This is the sort of entrenched thinking that I am talking about. Put up one decent argument, just one, and I might reconsider my position.
Perhaps you haven't read the thread thru. Just because a technique has been perpetuated since the 1950s, doesn't mean it has any relevence today. Regardless of how many countries perpetuate it.
I am not proposing a "track to" standard (although obviously you haven't been valid in the UK- or you would realise that "track to" separation is being applied at aerodromes there right now {read the thread
}). I am merely questioning the
technique described by the thread starter. The standard is a radar standard, and the query surrounds that standard's assurance. I am not even querying 'parallel headings' ( a technique that is still very useful in certain situations).
You can't even work out the drift in order to argue. You just
assume and use derision. The old "my positions right, and anyone who questions it is a fool" routine.
Funny? Yep.