoiding busy intersections.

--
Bob Noel

Bob Noel wrote:

from a co-worker involved in this kind of stuff:

Offset tracks allow aircraft to pass en route, avoid bad weather, and
increase airspace capacity by avoiding busy intersections.

Could you provide examples of where this is used?

In article , wrote:

from a co-worker involved in this kind of stuff:

Offset tracks allow aircraft to pass en route, avoid bad weather, and
increase airspace capacity by avoiding busy intersections.

Could you provide examples of where this is used?

Not much use yet, other than oceanic routes, I guess. But the theory
is that it will be used in RNP airspace.

--
Bob Noel

Bob Noel wrote:


Not much use yet, other than oceanic routes, I guess. But the theory
is that it will be used in RNP airspace.

--
Bob Noel

That is a major disconnect between avionics engineers who dream of selling
more and more equipment and of an ATC system driven by radar separation and
navigation. And, the radar isn't getting any better with some limited
terminal exceptions.

In article , wrote:

Not much use yet, other than oceanic routes, I guess. But the theory
is that it will be used in RNP airspace.

That is a major disconnect between avionics engineers who dream of
selling
more and more equipment and of an ATC system driven by radar separation
and
navigation. And, the radar isn't getting any better with some limited
terminal exceptions.

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

--
Bob Noel

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.