Smart Beamriding

If positional tolerance is considered part of the pathfinding responsibility of the C⁴ computer rather than the piloting responsibilities of the avionics computer, we can have  "Smart Beamriding".

We can apply appropriate emphasis on beamriding at each point in the mission. 

The fine work of flying the plane is done by the piloting algorithms of the avionics unit.
Grosser path-seeking decisions are made by navigational routines in the  C⁴ computer.  

Beamriding in C⁴  vs  Beamriding in Avionics 

• Flexibility By using tight (frequently updated, nearby) best-effort guidepoints, we can achieve beamrider behavior whenever it is required. Certain flight segments demand beam riding - others might favor speed or efficiency.  
• Synchronicity Beamriding at the C4 level allows us to position the craft in time as well as space.. This is critical to flying tight formations and to avoiding other craft in various maneuvers, of which many are not straight-line flight.   
• Sense It will be more difficult to tell what forces are acting on the plane (windspeed, extra drag, etc) if the plane autocorrects.  
• Contention It will be more difficult to predict (and control) the behavior of the plane if two different entities are independently navigating, rather than separating navigation from piloting..   
• Smarts We may lack the data (or math skills) to predict the most efficient path with which to traverse, for example, a localized crosswind. Rather than establish a rigid path across a gusty valley which the avionics must fight desperately to follow, we might prefer a more general goal, especially if all we really want is to get to the other side.   
• Curves We will often want to fly curves. Although we can subdivide the curves into many waypoints, there is never any advantage to beamriding between them